Dove's Eye View

Impeach Gonzales: The New York Times

The Times is really mad this month: Mr. Gonzales’s Never-Ending Story - New York Times.

Congress should impeach Mr. Gonzales.

Sorry for the light posting. The Dove feels numb to world events and is off in a corner reading about peak oil.

Senator Feingold: Demanding Accountability

An extraordinary dialogue between a US Senator and the common folk is unfolding over at the blog Daily Kos: Daily Kos: Demanding Accountability. Senator Feingold explains why he is against impeaching the President and in favor of censuring him.

As far as impeachment is concerned, as I have stated, I do not believe it is the right course of action right now. Censure is a way to formally rebuke the administration for its misconduct so that the historical record is clear, without putting the country through a very trying process. Again, if the House votes to impeach, I will approach it with all the seriousness I did when President Clinton was impeached, listening to the case presented.

I have been calling for impeachment. I really want to see these men stand trial for war crimes. But I am willing to listen to Senator Feingold's argument in favor of censure. More importantly, I am profoundly grateful for the conversation - open, public - between this Senator and the regular folks who inhabit the blogosphere.

The first time I saw a Senator's diary on Daily Kos, I was staggered (don't remember who it was now). We would never have believed ten years ago that our elected representatives would meet us on the internet, at sites set up and controlled by regular citizens outside of the corporate media. This dialogue is remarkable.

Go read what Feingold has to say about impeachment.

Gonzales Testimony: Grill The Liar

Happening right now in the US Senate: Firedoglake - Alberto Gonzales Testimony, Part IV.

SEN. DURBIN QUESTIONS CONTINUED: Do you have any idea how you make the United States look by failing to completely answer these questions? Would it be legal for a foreign government to subject a US citizen to subject any of the interrogation techniques that we just talked about?

Gonzales stalls in answering and stammers quite a bit. “We obviously would demand humane treatment of American citizens in accordance to the laws.”

"Do you believe that these techniques would be outside the norms of international law?" Gonzales recuses himself from answering.

Durbin calls him on it — you recuse yourself any time you are asked a question you don’t want to answer because it might make you look bad. Do you have any idea how this weaseling refusal to answer this makes the US look to other nations in terms of human rights and international law? Your ambiguity, you personally and this Administration, whether through signing statements or memos, are trying to leave just the sort of loopholes for conduct which we condemn from others around the world.

"Can you explain to me how five years after the Guantanimo prison was opened, there is yet to have a single conviction?"

Gonzales blames the lawyers who represent the inmates and the legal process. Durbin says that he suggested that 5 years ago that he and Specter tried to create a legal framework that would have allowed for streamlined legal process and you rejected it wholesale — and your conduct since then has wasted years and simply proved Sen. Durbin’s point.

SEN. FEINGOLD QUESTIONS: I am about to introduce a censure resolution against the President for his illegal conduct. As you probably know, I am a member of the Intelligence committee and I have had an opportunity to review the classified matters at issue here today — and I think that your testimony here today has been misleading at best as to the circumstances. As you know, I am prevented by law from elaborating further, but I intend to send you a classified letter which details all of the reasons why that is.

Gonzales then accuses Feingold of not understanding what was going on in the intel committee. Feingold says that he’s appalled by Gonzales attempt to shift responsibility for the NSA domestic spying program onto Ashcroft. Also, limiting the briefing on this program to the Gang of Eight violates the Security Act. And, finally, you are the one that tried to take advantage of AG Ashcroft while he was in the ICU."

And so forth. Go to Firedoglake for live blogging of the hearing.

Finally, the Senators are calling these criminals to account for their actions. Bush and Co. are undermining the Republic with their crimes. Keep it up, Senators.

Bush's incompetence gives al-Qaida new life

More reasons to impeach: Bush's incompetence gives al-Qaida new life - in Salon.com.

In the past week, worrying signs of a resurgence of al-Qaida surfaced in cyberspace, in Pakistan and in Washington, D.C. The Pakistani military's invasion of a major mosque and seminary complex in the country's capital set off an unprecedented, violent wave of protests and car bombings in the north of the country. A new National Intelligence Estimate warned that al-Qaida was reconstituting itself in those very areas of northern Pakistan. A U.S. threat to send Special Forces into Pakistan in search of al-Qaida roiled relations with the weakened Pakistani president, Gen. Pervez Musharraf. And a new videotape of Osama bin Laden surfaced.

By Juan Cole.

NY Times: Stop Bush Now - The Framers Would Want It

James Madison, framer of the US Constitution and Fourth President of the United States of America.

A sign of hope: Just What the Founders Feared: An Imperial President Goes to War - New York Times.

"Given how intent the president is on expanding his authority, it is startling to recall how the Constitution’s framers viewed presidential power. They were revolutionaries who detested kings, and their great concern when they established the United States was that they not accidentally create a kingdom. To guard against it, they sharply limited presidential authority, which Edmund Randolph, a Constitutional Convention delegate and the first attorney general, called “the foetus of monarchy.”

"The founders were particularly wary of giving the president power over war. They were haunted by Europe’s history of conflicts started by self-aggrandizing kings. John Jay, the first chief justice of the United States, noted in Federalist No. 4 that “absolute monarchs will often make war when their nations are to get nothing by it, but for the purposes and objects merely personal.”

...
"Members of Congress should not be intimidated into thinking that they are overstepping their constitutional bounds. If the founders were looking on now, it is not Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi who would strike them as out of line, but George W. Bush, who would seem less like a president than a king."

That's it. That's the tipping point. When the New York Times says it, it's already accepted thinking.

Impeach Bush now. James Madison and John Jay would have wanted it this way.

Uphold the US Constitution: Impeach Bush AND Cheney

"Franklin emphasized that the new republic could survive only if the people were virtuous in the sense of attention to civic duty and rejection of corruption." (Wikipedia)

So a top Pentagon official accuses Senator Clinton of treason for exercising oversight on the Iraq war. Colonel Patrick Lang writes:

Article 1, Section 8 of the US Constitution is clear in stating that Congress shall have the power:

"To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;

To provide and maintain a Navy;

To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces."
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

Senator Clinton is a member of the Senate committee that exercises oversight with regard to the Armed Forces of the United States and the Defense Department. That includes Mr. Edelman. The Senate has the responsibility of deciding whether or not it will confirm the president's "nominations" (constitutional language) in appointing and promoting officers and senior civilians like Mr. Edelman. With the House, it legislates the organization and missions of the armed forces and the Department of Defense generally. As we all know (I hope), the senate acts on the money bills that originate in the House of Representatives that fund everything in the government, including the Department of Defense. There is nothing in the Constitution that requires the Congress to give the Executive Branch anything in particular it asks for in terms of budget and authorizations.

Leila here. Yesterday I signed my name to a statement swearing to uphold and protect the US Constitution against all enemies, foreign or domestic. This was a requirement to teach freshman English at the local community college here in California, along with getting fingerprinted and providing work history and TB test.

I conclude that this oath requires me to discover how much my students understand about our government, and then fill them in on the separation of powers, checks and balances, and so forth. I used to be suspicious of discussing "current events" in Freshman Composition class, for fear that it could turn into indoctrination. With the slow-motion constitutional crisis unfolding in Washington, I now believe such discussions are my obligation. The course outline adopted by the college insists that I foster students' critical thinking. Between that charge and the vow to uphold the Constitution, it seems I have no choice but to bring up these matters in class.

Go solar -- But Conserve First

Reader Alison made similar points in a private email: Go solar -- after you've made other practical changes / Photovoltaic panels not cost-effective for individual homes.

Should you install a solar photovoltaic system (PV system) in your home? At the risk of upsetting the advocates of these reliable alternative energy systems, I'll answer, "Not until you've done everything you can to conserve electricity." And once you've done that, you might conclude that the remaining environmental and economic benefits of a PV system are marginal at best.

The article suggests adding awnings to your windows, drying your clothes on the line, replacing bulbs with fluorescents, and other such energy-saving measures. All are more cost-effective and indeed efficient than installing a PV system costing tens of thousands of dollars.

Six Reasons For Impeachment

Norman Goldman, a legal analyst on Air America Radio, gave six very cogent reasons to impeach George W. Bush on July 19, 2007. Update: He has kindly forwarded his notes from that show, and after cleaning up the capitalization, here it is:

"In order of most important first, my number one reason is the warrantless wiretapping. That’s a direct violation of his oath of office and a direct violation of the 4th amendment – against unreasonable searches and seizures. And what’s worst about the thing is not the secretive nature of it – that’s an impeachable offense right there…..knowingly covering up an illegal, unconstitutional order to wiretap Americans without warrants – but even worse is that, once exposed, he said he was going to keep doing it!! Now that’s defiance, arrogance and unconstitutional conduct all rolled up into one.

One State Solution

I usually try to avoid taking sides on one-state or two-state solutions for Israel/Palestine. However Joel Beinerman, Israeli-Canadian, publishes an unusual opinion, reprinted here: The Vineyard of the Saker: Joel Bainerman: ‘One State Solution‘ is Best.

While the One State Solution (OSS) to solving the Palestinian-Israeli conflict is typically rejected outright as being a demographic threat to Israel- this approach could very well be the only viable path to solving the conflict.

The typical assumption is that if Israel annexed the approximately 1.5 million West Bank Arabs and granted them full Israeli citizenship- within a generation there would be more Arabs than Jews in Israel and thus Israel would lose its Jewish majority in the Knesset.

This conclusion is simplistic. In addition, Israel is not a Jewish state- it is a secular, democratic state with an overwhelming Jewish population. As Israeli Arabs have enjoyed the benefits of Israeli citizenship- so too can the 1.5 million West Bank Arabs.

This group of Palestinians could enjoy all the benefits of full Israeli citizenship- and yet still express their political will via a local, West Bank parliamentary legislature with elected representatives responsible for various aspects of West Bank society. Eventually, after consecutive years of political stability and economic prosperity- institutions of political autonomy would evolve.

Beinerman then goes on to elaborate on why one state is good for both Palestinians and Israelis.

Land and People to Blog Roll

I've blogged Land and People before but I just realized he's not on my blogroll to the right. You must read Professor Zurayk's blog if you care about agriculture, the environment, and the Mediterranean. He is involved with Slow Food in Lebanon, he runs all kinds of cool artisan food projects, and he writes piercingly and convincingly about war, economic injustice, and farming. So read him every day.

Adding Land and People now. Prof. Zurayk has become an internet friend. Perhaps one day we'll meet in person, insha'allah.

Update: I don't endorse everything on Professor Zurayk's blog, by the way. Today (July 20 2007) he has put up a post that makes me profoundly uncomfortable. It's his blog, he can write what he wants. Just saying for the record - I read him for his analysis of food, agriculture, globalization and related matters. I don't like pictures that glorify guns.