"EXECUTIVE DISORDER"

Or, Bush's latest Surge against the Constitution

You are not going to believe it. Go to the White House website at http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2007/07/20070717-3.html# and read the July 17, 2007 Executive Order in which Bush announces that he plans to give the Secretary of the Treasury power to, among other things, seize all assets of anyone in this country even suspected of posing a "significant risk" that they might disagree with any Iraq goals or policies of Bush. It supposedly will be confined to those suspected of undefined "acts of violence," but considering it extends to future suspected acts as well and considering Bush already has the Secret Service arrest even spectators at campaign event for merely wearing a contradictory t-shirt, not to mention he often conflates all dissenters and opposition as traitors, there is good reason to fear how he will interpret the possibility those he does not happen to like or trust might commit supposedly violent acts.

Executive Orders have the force of law and this one is scary as hell in its implications. Unfortunately, except through the Ron Paul website, no one in Congress or running for office seems to have even mentioned it.

Frankly, I would not want any President to hold such power, no matter how much I might agree with the Chief Executive on other things. And, my by now well justified lack of trust in the Bush Administration not capriciously exercising such total power is infinite.

My guess is not even the most rabid right winger on the Republican Supreme Court would uphold it when tested, but in the years it would take you to fight it through the courts, you could be without access to a dime of your assets the entire time. It gives the power to seize your home, your paychecks, your car simply because of suspicion, not proof or conviction.

If this particular Executive Order is not a "High Crime or Misdemeanor" against the Constitution as well as a violation of the President's Oath of Office, what the hell is? This is exactly what the impeachment remedy was designed by the Founding Fathers to protect against. What does it take to get our elected representatives and senators off their rear ends and convene for the process?

The only saving grace in this whole frightening effort by Bush and Cheney to apparently grant themselves essentially unrestricted control is that they have so broken our military, our domestic law enforcement agencies and our obviously ironically named "justice" department, is that they might not be able to accomplish their hoped for effective abolishment of the Constitution's ideals.

"IMPEACHMENT NOW"

Or, an Open Letter to Congress

Would someone please explain to me why a bill of impeachment has not been filed against President Bush, Vice President Cheney and possibly Attorney General Gonzales.

When you gave your own oath of office in Congress, you solemnly swore to personally defend our Constitution. Since I, and apparently nearly a majority of your constituents, already suspect no one in the nation today is working harder to subvert the Constitution than those particular officials, I do not understand why an impeachment is not already underway. Given the magnitude of the potential harm, we want to know, one way or another, if our fears are correct.

An impeachment is not only an important component of the Constitution, one the founding fathers mentioned several times, it is an investigative process with the power to force revelation of the truth under oath backed up by penalties for perjury. It was expressly designed for grave times such as these. Since we don't have the "no confidence vote" alternative of European countries, it is something we desperately need at the moment.

Filing an impeachment is not a Constitutional crisis itself. It is the genius way the drafters of the Constitution enabled us to prevent or cure any such crisis, a way to avoid the civil disobedience and even war possible when the public loses confidence in the government. It is, or should be, the adult way to finally allow, or if necessary force, dialogue on issues which are tearing us apart.

Filing an impeachment is not a pre-ordained end result in which the accused are automatically removed from office. It is simply the beginning of a necessary procedure to protect the Constitution and the nation from the occasional individuals who, because of power hunger, arrogance, ignorance or incompetence, feel the Constitution should be ignored. Perhaps these three individuals are innocent, but let the evidence, not cowardice, determine that. We need the “transparency” of government which impeachment can provide. Besides, even if Congress affirmatively acts on the impeachment and concludes removal of the offending official from power is mandated, it does not impose any actual punishment such as jail or a fine. Assuming they are not caught in a material lie under oath, there are no consequences to anyone removed from office other than embarrassment. Moreover, if they renounce the errors of their ways before a final vote, admit their mistakes and allow open oversight to insure it does not happen again, the process can be suspended.

Impeachment should not be frivolously invoked and never for a purely partisan purpose or advantage, but it must not be eternally “off the table.” If these acts of which those three are accused are not considered “high crimes and misdemeanors,” then what is? Unfortunately for our country, if impeachment is not occasionally used, it will be lost as a future protection. Do you want to be responsible for that happening?

If you do not initiate an impeachment, then you yourself weaken the Constitution by making that particular check and balance worthless. Silence is tacit approval of whatever malfeasance, misfeasance or nonfeasance the accused have done.

So, do the right thing, for the right reason and do it right now. Convince us that your failure so far to impeach this particular President and his underlings is not merely because you hope your party wins the office and has a chance to cloak your own candidate with the monarchical powers Bush and Cheney and Gonzales have been trying to usurp unto themselves.

"BUSH'S GUILTY PLEASURES ABOUT THE GUILTY'

Or, Commuting the Sentence of Guilty White House Leaker of National Security Secrets Doesn't Compute

Bush Junior apparently has decided that Libby, an Administration senior official found guilty of deliberately lying under oath while being questioned about his admitted leaks of a national security secret regarding CIA personnel, should do no jail time for his crimes.

Obviously, the Republican campaign ads had it wrong. Why should al-Qaida ever want Democrats to win when they can have a helpful fellow like Bush and his buddies in the White House? So much for the supposed promises of Republicans to safeguard our national security and keep convicted criminals behind bars. Frankly, King Bush routinely does more for terrorists in a month than a battalion of terrorists can do in a year.

Can you imagine what McCarthy and Goldwater would have said if a Democratic President had let the criminal go? Hell, can you imagine what Bush Senior would have said. After all, he got in office on the strength of his opponent supposedly letting convicted Willie Horton out of jail early.

It was a nice additional touch of irony that Bush Junior, who routinely ordered the torture of detainees and death sentences for the mentally ill, called the few months to be spent in a cushy US prison as "excessive."