"Stop throwing the Constitution in my face,” Bush screamed back. “It’s just a goddamned piece of paper!"
CONSTITUTION OFTHE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
Section 4. The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of theUnited States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for,and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.
Dear President Bush; about that "goddamned piece of paper."
Let us start out with the fact that the Constitution is actually written on parchment, not paper. A trivial point, I grant you, but one that reveals (along with your inability to correctly pronounce the word "nuclear") a shocking lack of education in a head of state.
But to get to the point, the Constitution is not the parchment itself, but the ideas written upon it; ideas which form the foundations of our nation, ideas which would carry equal weight if written on stone, glass, metal, or even paper. These ideas are the soul of the nation. They include the recognition that the people of this nation have certain rights, rights which the government does not have the authority to remove. These rights include freedom of speech, to say what we think about the nation at any and all times, to write that opinion down and share it however we choose to. These rights include the freedom to worship as we choose, free from coercion. These rights include the right to privacy, in our homes and businesses, free from government intrusions other than in very specific and well-defined circumstances.
Maybe those rights are inconvenient to you, as such rights are always inconvenient to tyrants, but you are not allowed the choice which rights you will abide by or not. That too is spelled out explicitly in the Constitution.
The Constitution isn't just a piece of paper or parchment. It's a contract; the original contract with America. It's the contract you yourself swore an oath to preserve, protect, and defend against all enemies both foreign and domestic. You attached your name to that promise. You swore that oath before a judge of the United States Supreme Court, with your hand on a bible. That isn't just scenery for the cameras. Swearing an oath before a judge carries legal obligations with that oath, and legal penalties for breaking that oath.
The election process by which you claim authority is defined in that Constitution. And as you claim authority by Constitutional process, so too are you limited by Constitutional process. If you act outside the limits of the Constitution, you are no longer acting as the President, but as a private citizen abusing the powers with which you were trusted. A government that acts outside the Constitution ceases to be the legal government of this land.
The Constitution exists not only to tell the government what it may do, but more importantly what it may not do. You, as the President, are not allowed to declare wars without the US Congress. You, the President, are not allowed to seize people at random and send them off to be tortured. And most of all, you, the President, and not allowed to lie to the people and to the Congress.
Every President before you, including your father, swore that oath to preserve, protect, and defend that Constitution. Millions of Americans died in wars in the firm belief that the form of government describes on that parchment was worth such a sacrifice. To state that the Constitution is just a "dammed piece of paper" is a slap in the face of every American who ever donned the uniform of the military forces of this country.
Go over to Arlington National Cemetery. It's not that far from where you live. Look at those tombstones. By your statement, you have written across and every one the words, "Died for a goddamned piece of paper."
We'll Miss Saddam
The U.S. government has supported a lot of killers and thugs, and if it continues its imperialistic foreign policy, it will keep on doing so because our foreign policy completely lacks any morality.
This presents about 4,000 photographs showing the Iraq War killing and maiming, most from the Associated Press's archive and others from sources listed. The photographs were obtained from a library which provides its members free online access to the AP archives along with many other electronic collections. The library logs online accesses to its collections and is subject to secret, non-disclosible demands for access logs from US authorities.
Towards a Greater Air War on Iraq?
It seems that air power does not win wars--it only destroys the earth and makes a lot of money for the weapons industry. That, and increases the hatred of the population that the aircraft and their pilots are bombing Perhaps if an aggressor is willing to carry such a policy to its logical conclusion-- total devastation--than that aggressor can probably win its war, albeit there will be little left to win (except for that oil in the case of Iraq). Is this what George Bush means when he insists on nothing short of victory? If not, than it seems that the only reason for a strategy that replaces ground combat with death from the air is some kind of chauvinistic revenge.
OCCUPIED BAGHDAD, New Iraq - Four American soldiers were killed in separate attacks in the Baghdad area Saturday.
Also Saturday, the U.S. military said an American soldier was killed and 11 others wounded the day before in a suicide car bombing in the Abu Ghraib district of western Baghdad.
Bush rejects Iraq timetable, Republicans assail critics
"Our Country Is At War. Our Soldiers Are Watching and Our Enemies Are Too. Message To Democrats: Retreat And Defeat Is Not an Option."
There were signs this week of a siege mentality developing in the Bush administration.
Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld took aim at the media for rushing to report negative stories about the US military.
US Military investigates Iraq gunfire film
The US military in Iraq has launched a formal investigation into a video that appears to show security contractors firing randomly at Iraqi civilians.
Brothers: Hostages were gathering evidence of torture in Iraq
The four men have been gathering evidence about people being treated poorly while "detained by occupation forces!"
Local peace activist delays Iraq trip; calls for captives' release
There is no irony. The "Swords of Justice" is another phony group run by either CIA or Mossad, and the purpose of the killings is to discourage other would-be citizen investigators from sticking their noses into the tortures and human rights abuses taking place in Iraq.
So of course, "Al Qaeda" (nudge nudge wink wink) would want to stop THAT kind of thing!
I mean, Giuliana Sgrena was grabbed by "Al Qaeda" (nudge nudge wink wink) when investigating the use of chemical weapons by the US in Fallujah. Now this "Swords of Justice" group is kidnapping people looking into the human rights abuses committed by Americans in Iraq.
Just whose side is "Al Qaeda" (nudge nudge wink wink) really on?
Al-Qa'ida operative 'lied about links with Iraq to avoid torture'
Last month, in a major embarrassment for the Bush administration, it emerged that some US intelligence agencies had doubts about his testimony a full year before the March 2003 invasion of Iraq. The revelation was seized upon by war critics as fresh proof that the White House distorted intelligence to make its case for war.
No torture of terrorist suspects? We can't guarantee it, says Rice
"Will there be abuses of policy? That's entirely possible," she said on a visit to NATO headquarters. "Just because you're a democracy it doesn't mean that you're perfect."
German Chancellor Says Rice Admitted US Kidnapping Of German Citizen Was A Mistake…
As soon as the press conference was over US officials denied Ms Rice has said any such thing.
Memo notes U.S. feared jet attack prior to 9/11
There have been a slew of reports over the past decade of plots to use planes to strike American targets. In 1995, U.S. and Filipino authorities uncovered a plot by Ramsey Yusef, nephew of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, the mastermind behind Sept. 11. Yusef threatened to hide bombs on planes and blow them up over the Pacific. The most notable security warning, Windrem said, was a presidential briefing on an Aug. 6, 2000, that mentioned the possibility of passenger airliners being used in terrorist attacks.
If it really really was terrorist who planned and executed the WTC fiasco, they could of never in their dreams imagined that it would cause the total destruction of 3 buildings. All they could of hoped for was a hole in the building and a few hundred victims. They would be totally clueless to the fact that the buildings would totally collapse. What would the gov have done with the buildings if they had'nt collapsed. Well they would of done the same thing they did at the OKC bombing, they would have called in Controlled Demolition to finish them off. I bet if someone had the investigative powers, they would find remnants of personell from a company that specializes in controlled demolition being in NYC days or weeks before 9/11. We all know they were imploded and there are few people in this world that have that kind of expertise.
Most Americans carry cellphones, but many may not know that government agencies can track their movements through the signals emanating from the handset.
Cellular operators like Verizon Wireless and Cingular Wireless know, within about 300 yards, the location of their subscribers whenever a phone is turned on. Even if the phone is not in use it is communicating with cellphone tower sites, and the wireless provider keeps track of the phone's position as it travels. The operators have said that they turn over location information when presented with a court order to do so.
Update 14: Passengers: Alpizar Didn't Say 'Bomb'
"The first time I heard the word 'bomb' was when I was interviewed by the FBI," McAlhany said. "They kept asking if I heard him say the B-word. And I said, 'What is the B-word?' And they were like, 'Bomb.' I said no. They said, 'Are you sure?' And I am."
Comply and Submit -- Or Die
“From what we know,” lisped Bush administration spokesliar Scott McClellan after federal air marhsals gunned down 44-year-old Rigoberto Alpizar in Miami, “the team of air marshals acted in a way that is consistent with the training they received.... It appears they followed the protocols and did what they were trained to do.... [W]e are very appreciative for all that the air marshals are doing to protect the American people.”
Who's this “we,” paleface?
Assuming that McClellan's assessment is correct, and the summary execution of Mr. Alpizar by the tax-fattened drones grandly styled “air marshals” was carried out according to federal “protocols,” we no longer need to wonder whether terrorist sleeper cells continue to infest American commercial flights.
“Somebody came down the aisle and put a shotgun to the back of my head and said put your hands on the seat in front of you,” recalled passenger John McAlhany in an interview with Time. Amid the confusion and tension that ensued when Alpizar bolted from the plane, McAlhany and the other passengers had been ordered by the flight crew to hit the deck. He was talking on his cell phone with his brother and “looking through the seats to see what was coming” and to take action if he saw an attack coming. His assailant approached him from behind and “karate-chopped” his cell phone away. “Then I reazlied it was an official,” he explained. That is to say that those terrorizing the passengers worked for George W. Bush, not Osama bin Laden.
Make no mistake about it, this was a deadly terrorist incident. One man was killed, others were assaulted, and dozens were terrorized. “They [the air marshals] were pointing the guns directly at us instead of pointing them to the ground,” McAlhany testifies. “One little girl was crying. There was a lady crying all the way to the hotel.”
As if being terrorized at gunpoint weren't enough, the passengers were marched off the plane with their hands on their head and then repeatedly prompted by federal authorities to say that Alpizar claimed to have a bomb in his backpack. According to Daniel Adams of the Federal Air Marshal Service, prior to the shooting Alpizar had been running up and down the aisles of the plane shouting that he had a bomb in his possession – a claim not verified by any of the witnesses, and disputed by several of them.
In fact, the hapless Costa Rican immigrant, who became a naturalized U.S. Citizen a few years ago, apparently suffered from a panic attack – which would understandably trigger alarm on the part of the flight crew and security officials, but is hardly a capital offense. Just before the federales pumped several rounds into the panic-stricken American citizen, his wife – who had been trying to calm him down – frantically explained that her husband was “sick” and needed his medication. But before she could help Rigoberto, his life had been violently taken from him by the officials supposedly there to protect him.
Eyewitnesses described how Alpizar had been ordered by the marshals to fall flat on the ground, which he couldn't do because he was wearing a fanny pack. Some observers believed that Alpizar was attempting to adjust his fanny pack in order to comply with the demand when he was gunned down.
“Based on their training,” asserted Adams, “[the air marhsals] had to take appropriate action to defuse the situation to prevent a danger to themselves and also passengers in the terminal.” Wouldn't it have been more sensible, if protecting the passengers was the objective, to find out what was actually happening before the lead began to fly?
Nope. Too risky. The only safe option was open gunplay.
The Washington Times, one of the Bush regime's most credulous and servile media shills, denounced those who engaged in “second-guessing” the actions of the air marshals. Embracing the unsubstantiated and self-serving account offered by the marshals service, the paper editorialized: “A marshal who hestitates to shoot someone behaving as Mr. Alpizar did is not doing his job.... Mr. Alpizar's death is a reminder of how seriously the marshals treat airline security. We should all take due notice.”
In other words: Comply and submit, or die. If you happen to be the innocent victim of the mistaken application of federal “protocols,” you'll be used as an object lesson, while your murderers (no other word fits) are extolled as brave defenders of the public.
The slaughter of Mr. Alpizar offers a perfect illustration of Paul Craig Roberts' warning that modern America is divided between those whom the law cannot restrain, and those it doesn't protect.
Oh, one other thing: In an age when the president and his cohorts claim the right to stage "pre-emptive" invasions of foreign countries, should we really be surprised when innocent American citizens are "pre-emptively" murdered by federal law enforcement officials?
So when do we get invaded to remove the rogue government that spies on its own people, gases its own people during anti War protests, stages "terrorist" attacks, holds crooked elections, attacks other nations without cause, and uses torture on innocent people looking for WMD that don't exist?