Pakistan - USA Freedom Forum, July 25, 2008
Stop Dividing Families
End the Raids and Deportations
To all anti-war activists, friends of peace, immigrant rights activists, fighters for human and civil rights and against hunger and poverty,and spreading out of the nuclear power, friends of the environment:
On July 28, the new Prime Minister of Pakistan, Yusuf Raza Gilani, is coming to the White House to meet with President Bush. This visit comes at a very serious time for the peoples of the Middle East and South Asia. The U.S. government is continuing to be bogged down in its war for oil and empire in Iraq, while the U.S. and its European allies/rivals are continuing their occupation of Afghanistan. Rather than moving to end these shameful occupations, they are threatening to attack Iran, either directly or through their client state of Israel. The only “crime” of Iran, in the eyes of the U.S. government, is that it is trying to develop an independent economy, including its own peaceful sources of nuclear energy. Iran is a signatory of the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), and the International Atomic Energy Agency has many times certified that Iran is in compliance.
Meanwhile, We are the people of Pakistan, still suffering even though we are friends of the super powers for the last 60 years; people are growing hungry due to the rising prices of food; immigrants are being arrested and deported, resulting in the separation of families; the government is undermining the Bill of Rights with warrantless wiretaps, detention of prisoners without rights to trial, renditions of prisoners and human rights abuses from Guantanamo Bay to Abu Ghraib; and the environment is deteriorating through global warming.
On July 28, we will be in front of the White House. We will be asking PM Gilani, who is a friend of Bush and the U.S. government, that he defend the sovereignty of Pakistan against U.S. cross-border attacks from Afghanistan, that he speak out against U.S. threats and arm-twisting to force governments in the region to support U.S. policies and against the human rights abuses of immigrant detainees and other prisoners.
We call on all of you to join us to stop the spreading out of the Nuclear power to India against the US and international treaties.
Please join us for the restoration of the judges and The chief judge of the Supreme Court of Pakistan Iftikhar Choudhry who stood up against the retired dictator General Musharf and the rights of the missing people's families in Pakistan in front of the White House on July 28.
Please we need your help and feel free to call this # 917 280 0840 after 7p.m. New York time.
Dr. Muhammad Shafique
President
Mr. Shahid Comrade
General Secretary
(917) 280-0840
PAKISTAN – USA FREEDOM FORUM
2257 92nd Street, East Elmhurst, NY 11369
Tel (718) 397-5027 or (718) 763-3543
Fax (718) 574-4333
E-mail: pakusaff@hotmail.com
Sanctions, diplomacy, missiles: U.S. takes aim at Iran’s sovereignty
Sara Flounders, Workers World, July 24, 2008
What is the significance of the widely publicized announcement that the Bush administration has finally agreed to talk to Iran?
Have U.S. aircraft carriers, nuclear-armed and powered submarines, destroyers or missiles been pulled back from Iran’s coast? Has Washington renounced its years of sabotage, assassinations and other covert actions inside Iran? Will any of the many sanctions imposed to constrict Iran’s development be lifted or even eased?
On July 19 Undersecretary of State William Burns sat in on a six-nation gathering in Geneva and “observed” nuclear negotiations between Iranian negotiator Saeed Jalili and Britain, France, Germany, Russia and China. The talks are scheduled to resume in August, but Burns will not return for them. The one-time presence of this third-ranking diplomat is supposedly enough to show that Washington has made an effort at a diplomatic solution.
U.S. participation in the meeting came after increasingly frantic appeals from European powers and from the feudal and military regimes in the Persian Gulf region for diplomacy rather than war. They fear the destabilizing consequences of another U.S. attack. Even in top circles of the U.S. ruling class and military command, concern has been expressed about the risks and dangers of a new war.
Following his appearance at the Geneva meeting, Burns and Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice met in Abu Dhabi with foreign ministers and senior officials of the six Gulf states, along with Egypt, Iraq and Jordan. At the meeting Rice warned that Iran had two weeks to halt its development of nuclear energy or face further “punitive measures.” Iran will also be the main topic at a meeting of European Union foreign ministers the following day.
Washington says its possible next step is to push for an intense level of international sanctions in the U.N. Security Council. If council members don’t go along with its demands, the U.S. is threatening military action.
To reinforce the threat, Rice’s statement was immediately followed by an announcement from Israeli military adviser Amos Gilad that Israel was preparing to attack Iran if diplomacy failed—and that the U.S. would not veto such action.
Although Burns sat in on the Geneva meeting, the U.S. did not give its agreement to a European proposal that, in exchange for an Iranian “freeze” on its enrichment of uranium, a six-week “freeze” be put on more restrictive sanctions against Iran. Lifting the existing sanctions was not even proposed.
U.S. sanctions have been imposed on Iran since the 1978 Iranian Revolution. Soon after the U.S. invasion of Iraq, the U.N. Security Council imposed three new rounds of sanctions on Iran. Now Washington is demanding new and far harsher sanctions—despite International Atomic Energy Association (IAEA) reports that Iran does not have a nuclear weapons program and a similar conclusion in the National Intelligence Estimate report of December 2007, endorsed by the 17 top U.S. spy agencies.
Iran has every right under international law and treaties to develop nuclear energy for civilian purposes. Its nuclear power plants are all under the inspection and safeguards of the IAEA. The IAEA has continually said that there has been no illicit diversion of declared nuclear material.
It is now clear that the State Department’s one-day venture into talks with Iran was merely positioning by Washington to get its allies to agree on far harsher economic sanctions and other efforts to sabotage Iran’s national development.
Iran’s real crime
Iran has a severe energy shortage. Although it is the world’s fourth-largest oil producer, its ability to refine crude oil into gasoline and diesel fuel is limited. As a country with a history of underdevelopment, Iran must import more than half its refined petroleum products to fuel its new industries and a modern transportation system. Iran is now the second-largest importer of gasoline and diesel fuel in the world. (Toronto Globe and Mail, July 22)
A bill has been introduced in the House of Representatives prohibiting the export to Iran of all refined petroleum products and imposing “stringent inspection requirements on all persons, vehicles, ships, planes, trains, and cargo entering or departing Iran.” This would amount to a blockade—an act of war—and a threat to Iran’s sovereignty. It is also an example of how U.S. policy is aimed at keeping resource-rich countries underdeveloped and under its control.
At the same time that the U.S. is trying to cripple Iran’s economy, supposedly over its nuclear program, it is pursuing a deal with India to provide it nuclear fuel and technology. India is not yet a signer of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty or a member of the IAEA. Iran is both.
Iran’s real crime, in the eyes of the Pentagon and the corporate oil giants who determine U.S. policy, is that it is determined to use its resources for the further development of its own economy. The other oil-producing states in the region are corrupt semi-feudal regimes, each with a compliant and dependent ruling class. These regimes are under the total control of U.S. corporations and banks. The largest portion of their vast revenue from oil sales is wasted in purchases of U.S. weapons systems or invested in U.S. banks.
Millions of Iranian people participated in the 1978 revolution that overthrew the corrupt U.S.-backed shah. Since then, great social advances have transformed Iran. Once the people liberated their oil resources from the control of giant U.S. and British corporations, billions of dollars were available to develop Iranian industries and social services.
In less than two decades, Iran moved from 90 percent illiteracy for rural women to full literacy; more than half the university graduates are now women. Stunning improvements in totally free as well as subsidized health care meant record-breaking improvements in life expectancy, birth control and infant mortality. Even according to World Bank figures, Iran has exceeded the social gains of any other country in the region.
This is what U.S. policy makers are determined to reverse. They want control of the vast wealth that comes from every aspect of exploration, pumping, transport and refining of the planet’s most valuable and needed resource. They are willing to destroy millions of lives and spend hundreds of billions of dollars on war in this struggle.
Past history of U.S. talks
It is important to recall the many rounds of talks between U.S. and Iraqi delegations before the war. The U.S. repeatedly demanded the authority to carry out inspections in Iraq any time, any place, to search for non-existent “weapons of mass destruction.” Just before the Pentagon attack, there was the heaviest round of diplomatic talks involving Iraq, members of the U.N. Security Council and Washington’s European allies. The talks were aimed at imposing still stricter sanctions, supposedly to gain Iraq’s total disarmament. This was years after U.N. inspectors had declared Iraq fully disarmed.
It is also important to remember the U.S./NATO “peace talks” with the Yugoslav government in Rambouillet, France. U.S. negotiators gave Yugoslavia an ultimatum: accept total U.S./NATO military occupation and dismemberment or face massive bombardment. When the Parliament of the Yugoslav Federation voted overwhelmingly to refuse the NATO “peace” demand of occupation of their sovereign territory, the Pentagon began 72 days of massive bombardment followed by the NATO seizure of Kosovo.
The U.S. conducted five years of “peace negotiations” with the Vietnamese while escalating its bombardment, including carpet bombing.
Secretary of State Rice has announced the U.S. is considering the establishment of an “interests section” in Tehran and compared it to the interests section that the U.S. has maintained for decades in Cuba. “We have an interests section in Cuba, so I wouldn’t read thawing of relations into anything,” she said. Throughout the decades that Washington has maintained an interests section in Havana, the blockade of Cuba, sabotage and attempted assassinations of Cuban leaders have continued.
U.S. “talks” are too often preparation for the next stage of war. It is important for the movement on a global scale to remain on the alert and to understand that U.S. imperialism’s aims and plans have not changed.
*****************************
August 2 Demonstrate to Stop War On Iran
Actions in more than 65 cities
For more info & to get involved see:
http://www.StopWarOnIran.org
What is the significance of the widely publicized announcement that the Bush administration has finally agreed to talk to Iran?
Have U.S. aircraft carriers, nuclear-armed and powered submarines, destroyers or missiles been pulled back from Iran’s coast? Has Washington renounced its years of sabotage, assassinations and other covert actions inside Iran? Will any of the many sanctions imposed to constrict Iran’s development be lifted or even eased?
On July 19 Undersecretary of State William Burns sat in on a six-nation gathering in Geneva and “observed” nuclear negotiations between Iranian negotiator Saeed Jalili and Britain, France, Germany, Russia and China. The talks are scheduled to resume in August, but Burns will not return for them. The one-time presence of this third-ranking diplomat is supposedly enough to show that Washington has made an effort at a diplomatic solution.
U.S. participation in the meeting came after increasingly frantic appeals from European powers and from the feudal and military regimes in the Persian Gulf region for diplomacy rather than war. They fear the destabilizing consequences of another U.S. attack. Even in top circles of the U.S. ruling class and military command, concern has been expressed about the risks and dangers of a new war.
Following his appearance at the Geneva meeting, Burns and Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice met in Abu Dhabi with foreign ministers and senior officials of the six Gulf states, along with Egypt, Iraq and Jordan. At the meeting Rice warned that Iran had two weeks to halt its development of nuclear energy or face further “punitive measures.” Iran will also be the main topic at a meeting of European Union foreign ministers the following day.
Washington says its possible next step is to push for an intense level of international sanctions in the U.N. Security Council. If council members don’t go along with its demands, the U.S. is threatening military action.
To reinforce the threat, Rice’s statement was immediately followed by an announcement from Israeli military adviser Amos Gilad that Israel was preparing to attack Iran if diplomacy failed—and that the U.S. would not veto such action.
Although Burns sat in on the Geneva meeting, the U.S. did not give its agreement to a European proposal that, in exchange for an Iranian “freeze” on its enrichment of uranium, a six-week “freeze” be put on more restrictive sanctions against Iran. Lifting the existing sanctions was not even proposed.
U.S. sanctions have been imposed on Iran since the 1978 Iranian Revolution. Soon after the U.S. invasion of Iraq, the U.N. Security Council imposed three new rounds of sanctions on Iran. Now Washington is demanding new and far harsher sanctions—despite International Atomic Energy Association (IAEA) reports that Iran does not have a nuclear weapons program and a similar conclusion in the National Intelligence Estimate report of December 2007, endorsed by the 17 top U.S. spy agencies.
Iran has every right under international law and treaties to develop nuclear energy for civilian purposes. Its nuclear power plants are all under the inspection and safeguards of the IAEA. The IAEA has continually said that there has been no illicit diversion of declared nuclear material.
It is now clear that the State Department’s one-day venture into talks with Iran was merely positioning by Washington to get its allies to agree on far harsher economic sanctions and other efforts to sabotage Iran’s national development.
Iran’s real crime
Iran has a severe energy shortage. Although it is the world’s fourth-largest oil producer, its ability to refine crude oil into gasoline and diesel fuel is limited. As a country with a history of underdevelopment, Iran must import more than half its refined petroleum products to fuel its new industries and a modern transportation system. Iran is now the second-largest importer of gasoline and diesel fuel in the world. (Toronto Globe and Mail, July 22)
A bill has been introduced in the House of Representatives prohibiting the export to Iran of all refined petroleum products and imposing “stringent inspection requirements on all persons, vehicles, ships, planes, trains, and cargo entering or departing Iran.” This would amount to a blockade—an act of war—and a threat to Iran’s sovereignty. It is also an example of how U.S. policy is aimed at keeping resource-rich countries underdeveloped and under its control.
At the same time that the U.S. is trying to cripple Iran’s economy, supposedly over its nuclear program, it is pursuing a deal with India to provide it nuclear fuel and technology. India is not yet a signer of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty or a member of the IAEA. Iran is both.
Iran’s real crime, in the eyes of the Pentagon and the corporate oil giants who determine U.S. policy, is that it is determined to use its resources for the further development of its own economy. The other oil-producing states in the region are corrupt semi-feudal regimes, each with a compliant and dependent ruling class. These regimes are under the total control of U.S. corporations and banks. The largest portion of their vast revenue from oil sales is wasted in purchases of U.S. weapons systems or invested in U.S. banks.
Millions of Iranian people participated in the 1978 revolution that overthrew the corrupt U.S.-backed shah. Since then, great social advances have transformed Iran. Once the people liberated their oil resources from the control of giant U.S. and British corporations, billions of dollars were available to develop Iranian industries and social services.
In less than two decades, Iran moved from 90 percent illiteracy for rural women to full literacy; more than half the university graduates are now women. Stunning improvements in totally free as well as subsidized health care meant record-breaking improvements in life expectancy, birth control and infant mortality. Even according to World Bank figures, Iran has exceeded the social gains of any other country in the region.
This is what U.S. policy makers are determined to reverse. They want control of the vast wealth that comes from every aspect of exploration, pumping, transport and refining of the planet’s most valuable and needed resource. They are willing to destroy millions of lives and spend hundreds of billions of dollars on war in this struggle.
Past history of U.S. talks
It is important to recall the many rounds of talks between U.S. and Iraqi delegations before the war. The U.S. repeatedly demanded the authority to carry out inspections in Iraq any time, any place, to search for non-existent “weapons of mass destruction.” Just before the Pentagon attack, there was the heaviest round of diplomatic talks involving Iraq, members of the U.N. Security Council and Washington’s European allies. The talks were aimed at imposing still stricter sanctions, supposedly to gain Iraq’s total disarmament. This was years after U.N. inspectors had declared Iraq fully disarmed.
It is also important to remember the U.S./NATO “peace talks” with the Yugoslav government in Rambouillet, France. U.S. negotiators gave Yugoslavia an ultimatum: accept total U.S./NATO military occupation and dismemberment or face massive bombardment. When the Parliament of the Yugoslav Federation voted overwhelmingly to refuse the NATO “peace” demand of occupation of their sovereign territory, the Pentagon began 72 days of massive bombardment followed by the NATO seizure of Kosovo.
The U.S. conducted five years of “peace negotiations” with the Vietnamese while escalating its bombardment, including carpet bombing.
Secretary of State Rice has announced the U.S. is considering the establishment of an “interests section” in Tehran and compared it to the interests section that the U.S. has maintained for decades in Cuba. “We have an interests section in Cuba, so I wouldn’t read thawing of relations into anything,” she said. Throughout the decades that Washington has maintained an interests section in Havana, the blockade of Cuba, sabotage and attempted assassinations of Cuban leaders have continued.
U.S. “talks” are too often preparation for the next stage of war. It is important for the movement on a global scale to remain on the alert and to understand that U.S. imperialism’s aims and plans have not changed.
*****************************
August 2 Demonstrate to Stop War On Iran
Actions in more than 65 cities
For more info & to get involved see:
http://www.StopWarOnIran.org
We've Opened the Door, How Do We Keep It Open?
David Swanson, AfterDowningStreet, July 27, 2008
Your hard work has resulted in Congress cracking open the door to impeachment, justice, and peace. How can you keep it open?
A lot of us have our own favorite impeachable offenses - mine is the Iraq war - but a lot of them are not about to go anywhere in Congress. The impeachable offenses that appear to have the most traction among congress members (i.e. very little) are:
1. The numerous violations of laws combined with the announcement of the intention to violate those laws through signing statements. (I say it in this longwinded way, because just abbreviating it to "signing statements" allows people to pretend to miss the point.)
2. The numerous refusals to comply with requests, subpoenas, and contempt citations.
It has always been predictable, and predicted, that these would have the most traction (because nonpartisan, non-controversial, no congressional complicity, no investigation needed, clearcut and simple), and it has become clear that - as predicted - they DO in fact have the most traction.
We'd all LOVE to nail these fascist bastards for our favorite offenses, but we'd also all HATE for them to get off scott free, thereby establishing a precedent for future presidents; and when they nailed Al Capone for tax fraud everybody understood exactly why they'd done so.
What is needed is pressure on every member of Congress to themselves pressure Conyers, including by signing Wexler's letter at http://wexlerwantshearings.com So, please call your Representative every day at (202) 224-3121, focus on the issues that have the most traction, and urge them to ask Conyers to hold a real impeachment hearing. Remember that in an impeachment hearing the excuse of "executive privilege" is not allowed. A subpoena must simply be obeyed or those who refuse to obey it can be impeached.
Of secondary value is trying to get your Representative to introduce new articles of impeachment or new resolutions calling for impeachment hearings. So, any lengthy communications with your Rep should include that ask.
The third most important thing to do is to contact media outlets and urge them to cover impeachment, and contact polling companies and urge them to poll on impeachment.
The fourth most important thing to do is to support pro-impeachment candidates for Congress and make certain the incumbents know about it. Don't just send a check. First send a photocopy of it to the incumbent letting them know why they aren't getting one.
Now is the time to move on this with everything we've got. We've opened the door and must not allow it to close again.
It might help to review what happened in the House Judiciary Committee hearing on Friday, by reading the following live blog from the bottom up:
Live Blogging Hearing on Impeachment (Not Yet Impeachment Hearing)
C-Span has video links to Panel 1 and Panel 2 at www.c-span.org.
In this hearing we heard the case for impeachment from Kucinich, Wexler, Jackson-Lee, Johnson, Baldwin, Ellison, Hinchey, Holtzman, Anderson, Adams, and even Barr. We heard general support in that direction from Scott, Lofgren, and even Nadler (almost). And we heard Pence's and Franks' laughable and inculpating defenses along the lines of "Bush is not a crook." Not bad for the first day's work of the 110th Congress! Now, how about an impeachment hearing? We saw a lot of interest from committee members in the offense of signing statements, and also in the refusal to comply with subpoenas. Those are the issues that seem to have the most traction (and the least congressional complicity).
Now would be the time for a little less talk and a lot more action! Please call your Representative at (202) 224-3121 and ask them to call John Conyers and ask for impeachment hearings to begin. Please ask everyone you know to do the same. Please call every morning until it happens.
4:10 Nadler points out that whereas evidence was nonexistant or disputed, Bush asserted repeatedly that it was absolutely certain. Lundgren claims that Bush based that on the wisdom of intelligence agencies around the world [sic!]. [Even if that were true, isn't it a problem that US intelligence was full of doubts and major counter-evidence?]
4:05 Lundgren claims Bush meant well. Nadler asks about evidence on edited NIE presented today. Lundgren dismisses it. Audience laughs. Lundgren asks for people to be removed. Conyers says that if anyone causes a disruption at the end of the hearing they will be forbidden to attend any more hearings.
3:58: Ellison is trying again to get Presser to agree there are grounds for impeachment on the matter of war lies. He agrees, only if Kucinich's case is "proved." Ellison asks Radkin too, but he pulls out the "they meant well and sadly turned out to be wrong, which is different from intentionally lying." I'd like Kucinich to make the overwhelming case that Bugliosi has been making that they knowingly lied, but he instead makes the reasonable case that if all the assertions turn out to be false that is sufficient grounds for an impeachment inquiry.
3:55: Ellison is giving Kucinich another opportunity to speak about his article of impeachment on war lies, which he is doing at some length. Lundgren is the only Republican member still here. Conyers, Nadler, Scott, Lofgren, and Baldwin are here, and everyone is awake.
3:54 After Fein suggests a law banning use of funds for anything signing statemented, Ellison asks why the president couldn't just signing statement that new law. Fein had no answer.
3:45 Red Debbie Wasserman-Schultz is here for first time and expressing concern of some sort about signing statements.
3:38 Rep Schiff wants a new Church Committee to last into the next Congress, and he wants to White House to notify the Congress in a timely manner when it is about to violate laws. (I do hope I am hallucinating now.) Schwartz points out that there is already a law requiring that the president notify Congress when he will use a signing statement to claim the right to violate a law, but Bush has used a signing statement to erase the requirement that he notify Congress about signing statements. Schwartz points out also that we should have no secret laws whatsoever.
3:34 Baldwin raises danger of leaving Bush and Cheney unchecked for seven more months, in particular the possibility of an attack on Iran. What impact would an impeachment inquiry have on the possibility of attacking Iran? Anderson: wants a bill passed! (???) Bugliosi refuses to speculate.
3:30 Baldwin is bringing up John Nichols' book and the Bill Moyers show he was on with Fein. She's quoting Nichols account of presidential toolbox passing from president to president. And the toolbox now has more powers in it than ever before.
Lundgren is asleep now.
3:25 pm Rep Brad Sherman shows up for first time and says Congress has become mere advisors to White House. President won't obey laws. Any law to fix the problem will be vetoed. To Fein: is nonfeasance an impeachable offense? Fein: the "take care that laws are faithfully executed" comes from English Bill of Rights ... meaning Yes. Sherman is talking about signing statements. Sherman asks Holtzman if a prosecutor should bring a case if virtually certain of not getting a conviction? She says maybe.
Kucinich has gone out and come back with what is probably a stack of petition signatures in support of impeachment. Ellison is talking with Kucinich.
3:19 p.m. Rep Hank Johnson asks Presser about his testimony back in the day that if Clinton lied he should be impeached: if a president lied about taking a nation into war, would that be an impeachable offense? Presser says "you'd have to look into the circumstances...." Johnson turns to Holtzman, which is much more productive.
Nadler and Scott are both sleeping. No joke.
3:13 Rep Cohen asks Holtzman about what branch Cheney belongs to. Fein points out that a Senator has been impeached, so Cheney can claim he's in the legislative branch and be impeached. Cohen asks Fein whether it would be socially beneficial to impeach, or more important to do other things as Rep Watt advises. Fein says that impeaching Nixon was greatly unifying. He also says that there is penty of time since no investigation is needed. The president has confessed to viiolating FISA (witnesses are now routinely accusing the president of crimes and calling him "the president" against the rules).
3:03 Rep. Wexler says that ignoring subpoenas, spying, and torture, are - pace Pence - not "mere policy differences". Wexler expands on the subpoenas topic. Barr has left. Wexler wanted to ask him about statements he made in support of the rule of law during the Clinton impeachment. (Wexler may have been out of the room today when Barr came around in support of impeachment.) Rocky Anderson says Wexler is right, that we're not just talking about policy, but about Constitutional issues. Now, says Rocky, is the time for Congress to assert its power. Wexler now asks Fein about Mukasey coming before the committee and refusing to honor subpoenas. Fein says that's a clear impeachable offense on its own. Popular government can't work if the public can't know what its government is doing. You don't need an investigation to impeach: you just vote. [Go, Bruce!] Liz Holtzman adds that the president [OOPS, WHO? Can you say that?] has refused to give Congress what it needs to do its job and obstructs the work of Congress. She recommends holding an impeachment inquiry, requesting the information again, and if it is not provided then impeaching.
NOTE: Pacifica is terminating its broadcast, but we all appreciate them carrying the hearing up to this point.
3:02 Rep. Pence appears to be filibustering on his opposition to impeachment, chewing up time for no apparent purpose, asking three-minute questions that get three-word responses because they are just obvious rants.
2:53 p.m. One of the Repubicans tried to cut Bugliosi off by claiming he was discussing classified information. (He was discussing the declassified 2002 NIE.) The groans from the audience shut him up. Nobody said a thing about the groaning. Bugliosi was permitted to keep speaking.
2:43 Sheila Jackson-Lee (I kid you not) is urging passage of a bill to correct the abuse of signing statements (who spots the weakness in this strategy?). But she's now asking Fein to speak on war lies, and she's suggesting it's treason. And now she's giving Bugliosi a chance to expand on his case (the familiar case in his book, which many in this room have never heard).
2:36 At request of a Republican Conyers asks staff to remove signs. Staff is asking vets to remove buttons.
Tarak Kauff shouts that it's a disgrace when Bush is responsible for so many murders to demand that vets take off buttons. He's hauled out by police.
TJ Buomo refuses to take off his button, shouts out his 1st Amendment right and is hauled out by police.
Lori Arbeiter also refused to comply and was hauled out.
Liz Cater spoke up and tried to go help Lori and was threatened with removal until a bunch of us shouted that she'd done nothing, and the police backed off and she sat down.
2:26 Lofgren is still pushing idea of a truth and reconciliation commission. And Schwartz is recommending the 9-11 Commission as a model [I may be tired but I'm not hallucinating this.]
2:25 OK I've covered up my IMPEACH shirt because a friend thinks they'll try to arrest me for wearing it.
2:16 Republican Rep. Louis Gohmert: The president is not a crook, really! And: Never trust a Muslim!
2:10 The Judiciary Committee staff is begging me to cover up my IMPEACH shirt, and I'm refusing.
2:08 Rep Mel Watt here now for first time today. He said "If attorneys general are protecting me against terrorists, who is protecting me against THEM?" [Loud applause.] He then refuses to support impeachment. [silence] Did Pelosi send Watt here??
2:02 Franks has interrupted this hearing on the abuses of Bush and Cheney to let us know that we should all be VERY VERY AFRAID of Muslim terrorists. Then Franks says that if there was a failure, it was in allowing 9-11 to occur. [Wow, it's almost as if he's read Kucinich's article of impeachment on that very point. Yes, I'm kidding. He wouldn't ever have done that.]
1:49 Bobby Scott: Are we necessarily talking about impeachment or something other than impeachment or must it be impeachment, what other tool do we have to enforce limitations on executive power? Fein says that under Nixon when he was in Justice Dept they concluded you could not prosecute a president while in office, and concluded that impeachment was the only remedy for an abusive president. Barr added that Congress can pass laws. Holtzman said that doesn't matter if president is not bound to obey the laws, and that the real remedy is impeachment -- there's no running away from that. Bugliosi added that president can be prosecuted from the day he leaves office.
1:46 Congressman Kucinich has never left the room and is still sitting in the front row. People are still coming in -- all of them impeachment activists -- whenever a seat opens up.
1:42 King is still talking about shopping for uranium. Essentially his case amounts to "Yoo Hoo, Look way over here away from the Constitution. I'm making a giant ass of myself! Look Look!" See evidence re uranium lies HERE.
1:37 Nadler suggests impeachment is virtually impossible because conviction requires support of president's party. Holtzman says that impeachment can be bipartisan, as in fact it was with Nixon. But the Democrats led in the beginning and did not do a headcount before proceeding. The process was made completely fair. Southern Democats and Republicans joined in because it was fair to parties and fair to the president. And when we started nobody thought it would work. It did.
1:32 Nadler questions Schwartz assertion that impeachment is not practical. But prosecution faces possible block by pardons. Do we need to change pardon clause of the Constitution? [IS HE SERIOUS? Amend the Constitution to explicity bar the outrageous absurdity of self-pardoning??] Fein jumps in to say that a statute could require that pardons occur 8 months before leaving office, therby creating political penalty for abuse of the power.
1:30 Nadler suggests that even though executive privilege should not apply in an impeachment hearing, Bush might STILL assert it. Fein replies that remedy wold be an article of impeachment, as with Nixon.
1:28 Nadler tears down rightwing strawman that impeachment is about using presidency for personal gain, it's about abuse of power! If the Pres lied to Congres, and I think there's good evidence he did [Nadler just violated the HOLY RULE against calling the king a liar], it's impeachable. This prez claims right to call anyone in this room an enemy combatant and lock them up forever. This has never happened since Magna Carta in English-speaking countries. They torture. they don't prosecute their own crimes. There's no remedy by the executive branch! We've got to figure a way around this. [HOW ABOUT IMPEACHMENT?]
1:18 Lamar Smith citing fact that most people have discussed impeachment in this non-impeachment hearing. Presser claims Clinton impeachment had nothing to do with lying about sex, and that he has heard nothing today to suggest impeachable offenses. [YES! More "I am not a crook" discussion from the Republicans.] Radkin joining in: "He did not lie us into a war." Plus: "Lots of other presidents have lied us into wars too!" [Derrida called this kettle logic: I didn't break your kettle, it was broken when I borrowed it, they always break, and I never borrowed it at all.]
1:18 Q and A beginning.
Elliott Adams: he joked and passed on commenting.
Schwartz: Abuses of this president are unique. He claims the right to break any law and to do so secretly. This doctrine needs to be "squashed, disagreed with, and exposed." [HOW ABOUT IMPEACHED?]
Vincent Bugliosi beautifully challenges Presser's contention that a lie about sex is worse than a lie about war. Now Bugliosi is citing the WHITE HOUSE MEMO. Cindy Sheehan shouted out "Thank you, Vince!" Conyers said that his colleagues were urging him to take action. Cindy said "I urge YOU to take action!" Conyers said, "Well then, Sheehan you're out." Cindy left. Other impeachment advocates immediately came in to fill her seat and those of people who left with her.
Bruce Fein: Executive ONLY has powers we the people give him. Do all presidents spy during wars? No, and this is worse because this war is permanent. Robert Jackson at Nuremburg says that an abusive power unrebuked will lie around like a loaded weapon.
Stephen Presser: right to hold this hearing, but there is no evidence of fraudulent motives, and minority report of this committee shows that the admin has cooperated and acted in good faith.
Rocky Anderson: impeachment appropriate now, including for fraud in taking us into war by the pres... oops I mean hight ranking official of the administration.
Bob Barr: Our bill of rights is vanishing. He holds up and displys the Bill of Rights with most of it blacked out. He submits it into the record. Not my job to choose impeachment, but if choice is constitutional inquiry or silence, I choose inquiry. [One rightwinger won over already today!]
Liz H: Admin will never prosecute itself. Truth Commission won't work. Only impeachment is practical and possible. It eliminates executive privilege. Somebody get this bit onto Youtube ASAP!
12:58 Conyers letting each panelist add something in response to other panelists.
*****
12:53 Elliott Adams' excellent testimony. He's reading it now!
12:48 Fred Schwartz opposes impeachment as too late (as if he ever lifted a finger for it) but wants a big whopping "investigation" (which of course actually does take time, unlike impeaching Bush and Cheney on the grounds established today and over the past years).
12:44: A staffer is trying to get me to cover up my IMPEACH shirt and I'm refusing.
12:41 Rightwing minority witness Jeremy Radkin says war lies is clearly most important charge, but claims its "wild conspiracy charges." And, so, all other charges should be ignored as less important, and then this charge should be ignored as crazy.
12:34 Bugliosi is giving abbreviated version of his usual powerful rap on Bush lying us into war. AND he's calling for referral of criminal charges to the Justice Department (are you kidding me, Vince? you were going to advocate impeachment, not futility). Great rhetoric, though. [Strong applause results in Republican call to clear the room and Conyers refusal but repeated admonition.
12:32 Conyers is introducing Vince Bugliosi, holding up his book "The Prosecution of George W. Bush for murder."
12:25 Bruce Fein is now reading his excellent statement, posted earlier on this website.
12:20 p.m. Rightwing lawyer Stephen Presser making case that his brain has been absent from the room for the past couple of hours AND that Bill Clinton was a president who really merited impeachment. He claims that stating a theory about "unitary executive" is not an impeachable offense, but he's the first today to have suggested that.
Note: more citizens (all for impeachment) are gradually filling in more seats as staffers grow tired and hungry.
12:13 Rocky Anderson wants investigation (as if we don't already know the crimes and haven't just heard about them for hours). He wants to know about the spying program. [Fine, but we know, as he says, that it's felonious. So is it appropriate to "investigate" with no subpoena power or to impeach?] "There has never been a more compelling case for impeachment!" [NOW YOU'RE TALKING!!] Rocky goes on to support legislation delegitimizing signign statements (as if that were possible). He wants legislation (which would be vetoed) to criminalize an illegal attack on Iran [I kid you not].
12:10 Bob Barr going on about wide variety of grave abuses, but not so much what to do about them.
11:58 Liz Holtzman gives prima facie grounds for impeachment: systematic refusal to obey the laws, spying, torture, signing statements, misuse of executive privilege, war lies, etc... we need an impeachment inquiry to educate the public and give members of administration facing accusations a forum in which to respond.
PANEL 2 BEGINS WITH NO QandA for PANEL 1.
11:49 Republican Rep. Walter Jones, in response to signing-statement announcements of intention to violate laws, wants the public to have easy access to the signing statements and Congress to have the right to ask the White House about its criminal announcements. [Now, how does this make more sense than renaming french fries? Well, at least it points to the problem and misses the solution so wildly that even a reporter could see it.] He wants his bill passed now (as if it wouldn't be vetoed!!).
11:45 Rep. Brad Miller discussing various abuses and various so-called legislative remedies.
11:30 Rep Maurice Hinchey: president dominates entire government. He focuses on "corruption and incompetance". [Huh? what about criminality and murder?] [He's going over all the old material in way too conservative a manner and putting me to sleep.] This is th emost impeachable administration in the history of America. [Hello! I'm awake!]
11:25 Kucinich has a written statement (Can somebody get a copy?) and focuses on destructive nature of Iraq war, including impact on US economy. Statements made to justify war were false. Congress members believed the lies. Rules of House prevent me using familiar terms. (DK introduces his three resolutions for impeachment into the record and asks that members read them.) Should we honor our oaths to support and defend the Constitution? Will Congress endorse with its silence the methods used to take us into the Iraq war, one of the greatest injustices imaginable? Act now! Right a very great wrong! Hold accountable those who misled this nation! [DK spoke less than 5 minutes and avoided the I word.]
Kucinich's Remarks.
11:22 PANEL ONE BEGINS WITH KUCINICH.
11:20 Keith Ellison has written statement (Can somebody get a copy?). Congress needs to maintain its power. Impeachment is only way to do it. [Yeah!]
11:15 Rep Tammy Baldwin submitting a written statement. This is about the conduct of future presidents for generations. This is not frivolous, but no task more important than to consider whether our leaders have violated their oaths of office. Public expects no less. After all, it is their Constitution. American people and nations around the world wonder whether US is going to illegally attack Iran, whether their conversations are wiretaped, whether people are being held in sectre prisons, who authorized torture. But attempt to investigate are blocked. List of ignored subpoenas is long. True accountability is impossible. In my judgment at least two high ranking administration officials have met the standard for impeachment [meaning Bush and Cheney] - I now firmly believe we must begin impeachment hearings.
11:08 Rep Hank Johnson: action must be taken.. prevailing view has been that impeachment should be off the table...and public would not approve, but impeachment would restore life and vitality to the system of checks and balances that is the hallmark of our system of government [yeah !] if lying about consensual sexual activity fits the bill, then surely lying to the American people about the invasion of Iraq, a sovereign nation, resulting in countless Iraqi deaths, 4,000 Americans, surely that qualifies as an impeachable offense [brief loud applause]. Kidnapping, detaining, torturing, selective prosecutions, etc, etc. Should consider impeaching. [Conyers again says not to clap.]
11:06 Rep Steve Cohen, freshman from Memphis: recounts Gonzales resigning as he and Bruce Fein were drafting articles of impeachment for him. Supports this hearing.
11:02 Trent Franks just said the word Impeachment repeatedly, requesting that the word never be mentioned. Then said Terrorist, Terrorism, and Terror many many times.
10:57 Rep Sheila Jackson-Lee quoting preamble to the Constitution and defending the importance of taking up impeachment hearings, without predicting the outcome. She is concerned about war lies, torture, possibility of treason, firing of US attorneys, signing statements (and she has legislation [I kid you not!] to address that abuse).
10:51 Republican Rep Pence wants to be sure this is not about impeachment and at the same time wants to argue against impeachment. [The Republicans are putting impeachment on the table AND making themselves look like McCain-style senile fools. Pence is arguing that Bush has not done things he's publicly on record confessing to, thus opening the door to the corporate media to cover these issues - if they dare.] "There have been no high crimes and misdemeanors!" ["I am not a crook!"]
10:50 Rep Jerrold Nadler saying the offenses now are far more serious than what Clinton was impeached for.
10:45 Republican Rep Dan Lundgren is disappointed. This is impeachment light. The allegations without real impeachment. [Exactly.]
10:43 Rep Zoe Lofgren urging further investigations like today's.
10:41 Conyers says it's not an impeachment hearing, and that that could only follow a vote in the full house [of which we have ALREADY HAD THREE SUCCESSFULLY FOR THIS PRESIDENT IN RESPONSE TO RESOLUTIONS FROM KUCINICH!!!]
10:37 Republican Rep King is pointing out that "power to remove" means impeachment - and he's shocked and scandalized, and he's seen no impeachable offenses. King is voluntarily bringing up the forged Niger documents and defending the lies about attempts to purchase uranium (as if that would have justified an aggressive war if true, which it wasn't). He's claiming to have new proof and introducing it into the record without explaining it.
10:35 Rep Bobby Scott made brief remarks in support of today's hearing, but did not mention impeachment.
10:31 Conyers introduced Robert Wexler, and the audience applauded him. He's laying out the case for impeachment powerfully. Never before has an administration so diminished the powers of the legislative branch....ordered officials to refuse to testify or even appear... unprecedented ... distorted executive privilege beyond recognition ... most appropriate response is to hold hearings for impeachment [applause, and staffer reprimanding those of us applauding]. We have to seek impeachment and removal from office... Delicate balance of power eviscerated... not a Democratic or Republican issue, This is an American issue. The only option left is impeachment hearings. In 1973 articles of impeachment were introduced against Nixon after he tried to use executive privilege ... we should look more deeply into what happened... We need to begin to take our government and our country back.
Conyers reminds audience that we can make no reactions.
Wexler's full statement.
10:26 Ranking Republican Lamar Smith: We recently hosted a book of the month club. Nothing is going to come out of this for impeachment. I know it, the media knows it, the speaker knows it ... there's no evidence for impeachment. You cannot impeach a president simply because you don't like him. No evidence of any criminal wrong doing. 9% approve of Congress, making Bush look good at 32%. Americans want "bipartisanship." Smith is now reading an excerpt from the House Rules: no personally offensive language toward the president, etc...
10:19 a.m. ET Conyers is speaking quite to the point on the power of the purse and the power of impeachment (he said the power "to remove" and avoided the I word). He's mentioning politicization of Justice Dept, signing statements, detention, rendition, "possible" manipulation of intelligence, retaliation including outing of Plame, excessive secrecy. Evidence is both credible and substantial and merits direct answers from "the most senior members of the administration under oath if possible" (by which he likely means Bush and Cheney, but how does he propose to put them under oath? We will struggle with this legacy regardless of electoral outcome. Some say we've done too little too late [damn straight]. I held hearings on Downing Street Memo and Ohio elections before being chairman, and as chairman I've held more than 45 separate public hearings on these matters [to what end?]. We've sent subpoenas and pursued criminal contempt [with what outcome?]. We expect to take action against Karl Rove for refusal to comply with a subpoena [what action, when?, and will it include impeaching his former boss?] We've held investigations and passed legislation and we're not done until we achieve accountability [how, without impeachment?].
10:08 Very noisy protests ongoing in the hallway, which can be heard in the hearing room. My internet connection is shakey and I hope it holds out. Hearing has not begun. A huge number of congressional staffers are here filling up seats.
10:02 Noisy standing ovation by some 20 people when Dennis Kucinich and his wife Elizabeth and dedicated scheduler Amy Vossbrink walked in.
9:57 a.m. I'm in the back row with a power outlet and a good connection online. They let a grand total of 17 members of the public into the room. A crowd of hundreds is in the hallway shouting "Shame! Shame!" despite being offered two large overflow rooms. The 17 of us include a bunch of people with IMPEACH shirts, after we won an argument in the hallway for the right to wear them -- led by Col. (retired) Ann Wright. At least half of us (not I) are members of Vets for Peace. [18 people: Dave Lindorff got in as press]
7:48 A Capitol Police officer is here, making everyone (including disabled vets) stand, not sit, and preventing me from having my computer near a power outlet, so I'm going to turn it off and save the battery.
7:38 About 60 or 70 people are here in line. We're all impeachment advocates. We've made our own numbered tickets. Cynthia Papermaster is 1. Cindy Sheehan is 2. I'm 7. We're in the hallway outside Rayburn 2141, and nobody official has shown up yet. We don't know how many people will get in, and how many will sit in overflow rooms. By the way, it is unheard of to have or to need overflow rooms, but they will today. I'll be on Pacifica radio at 9:30. Their broadcast starts at 9:00 a.m. ET.
Your hard work has resulted in Congress cracking open the door to impeachment, justice, and peace. How can you keep it open?
A lot of us have our own favorite impeachable offenses - mine is the Iraq war - but a lot of them are not about to go anywhere in Congress. The impeachable offenses that appear to have the most traction among congress members (i.e. very little) are:
1. The numerous violations of laws combined with the announcement of the intention to violate those laws through signing statements. (I say it in this longwinded way, because just abbreviating it to "signing statements" allows people to pretend to miss the point.)
2. The numerous refusals to comply with requests, subpoenas, and contempt citations.
It has always been predictable, and predicted, that these would have the most traction (because nonpartisan, non-controversial, no congressional complicity, no investigation needed, clearcut and simple), and it has become clear that - as predicted - they DO in fact have the most traction.
We'd all LOVE to nail these fascist bastards for our favorite offenses, but we'd also all HATE for them to get off scott free, thereby establishing a precedent for future presidents; and when they nailed Al Capone for tax fraud everybody understood exactly why they'd done so.
What is needed is pressure on every member of Congress to themselves pressure Conyers, including by signing Wexler's letter at http://wexlerwantshearings.com So, please call your Representative every day at (202) 224-3121, focus on the issues that have the most traction, and urge them to ask Conyers to hold a real impeachment hearing. Remember that in an impeachment hearing the excuse of "executive privilege" is not allowed. A subpoena must simply be obeyed or those who refuse to obey it can be impeached.
Of secondary value is trying to get your Representative to introduce new articles of impeachment or new resolutions calling for impeachment hearings. So, any lengthy communications with your Rep should include that ask.
The third most important thing to do is to contact media outlets and urge them to cover impeachment, and contact polling companies and urge them to poll on impeachment.
The fourth most important thing to do is to support pro-impeachment candidates for Congress and make certain the incumbents know about it. Don't just send a check. First send a photocopy of it to the incumbent letting them know why they aren't getting one.
Now is the time to move on this with everything we've got. We've opened the door and must not allow it to close again.
It might help to review what happened in the House Judiciary Committee hearing on Friday, by reading the following live blog from the bottom up:
Live Blogging Hearing on Impeachment (Not Yet Impeachment Hearing)
C-Span has video links to Panel 1 and Panel 2 at www.c-span.org.
In this hearing we heard the case for impeachment from Kucinich, Wexler, Jackson-Lee, Johnson, Baldwin, Ellison, Hinchey, Holtzman, Anderson, Adams, and even Barr. We heard general support in that direction from Scott, Lofgren, and even Nadler (almost). And we heard Pence's and Franks' laughable and inculpating defenses along the lines of "Bush is not a crook." Not bad for the first day's work of the 110th Congress! Now, how about an impeachment hearing? We saw a lot of interest from committee members in the offense of signing statements, and also in the refusal to comply with subpoenas. Those are the issues that seem to have the most traction (and the least congressional complicity).
Now would be the time for a little less talk and a lot more action! Please call your Representative at (202) 224-3121 and ask them to call John Conyers and ask for impeachment hearings to begin. Please ask everyone you know to do the same. Please call every morning until it happens.
4:10 Nadler points out that whereas evidence was nonexistant or disputed, Bush asserted repeatedly that it was absolutely certain. Lundgren claims that Bush based that on the wisdom of intelligence agencies around the world [sic!]. [Even if that were true, isn't it a problem that US intelligence was full of doubts and major counter-evidence?]
4:05 Lundgren claims Bush meant well. Nadler asks about evidence on edited NIE presented today. Lundgren dismisses it. Audience laughs. Lundgren asks for people to be removed. Conyers says that if anyone causes a disruption at the end of the hearing they will be forbidden to attend any more hearings.
3:58: Ellison is trying again to get Presser to agree there are grounds for impeachment on the matter of war lies. He agrees, only if Kucinich's case is "proved." Ellison asks Radkin too, but he pulls out the "they meant well and sadly turned out to be wrong, which is different from intentionally lying." I'd like Kucinich to make the overwhelming case that Bugliosi has been making that they knowingly lied, but he instead makes the reasonable case that if all the assertions turn out to be false that is sufficient grounds for an impeachment inquiry.
3:55: Ellison is giving Kucinich another opportunity to speak about his article of impeachment on war lies, which he is doing at some length. Lundgren is the only Republican member still here. Conyers, Nadler, Scott, Lofgren, and Baldwin are here, and everyone is awake.
3:54 After Fein suggests a law banning use of funds for anything signing statemented, Ellison asks why the president couldn't just signing statement that new law. Fein had no answer.
3:45 Red Debbie Wasserman-Schultz is here for first time and expressing concern of some sort about signing statements.
3:38 Rep Schiff wants a new Church Committee to last into the next Congress, and he wants to White House to notify the Congress in a timely manner when it is about to violate laws. (I do hope I am hallucinating now.) Schwartz points out that there is already a law requiring that the president notify Congress when he will use a signing statement to claim the right to violate a law, but Bush has used a signing statement to erase the requirement that he notify Congress about signing statements. Schwartz points out also that we should have no secret laws whatsoever.
3:34 Baldwin raises danger of leaving Bush and Cheney unchecked for seven more months, in particular the possibility of an attack on Iran. What impact would an impeachment inquiry have on the possibility of attacking Iran? Anderson: wants a bill passed! (???) Bugliosi refuses to speculate.
3:30 Baldwin is bringing up John Nichols' book and the Bill Moyers show he was on with Fein. She's quoting Nichols account of presidential toolbox passing from president to president. And the toolbox now has more powers in it than ever before.
Lundgren is asleep now.
3:25 pm Rep Brad Sherman shows up for first time and says Congress has become mere advisors to White House. President won't obey laws. Any law to fix the problem will be vetoed. To Fein: is nonfeasance an impeachable offense? Fein: the "take care that laws are faithfully executed" comes from English Bill of Rights ... meaning Yes. Sherman is talking about signing statements. Sherman asks Holtzman if a prosecutor should bring a case if virtually certain of not getting a conviction? She says maybe.
Kucinich has gone out and come back with what is probably a stack of petition signatures in support of impeachment. Ellison is talking with Kucinich.
3:19 p.m. Rep Hank Johnson asks Presser about his testimony back in the day that if Clinton lied he should be impeached: if a president lied about taking a nation into war, would that be an impeachable offense? Presser says "you'd have to look into the circumstances...." Johnson turns to Holtzman, which is much more productive.
Nadler and Scott are both sleeping. No joke.
3:13 Rep Cohen asks Holtzman about what branch Cheney belongs to. Fein points out that a Senator has been impeached, so Cheney can claim he's in the legislative branch and be impeached. Cohen asks Fein whether it would be socially beneficial to impeach, or more important to do other things as Rep Watt advises. Fein says that impeaching Nixon was greatly unifying. He also says that there is penty of time since no investigation is needed. The president has confessed to viiolating FISA (witnesses are now routinely accusing the president of crimes and calling him "the president" against the rules).
3:03 Rep. Wexler says that ignoring subpoenas, spying, and torture, are - pace Pence - not "mere policy differences". Wexler expands on the subpoenas topic. Barr has left. Wexler wanted to ask him about statements he made in support of the rule of law during the Clinton impeachment. (Wexler may have been out of the room today when Barr came around in support of impeachment.) Rocky Anderson says Wexler is right, that we're not just talking about policy, but about Constitutional issues. Now, says Rocky, is the time for Congress to assert its power. Wexler now asks Fein about Mukasey coming before the committee and refusing to honor subpoenas. Fein says that's a clear impeachable offense on its own. Popular government can't work if the public can't know what its government is doing. You don't need an investigation to impeach: you just vote. [Go, Bruce!] Liz Holtzman adds that the president [OOPS, WHO? Can you say that?] has refused to give Congress what it needs to do its job and obstructs the work of Congress. She recommends holding an impeachment inquiry, requesting the information again, and if it is not provided then impeaching.
NOTE: Pacifica is terminating its broadcast, but we all appreciate them carrying the hearing up to this point.
3:02 Rep. Pence appears to be filibustering on his opposition to impeachment, chewing up time for no apparent purpose, asking three-minute questions that get three-word responses because they are just obvious rants.
2:53 p.m. One of the Repubicans tried to cut Bugliosi off by claiming he was discussing classified information. (He was discussing the declassified 2002 NIE.) The groans from the audience shut him up. Nobody said a thing about the groaning. Bugliosi was permitted to keep speaking.
2:43 Sheila Jackson-Lee (I kid you not) is urging passage of a bill to correct the abuse of signing statements (who spots the weakness in this strategy?). But she's now asking Fein to speak on war lies, and she's suggesting it's treason. And now she's giving Bugliosi a chance to expand on his case (the familiar case in his book, which many in this room have never heard).
2:36 At request of a Republican Conyers asks staff to remove signs. Staff is asking vets to remove buttons.
Tarak Kauff shouts that it's a disgrace when Bush is responsible for so many murders to demand that vets take off buttons. He's hauled out by police.
TJ Buomo refuses to take off his button, shouts out his 1st Amendment right and is hauled out by police.
Lori Arbeiter also refused to comply and was hauled out.
Liz Cater spoke up and tried to go help Lori and was threatened with removal until a bunch of us shouted that she'd done nothing, and the police backed off and she sat down.
2:26 Lofgren is still pushing idea of a truth and reconciliation commission. And Schwartz is recommending the 9-11 Commission as a model [I may be tired but I'm not hallucinating this.]
2:25 OK I've covered up my IMPEACH shirt because a friend thinks they'll try to arrest me for wearing it.
2:16 Republican Rep. Louis Gohmert: The president is not a crook, really! And: Never trust a Muslim!
2:10 The Judiciary Committee staff is begging me to cover up my IMPEACH shirt, and I'm refusing.
2:08 Rep Mel Watt here now for first time today. He said "If attorneys general are protecting me against terrorists, who is protecting me against THEM?" [Loud applause.] He then refuses to support impeachment. [silence] Did Pelosi send Watt here??
2:02 Franks has interrupted this hearing on the abuses of Bush and Cheney to let us know that we should all be VERY VERY AFRAID of Muslim terrorists. Then Franks says that if there was a failure, it was in allowing 9-11 to occur. [Wow, it's almost as if he's read Kucinich's article of impeachment on that very point. Yes, I'm kidding. He wouldn't ever have done that.]
1:49 Bobby Scott: Are we necessarily talking about impeachment or something other than impeachment or must it be impeachment, what other tool do we have to enforce limitations on executive power? Fein says that under Nixon when he was in Justice Dept they concluded you could not prosecute a president while in office, and concluded that impeachment was the only remedy for an abusive president. Barr added that Congress can pass laws. Holtzman said that doesn't matter if president is not bound to obey the laws, and that the real remedy is impeachment -- there's no running away from that. Bugliosi added that president can be prosecuted from the day he leaves office.
1:46 Congressman Kucinich has never left the room and is still sitting in the front row. People are still coming in -- all of them impeachment activists -- whenever a seat opens up.
1:42 King is still talking about shopping for uranium. Essentially his case amounts to "Yoo Hoo, Look way over here away from the Constitution. I'm making a giant ass of myself! Look Look!" See evidence re uranium lies HERE.
1:37 Nadler suggests impeachment is virtually impossible because conviction requires support of president's party. Holtzman says that impeachment can be bipartisan, as in fact it was with Nixon. But the Democrats led in the beginning and did not do a headcount before proceeding. The process was made completely fair. Southern Democats and Republicans joined in because it was fair to parties and fair to the president. And when we started nobody thought it would work. It did.
1:32 Nadler questions Schwartz assertion that impeachment is not practical. But prosecution faces possible block by pardons. Do we need to change pardon clause of the Constitution? [IS HE SERIOUS? Amend the Constitution to explicity bar the outrageous absurdity of self-pardoning??] Fein jumps in to say that a statute could require that pardons occur 8 months before leaving office, therby creating political penalty for abuse of the power.
1:30 Nadler suggests that even though executive privilege should not apply in an impeachment hearing, Bush might STILL assert it. Fein replies that remedy wold be an article of impeachment, as with Nixon.
1:28 Nadler tears down rightwing strawman that impeachment is about using presidency for personal gain, it's about abuse of power! If the Pres lied to Congres, and I think there's good evidence he did [Nadler just violated the HOLY RULE against calling the king a liar], it's impeachable. This prez claims right to call anyone in this room an enemy combatant and lock them up forever. This has never happened since Magna Carta in English-speaking countries. They torture. they don't prosecute their own crimes. There's no remedy by the executive branch! We've got to figure a way around this. [HOW ABOUT IMPEACHMENT?]
1:18 Lamar Smith citing fact that most people have discussed impeachment in this non-impeachment hearing. Presser claims Clinton impeachment had nothing to do with lying about sex, and that he has heard nothing today to suggest impeachable offenses. [YES! More "I am not a crook" discussion from the Republicans.] Radkin joining in: "He did not lie us into a war." Plus: "Lots of other presidents have lied us into wars too!" [Derrida called this kettle logic: I didn't break your kettle, it was broken when I borrowed it, they always break, and I never borrowed it at all.]
1:18 Q and A beginning.
Elliott Adams: he joked and passed on commenting.
Schwartz: Abuses of this president are unique. He claims the right to break any law and to do so secretly. This doctrine needs to be "squashed, disagreed with, and exposed." [HOW ABOUT IMPEACHED?]
Vincent Bugliosi beautifully challenges Presser's contention that a lie about sex is worse than a lie about war. Now Bugliosi is citing the WHITE HOUSE MEMO. Cindy Sheehan shouted out "Thank you, Vince!" Conyers said that his colleagues were urging him to take action. Cindy said "I urge YOU to take action!" Conyers said, "Well then, Sheehan you're out." Cindy left. Other impeachment advocates immediately came in to fill her seat and those of people who left with her.
Bruce Fein: Executive ONLY has powers we the people give him. Do all presidents spy during wars? No, and this is worse because this war is permanent. Robert Jackson at Nuremburg says that an abusive power unrebuked will lie around like a loaded weapon.
Stephen Presser: right to hold this hearing, but there is no evidence of fraudulent motives, and minority report of this committee shows that the admin has cooperated and acted in good faith.
Rocky Anderson: impeachment appropriate now, including for fraud in taking us into war by the pres... oops I mean hight ranking official of the administration.
Bob Barr: Our bill of rights is vanishing. He holds up and displys the Bill of Rights with most of it blacked out. He submits it into the record. Not my job to choose impeachment, but if choice is constitutional inquiry or silence, I choose inquiry. [One rightwinger won over already today!]
Liz H: Admin will never prosecute itself. Truth Commission won't work. Only impeachment is practical and possible. It eliminates executive privilege. Somebody get this bit onto Youtube ASAP!
12:58 Conyers letting each panelist add something in response to other panelists.
*****
12:53 Elliott Adams' excellent testimony. He's reading it now!
12:48 Fred Schwartz opposes impeachment as too late (as if he ever lifted a finger for it) but wants a big whopping "investigation" (which of course actually does take time, unlike impeaching Bush and Cheney on the grounds established today and over the past years).
12:44: A staffer is trying to get me to cover up my IMPEACH shirt and I'm refusing.
12:41 Rightwing minority witness Jeremy Radkin says war lies is clearly most important charge, but claims its "wild conspiracy charges." And, so, all other charges should be ignored as less important, and then this charge should be ignored as crazy.
12:34 Bugliosi is giving abbreviated version of his usual powerful rap on Bush lying us into war. AND he's calling for referral of criminal charges to the Justice Department (are you kidding me, Vince? you were going to advocate impeachment, not futility). Great rhetoric, though. [Strong applause results in Republican call to clear the room and Conyers refusal but repeated admonition.
12:32 Conyers is introducing Vince Bugliosi, holding up his book "The Prosecution of George W. Bush for murder."
12:25 Bruce Fein is now reading his excellent statement, posted earlier on this website.
12:20 p.m. Rightwing lawyer Stephen Presser making case that his brain has been absent from the room for the past couple of hours AND that Bill Clinton was a president who really merited impeachment. He claims that stating a theory about "unitary executive" is not an impeachable offense, but he's the first today to have suggested that.
Note: more citizens (all for impeachment) are gradually filling in more seats as staffers grow tired and hungry.
12:13 Rocky Anderson wants investigation (as if we don't already know the crimes and haven't just heard about them for hours). He wants to know about the spying program. [Fine, but we know, as he says, that it's felonious. So is it appropriate to "investigate" with no subpoena power or to impeach?] "There has never been a more compelling case for impeachment!" [NOW YOU'RE TALKING!!] Rocky goes on to support legislation delegitimizing signign statements (as if that were possible). He wants legislation (which would be vetoed) to criminalize an illegal attack on Iran [I kid you not].
12:10 Bob Barr going on about wide variety of grave abuses, but not so much what to do about them.
11:58 Liz Holtzman gives prima facie grounds for impeachment: systematic refusal to obey the laws, spying, torture, signing statements, misuse of executive privilege, war lies, etc... we need an impeachment inquiry to educate the public and give members of administration facing accusations a forum in which to respond.
PANEL 2 BEGINS WITH NO QandA for PANEL 1.
11:49 Republican Rep. Walter Jones, in response to signing-statement announcements of intention to violate laws, wants the public to have easy access to the signing statements and Congress to have the right to ask the White House about its criminal announcements. [Now, how does this make more sense than renaming french fries? Well, at least it points to the problem and misses the solution so wildly that even a reporter could see it.] He wants his bill passed now (as if it wouldn't be vetoed!!).
11:45 Rep. Brad Miller discussing various abuses and various so-called legislative remedies.
11:30 Rep Maurice Hinchey: president dominates entire government. He focuses on "corruption and incompetance". [Huh? what about criminality and murder?] [He's going over all the old material in way too conservative a manner and putting me to sleep.] This is th emost impeachable administration in the history of America. [Hello! I'm awake!]
11:25 Kucinich has a written statement (Can somebody get a copy?) and focuses on destructive nature of Iraq war, including impact on US economy. Statements made to justify war were false. Congress members believed the lies. Rules of House prevent me using familiar terms. (DK introduces his three resolutions for impeachment into the record and asks that members read them.) Should we honor our oaths to support and defend the Constitution? Will Congress endorse with its silence the methods used to take us into the Iraq war, one of the greatest injustices imaginable? Act now! Right a very great wrong! Hold accountable those who misled this nation! [DK spoke less than 5 minutes and avoided the I word.]
Kucinich's Remarks.
11:22 PANEL ONE BEGINS WITH KUCINICH.
11:20 Keith Ellison has written statement (Can somebody get a copy?). Congress needs to maintain its power. Impeachment is only way to do it. [Yeah!]
11:15 Rep Tammy Baldwin submitting a written statement. This is about the conduct of future presidents for generations. This is not frivolous, but no task more important than to consider whether our leaders have violated their oaths of office. Public expects no less. After all, it is their Constitution. American people and nations around the world wonder whether US is going to illegally attack Iran, whether their conversations are wiretaped, whether people are being held in sectre prisons, who authorized torture. But attempt to investigate are blocked. List of ignored subpoenas is long. True accountability is impossible. In my judgment at least two high ranking administration officials have met the standard for impeachment [meaning Bush and Cheney] - I now firmly believe we must begin impeachment hearings.
11:08 Rep Hank Johnson: action must be taken.. prevailing view has been that impeachment should be off the table...and public would not approve, but impeachment would restore life and vitality to the system of checks and balances that is the hallmark of our system of government [yeah !] if lying about consensual sexual activity fits the bill, then surely lying to the American people about the invasion of Iraq, a sovereign nation, resulting in countless Iraqi deaths, 4,000 Americans, surely that qualifies as an impeachable offense [brief loud applause]. Kidnapping, detaining, torturing, selective prosecutions, etc, etc. Should consider impeaching. [Conyers again says not to clap.]
11:06 Rep Steve Cohen, freshman from Memphis: recounts Gonzales resigning as he and Bruce Fein were drafting articles of impeachment for him. Supports this hearing.
11:02 Trent Franks just said the word Impeachment repeatedly, requesting that the word never be mentioned. Then said Terrorist, Terrorism, and Terror many many times.
10:57 Rep Sheila Jackson-Lee quoting preamble to the Constitution and defending the importance of taking up impeachment hearings, without predicting the outcome. She is concerned about war lies, torture, possibility of treason, firing of US attorneys, signing statements (and she has legislation [I kid you not!] to address that abuse).
10:51 Republican Rep Pence wants to be sure this is not about impeachment and at the same time wants to argue against impeachment. [The Republicans are putting impeachment on the table AND making themselves look like McCain-style senile fools. Pence is arguing that Bush has not done things he's publicly on record confessing to, thus opening the door to the corporate media to cover these issues - if they dare.] "There have been no high crimes and misdemeanors!" ["I am not a crook!"]
10:50 Rep Jerrold Nadler saying the offenses now are far more serious than what Clinton was impeached for.
10:45 Republican Rep Dan Lundgren is disappointed. This is impeachment light. The allegations without real impeachment. [Exactly.]
10:43 Rep Zoe Lofgren urging further investigations like today's.
10:41 Conyers says it's not an impeachment hearing, and that that could only follow a vote in the full house [of which we have ALREADY HAD THREE SUCCESSFULLY FOR THIS PRESIDENT IN RESPONSE TO RESOLUTIONS FROM KUCINICH!!!]
10:37 Republican Rep King is pointing out that "power to remove" means impeachment - and he's shocked and scandalized, and he's seen no impeachable offenses. King is voluntarily bringing up the forged Niger documents and defending the lies about attempts to purchase uranium (as if that would have justified an aggressive war if true, which it wasn't). He's claiming to have new proof and introducing it into the record without explaining it.
10:35 Rep Bobby Scott made brief remarks in support of today's hearing, but did not mention impeachment.
10:31 Conyers introduced Robert Wexler, and the audience applauded him. He's laying out the case for impeachment powerfully. Never before has an administration so diminished the powers of the legislative branch....ordered officials to refuse to testify or even appear... unprecedented ... distorted executive privilege beyond recognition ... most appropriate response is to hold hearings for impeachment [applause, and staffer reprimanding those of us applauding]. We have to seek impeachment and removal from office... Delicate balance of power eviscerated... not a Democratic or Republican issue, This is an American issue. The only option left is impeachment hearings. In 1973 articles of impeachment were introduced against Nixon after he tried to use executive privilege ... we should look more deeply into what happened... We need to begin to take our government and our country back.
Conyers reminds audience that we can make no reactions.
Wexler's full statement.
10:26 Ranking Republican Lamar Smith: We recently hosted a book of the month club. Nothing is going to come out of this for impeachment. I know it, the media knows it, the speaker knows it ... there's no evidence for impeachment. You cannot impeach a president simply because you don't like him. No evidence of any criminal wrong doing. 9% approve of Congress, making Bush look good at 32%. Americans want "bipartisanship." Smith is now reading an excerpt from the House Rules: no personally offensive language toward the president, etc...
10:19 a.m. ET Conyers is speaking quite to the point on the power of the purse and the power of impeachment (he said the power "to remove" and avoided the I word). He's mentioning politicization of Justice Dept, signing statements, detention, rendition, "possible" manipulation of intelligence, retaliation including outing of Plame, excessive secrecy. Evidence is both credible and substantial and merits direct answers from "the most senior members of the administration under oath if possible" (by which he likely means Bush and Cheney, but how does he propose to put them under oath? We will struggle with this legacy regardless of electoral outcome. Some say we've done too little too late [damn straight]. I held hearings on Downing Street Memo and Ohio elections before being chairman, and as chairman I've held more than 45 separate public hearings on these matters [to what end?]. We've sent subpoenas and pursued criminal contempt [with what outcome?]. We expect to take action against Karl Rove for refusal to comply with a subpoena [what action, when?, and will it include impeaching his former boss?] We've held investigations and passed legislation and we're not done until we achieve accountability [how, without impeachment?].
10:08 Very noisy protests ongoing in the hallway, which can be heard in the hearing room. My internet connection is shakey and I hope it holds out. Hearing has not begun. A huge number of congressional staffers are here filling up seats.
10:02 Noisy standing ovation by some 20 people when Dennis Kucinich and his wife Elizabeth and dedicated scheduler Amy Vossbrink walked in.
9:57 a.m. I'm in the back row with a power outlet and a good connection online. They let a grand total of 17 members of the public into the room. A crowd of hundreds is in the hallway shouting "Shame! Shame!" despite being offered two large overflow rooms. The 17 of us include a bunch of people with IMPEACH shirts, after we won an argument in the hallway for the right to wear them -- led by Col. (retired) Ann Wright. At least half of us (not I) are members of Vets for Peace. [18 people: Dave Lindorff got in as press]
7:48 A Capitol Police officer is here, making everyone (including disabled vets) stand, not sit, and preventing me from having my computer near a power outlet, so I'm going to turn it off and save the battery.
7:38 About 60 or 70 people are here in line. We're all impeachment advocates. We've made our own numbered tickets. Cynthia Papermaster is 1. Cindy Sheehan is 2. I'm 7. We're in the hallway outside Rayburn 2141, and nobody official has shown up yet. We don't know how many people will get in, and how many will sit in overflow rooms. By the way, it is unheard of to have or to need overflow rooms, but they will today. I'll be on Pacifica radio at 9:30. Their broadcast starts at 9:00 a.m. ET.
Hearing on Impeachment Videos
David Swanson, AfterDowningStreet.org, July 26, 2008
Kucinich enters hearing to cheers:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X2MWTh0QF40
Rep. Robert Wexler:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_T1ojrKhp6E
Rep. Steve King:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4eZxCloEbQk
Rep. Jerrold Nadler:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hL7259BAP9s
Rep. Dennis Kucinich:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DRAcenaTVkQ
Bruce Fein:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=80IphtHrFzg
Vincent Bugliosi:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GDAFozFn4kU
Bruce Fein:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nXyDK2-p4fU
Vincent Bugliosi:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q53p34yzZac
Vincent Bugliosi:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7abu9a0xtNI
Lamar Smith:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=epf0QpeFcag
Rep. Baldwin:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hFNmanXtZ9o
Maurice Hinchey:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6CHKV-7vvYk
Rep. Dan Lungren:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VKc5e0oAvYM
Protesters ejected:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uosDxv1bjCc
Rep. Walter Jones:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iU5HKfes0cE
Congressman Steve Cohen:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZezNyKmKF1M
Before the hearing Dennis Kucinich took calls on CSpan:
Part 1:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A5czQ9dmsG4
Part 2:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7uRQeu_kHDc
Part 3:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B3biwQ2D700
Support the Kucinich Impeachment Hearing on Friday
Tell your Representatives to support impeachment by cosponsoring H. Res. 1345:
Rep. Dennis Kucinich has led the fight for impeachment since April 2007, when he defied Speaker Pelosi and courageously introduced 3 Articles of Impeachment (H.Res. 333/799) against Vice President Cheney. On June 10, Kucinich defied Speaker Pelosi again and introduced 35 Articles of Impeachment (H.Res. 1258) against President Bush.
When Pelosi refused to allow hearings on any of the 38 Articles of Impeachment, Kucinich returned to the floor of Congress to introduce one more Article of Impeachment against President Bush (H.Res. 1345).
Thanks to massive pressure from Democrats.com and our pro-impeachment allies, Speaker Pelosi finally allowed Chairman Conyers to hold a hearing this Friday. Kucinich will finally get a few minutes to argue for impeachment, along with Rep. Robert Wexler, former Rep. Liz Holtzman, and former Salt Lake City mayor Rocky Anderson. Kucinich made a video to thank us for our efforts.
H.Res. 1345 focuses on Bush's ultimate crime - invading Iraq on the basis of lies. The evidence is overwhelming that George Bush, Dick Cheney, Condi Rice, Karl Rove, Andy Card, and other top officials deliberately manufactured those lies to "sell" an invasion whose real purpose was to gain control of Iraq's oil and establish military bases in the heart of the Middle East.
This was the agenda of the Project for a New American Century that Bush adopted after stealing the 2000 election. And it's the reason Bush and John McCain are determined to stay in Iraq forever, even though Prime Minister Nouri al Maliki supports Barack Obama's plan to remove all our troops by 2010.
When Kucinich testifies on Friday, he will naturally face hostile questions from rightwing Republicans who impeached President Clinton. But Kucinich will also face hostile questions from key Democrats who oppose impeachment.
Some of these Democrats supported the invasion of Iraq: Howard Berman (CA28), Rick Boucher (VA09), Adam Schiff (CA29), Brad Sherman (CA27), and Anthony Weiner (NY09).
But most of these Democrats oppose impeachment because they are cowering in fear of a counterattack from the White House and FOX News: John Conyers (MI14), Artur Davis (AL07), Bill Delahunt (MA10), Zoe Lofgren (CA16), Jerry Nadler (NY08), Linda Sanchez (CA39), Debbie Wasserman Schultz (FL20), Bobby Scott (VA03), Betty Sutton (OH13), and Mel Watt (NC12).
Only a few Judiciary Democrats understand that the Founding Fathers gave Congress the power of impeachment as the only way to stop a President from defying the Constitution and becoming a dictator, as Bush has done: Robert Wexler (FL19), Tammy Baldwin (WI02), Steve Cohen (TN09), Keith Ellison (MN05), Luis Gutierrez (IL04), Sheila Jackson Lee (TX18), Hank Johnson (GA04), and Maxine Waters (CA35).
If anti-impeachment Democrats get their way, Friday's 2-hour hearing will be the only "impeachment" hearing for this entire Congress - and then Bush will try to pardon himself and everyone else before leaving office next January, just as his father pardoned six Iran-contra criminals.
So it is crucial for all of us - now over 500,000! - to tell our Representatives today to support impeachment by cosponsoring Kucinich's H. Res. 1345:
http://www.democrats.com/peoplesemailnetwork/142
And if you can do more, please make free calls to every Judiciary Democrat who opposes impeachment through CauseCaller:
http://www.causecaller.com/causes.php?c=House_Judiciary_Democrats_Impeachment
Simply enter your phone number and click the "Start Calling" button. (Click "Call me back if I accidentally hang up" in case you hang up by mistake.) In a few seconds, your phone will "magically" ring and CauseCaller will say the name of the first Representative on the list. Listen carefully for the name of each Member so you can repeat the name to the receptionist - or just say "The Representative." Don't hang up between calls - let the receptionists hang up and CauseCaller will dial the next Representative.
If you want to do even more, call your favorite radio or TV talk shows and tell them how important Friday's hearings will be, and how strongly you support impeachment for whichever reasons are most important to you. Prepare your thoughts in advance so you sound informed and determined.
And if you're near Washington DC, join Veterans for Peace to lobby Congress on Thursday and hold a pro-impeachment rally on Friday:
http://www.democrats.com/node/17211
Lots more details and actions here:
http://www.afterdowningstreet.org/node/34943
Thanks for all you do!
Update 1: The evidence of Bush's war crimes and other impeachable offenses grows daily. Investigative reporter Jane Mayer's new book The Dark Side provides more evidence that Bush authorized torture. The British Parliament accused Bush of torture.
Yet Attorney General Mukasey told Congress he won't prosecute anyone who followed Bush's illegal torture orders. Even worse, Bush's rightwing supporters have begun a propaganda campaign for blanket pardons of everyone in the Bush administration!After IndyMac's failure, which bank could be next?
Madlen Read, AP, July 14, 2008
As banks prepare to reveal quarterly results, investors wonder which could be next to fail
NEW YORK (AP) -- The bank executives who promised months ago that the worst of the financial crisis had passed are looking less and less credible to investors. And that could pose a problem as the industry releases what are expected to be dismal second-quarter earnings over the next few weeks.
Certainly, not all banks are going the way of IndyMac Corp., which was seized by the government on Friday. In fact, analysts expect several banks to come out on top as the industry consolidates in the coming years.
But for now, investors aren't taking any chances. After IndyMac was seized -- the seventh bank to fail since the credit crisis began last summer, and the second-largest bank to fail in the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp.'s 75-year history -- stocks in nearly all the nation's banks were clobbered Monday as the market bet that there will be more failures.
Stocks that were hit the hardest Monday included First Horizon National Corp., which operates in the Southern United States; Zions Bancorp, located in Utah and Idaho; and Washington Mutual Inc., the nation's largest savings and loan. Stocks of bigger banks such as Wachovia Corp., Citigroup Inc., Bank of America Corp., and Wells Fargo & Co., also tumbled.
It's going to take more than a few hopeful corporate outlooks and capital raising plans this earnings season for investors and consumers to feel at ease again. No matter how much cash a bank has on hand, if enough customers are worried about their deposits and withdraw them, that bank will be in trouble, said Adam Schneider, a principal with Deloitte Consulting LLP.
"The noise becomes the story after a while," Schneider said. "Any institution can be hurt by a run on the bank."
A virtual run by investors who had bought securities through Bear Stearns Cos. led to its demise in March, when the flailing investment bank was bought by JPMorgan Chase & Co.
By examining banks' ratios of defaulting loans to total outstanding loans and to reserves and stock -- two measures of a bank's health -- only a handful of companies appear to be in jeopardy, according to bank analyst Richard Bove of Ladenburg Thalmann. These small banks include Downey Financial Corp., Corus Bankshares Inc., Doral Financial Corp., BFC Financial Corp., BankUnited Financial Corp. and FirstFed Financial Corp.
However, bank runs are unpredictable. To be sure, IndyMac did hold an extremely high number of defaulting loans compared to its total loans and reserves -- but the Southern California lender was not on the FDIC's list of 90 banks that could be in danger of failing.
This is why even those banks that have worked to raise extra cash are still losing investors.
Responding to its plunging stock price, National City said Monday it "is experiencing no unusual depositor or creditor activity," and that it had more than $12 billion in extra short-term liquidity at the close of the business day Friday. National City is expected to report a second-quarter loss on July 24.
And Washington Mutual tried to reassure investors Monday by saying it has enough cash available to survive tough conditions.
But home values are still falling, giving the market little reason to believe in a rebound anytime soon.
"It is a bit premature to suggest that this is the bottom," said Aite Group LLC bank analyst Eva Weber. "We'll need to keep a close eye on what the housing market continues to do."
The situation could be worse, according to Deloitte's Schneider. "We're not seeing massive runs on the bank on a Depression-era scale." And the ones that have occurred are "pretty orderly failures."
Also, big-name banks that have been losing money for nearly a year now -- like Citigroup Inc. -- have not yet seen depositers bail.
Citigroup, the nation's largest bank by assets, is expected on Friday to post a second-quarter loss, which would be its third-straight quarterly shortfall. The other four big U.S. banks are also expected to report worse results than last year and issue grim outlooks. Wachovia Corp. already announced it will post a loss for the second quarter, and analysts predict JPMorgan Chase & Co., Bank of America Corp. and Wells Fargo will report profit declines.
Washingto Mutual is expected to report a second-quarter loss next week. Lehman Brothers analyst Bruce Harting predicted Monday the thrift will take a $4 billion loss provision, and that its loan losses will eventually amount to $26 billion.
For consumers, the worry is that they'll have an even more difficult time finding loans at affordable rates. When a bank says it is tightening lending standards and shedding assets, it means it's issuing fewer loans and charging higher rates -- particularly for mortgages and home-equity loans.
"They can expect a harder and longer search, and they can expect that rates will vary from institution to institution," Schneider said, noting that banks are targeting customers with better credit histories and more stable jobs and incomes.
The FDIC estimated it will take $4 billion to $8 billion to cover IndyMac's deposits, likely lowering its reserve ratio to a level that would require it to reassess the rates it charges banks.
When it comes to the day-to-day business of operating checking and savings accounts, not very much is changing for the consumer. But IndyMac's failure serves as a stark reminder to not deposit more than $100,000 in an account at a single institution -- the FDIC generally only guarantees up to $100,000 of your money if your bank goes under, or $250,000 for some retirement accounts. Beyond that amount, the government decides whether to pay back the customer on a case-by-case basis.
As banks prepare to reveal quarterly results, investors wonder which could be next to fail
NEW YORK (AP) -- The bank executives who promised months ago that the worst of the financial crisis had passed are looking less and less credible to investors. And that could pose a problem as the industry releases what are expected to be dismal second-quarter earnings over the next few weeks.
Certainly, not all banks are going the way of IndyMac Corp., which was seized by the government on Friday. In fact, analysts expect several banks to come out on top as the industry consolidates in the coming years.
But for now, investors aren't taking any chances. After IndyMac was seized -- the seventh bank to fail since the credit crisis began last summer, and the second-largest bank to fail in the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp.'s 75-year history -- stocks in nearly all the nation's banks were clobbered Monday as the market bet that there will be more failures.
Stocks that were hit the hardest Monday included First Horizon National Corp., which operates in the Southern United States; Zions Bancorp, located in Utah and Idaho; and Washington Mutual Inc., the nation's largest savings and loan. Stocks of bigger banks such as Wachovia Corp., Citigroup Inc., Bank of America Corp., and Wells Fargo & Co., also tumbled.
It's going to take more than a few hopeful corporate outlooks and capital raising plans this earnings season for investors and consumers to feel at ease again. No matter how much cash a bank has on hand, if enough customers are worried about their deposits and withdraw them, that bank will be in trouble, said Adam Schneider, a principal with Deloitte Consulting LLP.
"The noise becomes the story after a while," Schneider said. "Any institution can be hurt by a run on the bank."
A virtual run by investors who had bought securities through Bear Stearns Cos. led to its demise in March, when the flailing investment bank was bought by JPMorgan Chase & Co.
By examining banks' ratios of defaulting loans to total outstanding loans and to reserves and stock -- two measures of a bank's health -- only a handful of companies appear to be in jeopardy, according to bank analyst Richard Bove of Ladenburg Thalmann. These small banks include Downey Financial Corp., Corus Bankshares Inc., Doral Financial Corp., BFC Financial Corp., BankUnited Financial Corp. and FirstFed Financial Corp.
However, bank runs are unpredictable. To be sure, IndyMac did hold an extremely high number of defaulting loans compared to its total loans and reserves -- but the Southern California lender was not on the FDIC's list of 90 banks that could be in danger of failing.
This is why even those banks that have worked to raise extra cash are still losing investors.
Responding to its plunging stock price, National City said Monday it "is experiencing no unusual depositor or creditor activity," and that it had more than $12 billion in extra short-term liquidity at the close of the business day Friday. National City is expected to report a second-quarter loss on July 24.
And Washington Mutual tried to reassure investors Monday by saying it has enough cash available to survive tough conditions.
But home values are still falling, giving the market little reason to believe in a rebound anytime soon.
"It is a bit premature to suggest that this is the bottom," said Aite Group LLC bank analyst Eva Weber. "We'll need to keep a close eye on what the housing market continues to do."
The situation could be worse, according to Deloitte's Schneider. "We're not seeing massive runs on the bank on a Depression-era scale." And the ones that have occurred are "pretty orderly failures."
Also, big-name banks that have been losing money for nearly a year now -- like Citigroup Inc. -- have not yet seen depositers bail.
Citigroup, the nation's largest bank by assets, is expected on Friday to post a second-quarter loss, which would be its third-straight quarterly shortfall. The other four big U.S. banks are also expected to report worse results than last year and issue grim outlooks. Wachovia Corp. already announced it will post a loss for the second quarter, and analysts predict JPMorgan Chase & Co., Bank of America Corp. and Wells Fargo will report profit declines.
Washingto Mutual is expected to report a second-quarter loss next week. Lehman Brothers analyst Bruce Harting predicted Monday the thrift will take a $4 billion loss provision, and that its loan losses will eventually amount to $26 billion.
For consumers, the worry is that they'll have an even more difficult time finding loans at affordable rates. When a bank says it is tightening lending standards and shedding assets, it means it's issuing fewer loans and charging higher rates -- particularly for mortgages and home-equity loans.
"They can expect a harder and longer search, and they can expect that rates will vary from institution to institution," Schneider said, noting that banks are targeting customers with better credit histories and more stable jobs and incomes.
The FDIC estimated it will take $4 billion to $8 billion to cover IndyMac's deposits, likely lowering its reserve ratio to a level that would require it to reassess the rates it charges banks.
When it comes to the day-to-day business of operating checking and savings accounts, not very much is changing for the consumer. But IndyMac's failure serves as a stark reminder to not deposit more than $100,000 in an account at a single institution -- the FDIC generally only guarantees up to $100,000 of your money if your bank goes under, or $250,000 for some retirement accounts. Beyond that amount, the government decides whether to pay back the customer on a case-by-case basis.
Officials: 9 US troops killed in Afghanistan
JASON STRAZIUSO, AP, July 13, 2008
KABUL, Afghanistan - A multi-pronged militant assault on a small, remote U.S. base killed nine American soldiers and wounded 15 Sunday in the deadliest attack on U.S. forces in Afghanistan in three years, officials said.
The attack on the U.S. outpost came the same day a suicide bomber targeting a police patrol killed 24 people, while U.S. coalition and Afghan soldiers killed 40 militants elsewhere in the south.
The militant assault on the American troops began around 4:30 a.m. in a dangerous region close to the Pakistan border and lasted throughout the day.
Militants fired machine guns, rocket-propelled grenades and mortars from homes and a mosque in the village of Wanat in the mountainous northeastern province of Kunar, NATO's International Security Assistance Force said in a statement.
Nine U.S. troops were killed in the attack, a Western official said on condition of anonymity because he was not authorized to release the troops' nationalities.
NATO confirmed nine of its soldiers had been killed and 15 wounded. Four Afghan soldiers also were wounded, NATO said.
"Although no final assessment has been made, it is believed insurgents suffered heavy casualties during several hours of fighting," NATO said in a statement.
Lt. Col. Rumi Nielson-Green, the top U.S. military spokeswoman in Afghanistan, said she could not comment because the fight was ongoing.
The attack appeared to be the deadliest for U.S. troops in Afghanistan since June 2005, when 16 American troops were killed — also in Kunar province — when their helicopter was shot down by a rocket-propelled grenade.
Those troops were on their way to rescue a four-man team of Navy SEALs caught in a militant ambush. Three SEALs were killed, the fourth was rescued days later by a farmer.
Sunday's attack came during a period of rising violence in Afghanistan. Monthly death tolls of U.S. and NATO troops in Afghanistan surpassed U.S. military deaths in Iraq in May and June. Last Monday, a suicide bomber attacked the Indian Embassy in Kabul, killing 58 people in the deadliest attack in the Afghan capital since 2001.
In two other incidents this month, an Afghan government commission found that U.S. aircraft killed 47 civilians during a bombing run in Nangarhar province, while a separate incident in Nuristan province is alleged by an Afghan officials to have killed 22 civilians.
The high casualty tolls have prompted the International Committee of the Red Cross this week to ask all sides to show restraint and avoid civilian casualties. But violence continued around the country on Sunday.
A suicide bomber on a motorcycle blew himself up next to a police patrol Sunday in the southern province of Uruzgan, killing 24 people.
The bomb attack on a police patrol at a busy intersection of the Deh Rawood district killed five police officers and 19 civilians, wounding more than 30 others, said Juma Gul Himat, Uruzgan's police chief. Most of those killed and wounded were shopkeepers and young boys selling goods in the street, he said.
Elsewhere, Taliban militants executed two women in central Afghanistan late Saturday after accusing them of working as prostitutes on a U.S. base.
The women, dressed in blue burqas, were shot and killed just outside Ghazni city in central Afghanistan, said Sayed Ismal, a spokesman for Ghazni's governor. He called the two "innocent local people."
Taliban fighters told Associated Press Television News the two women were executed for allegedly running a prostitution ring catering to U.S. soldiers and other foreign contractors at a U.S. base in Ghazni city.
1st Lt. Nathan Perry, a U.S. military spokesman, said he had not heard allegations "anything close to that nature."
Meanwhile, at least 40 militants were killed following an attack on Afghan and U.S.-led coalition forces in Helmand province, the coalition said in a statement.
The militants attacked the combined forces near Sangin on Saturday from "multiple concealed and fortified positions," the coalition said. Thirty "enemy boats" and several small bridges have been destroyed on the Helmand River during two days of fighting, it said.
A soldier with NATO's International Security Assistance Force died in a roadside blast in Helmand province Sunday, a statement said. The soldier's nationality was not released and it wasn't clear if the death was connected to the two-day battle.
More than 2,300 people — mostly militants — have died in insurgency related violence this year, according to an Associated Press tally of official figures.
In the country's north, a soldier serving with ISAF died of wounds caused by an explosion Saturday, the military alliance said in a statement. The statement did not give any further details of the explosion. The soldier's nationality was not been disclosed.
There are nearly 53,000 troops from 40 nations serving the ISAF in Afghanistan.
___
Associated Press writers Noor Khan in Kandahar and Rahim Faiez and Fisnik Abrashi in Kabul contributed to this report.
KABUL, Afghanistan - A multi-pronged militant assault on a small, remote U.S. base killed nine American soldiers and wounded 15 Sunday in the deadliest attack on U.S. forces in Afghanistan in three years, officials said.
The attack on the U.S. outpost came the same day a suicide bomber targeting a police patrol killed 24 people, while U.S. coalition and Afghan soldiers killed 40 militants elsewhere in the south.
The militant assault on the American troops began around 4:30 a.m. in a dangerous region close to the Pakistan border and lasted throughout the day.
Militants fired machine guns, rocket-propelled grenades and mortars from homes and a mosque in the village of Wanat in the mountainous northeastern province of Kunar, NATO's International Security Assistance Force said in a statement.
Nine U.S. troops were killed in the attack, a Western official said on condition of anonymity because he was not authorized to release the troops' nationalities.
NATO confirmed nine of its soldiers had been killed and 15 wounded. Four Afghan soldiers also were wounded, NATO said.
"Although no final assessment has been made, it is believed insurgents suffered heavy casualties during several hours of fighting," NATO said in a statement.
Lt. Col. Rumi Nielson-Green, the top U.S. military spokeswoman in Afghanistan, said she could not comment because the fight was ongoing.
The attack appeared to be the deadliest for U.S. troops in Afghanistan since June 2005, when 16 American troops were killed — also in Kunar province — when their helicopter was shot down by a rocket-propelled grenade.
Those troops were on their way to rescue a four-man team of Navy SEALs caught in a militant ambush. Three SEALs were killed, the fourth was rescued days later by a farmer.
Sunday's attack came during a period of rising violence in Afghanistan. Monthly death tolls of U.S. and NATO troops in Afghanistan surpassed U.S. military deaths in Iraq in May and June. Last Monday, a suicide bomber attacked the Indian Embassy in Kabul, killing 58 people in the deadliest attack in the Afghan capital since 2001.
In two other incidents this month, an Afghan government commission found that U.S. aircraft killed 47 civilians during a bombing run in Nangarhar province, while a separate incident in Nuristan province is alleged by an Afghan officials to have killed 22 civilians.
The high casualty tolls have prompted the International Committee of the Red Cross this week to ask all sides to show restraint and avoid civilian casualties. But violence continued around the country on Sunday.
A suicide bomber on a motorcycle blew himself up next to a police patrol Sunday in the southern province of Uruzgan, killing 24 people.
The bomb attack on a police patrol at a busy intersection of the Deh Rawood district killed five police officers and 19 civilians, wounding more than 30 others, said Juma Gul Himat, Uruzgan's police chief. Most of those killed and wounded were shopkeepers and young boys selling goods in the street, he said.
Elsewhere, Taliban militants executed two women in central Afghanistan late Saturday after accusing them of working as prostitutes on a U.S. base.
The women, dressed in blue burqas, were shot and killed just outside Ghazni city in central Afghanistan, said Sayed Ismal, a spokesman for Ghazni's governor. He called the two "innocent local people."
Taliban fighters told Associated Press Television News the two women were executed for allegedly running a prostitution ring catering to U.S. soldiers and other foreign contractors at a U.S. base in Ghazni city.
1st Lt. Nathan Perry, a U.S. military spokesman, said he had not heard allegations "anything close to that nature."
Meanwhile, at least 40 militants were killed following an attack on Afghan and U.S.-led coalition forces in Helmand province, the coalition said in a statement.
The militants attacked the combined forces near Sangin on Saturday from "multiple concealed and fortified positions," the coalition said. Thirty "enemy boats" and several small bridges have been destroyed on the Helmand River during two days of fighting, it said.
A soldier with NATO's International Security Assistance Force died in a roadside blast in Helmand province Sunday, a statement said. The soldier's nationality was not released and it wasn't clear if the death was connected to the two-day battle.
More than 2,300 people — mostly militants — have died in insurgency related violence this year, according to an Associated Press tally of official figures.
In the country's north, a soldier serving with ISAF died of wounds caused by an explosion Saturday, the military alliance said in a statement. The statement did not give any further details of the explosion. The soldier's nationality was not been disclosed.
There are nearly 53,000 troops from 40 nations serving the ISAF in Afghanistan.
___
Associated Press writers Noor Khan in Kandahar and Rahim Faiez and Fisnik Abrashi in Kabul contributed to this report.
STOP Congressional WAR Resolution
Take Action Today - Tell Congress:
No Blockade!
No War on Iran!
Sign the Petition Now
As we write, Congress is on the verge of voting on Congressional Resolution 362. (read text here)
This resolution, which has 220 co-sponsors from both major parties, demands that the President immediately impose a land, sea, and air blockade on Iran to stop shipments of gasoline, and to subject all cargo entering or leaving Iran to stringent inspection requirements. This would require a blockade of the Strait of Hormuz.
Imposing such a blockade is considered an act of war, and is clearly meant to escalate tensions and pave the way for use of military force against the people of Iran, with 'weapons of mass destruction' as a justification. The resolution makes no mention of the U.S. National Intelligence Estimate report of December 2007, which found that there was no credible evidence of an ongoing nuclear weapons development program Iran.
A similar vote, cast in October of 2002, paved the way for the brutal invasion and occupation of Iraq, which has cost the lives of 1 million Iraqis and more than 4100 U.S. soldiers.
This Resolution, which is paralleled by a similar Senate bill (S. RES 580), could come to a vote at any time. Congressional leadership has assumed that there will be little opposition to the resolution - a staffer in House Speaker Nancy Pelosi's office said that it is expected to "pass like a hot knife through butter." They need to hear from you today to let them know that we will not be silent as they initiate another illegal war in the Middle East using discredited lies about "weapons of mass destruction."
We must take action now to prevent another bipartisan rush to war.
Please take action today:
Sign the Petition at http://stopwaroniran.org/petition.shtml
Endorse the Emergency Call to Action for August 2 at
http://stopwaroniran.org/aug22008endorse.shtml
List your local action at
http://stopwaroniran.org/aug22008volorgcent.shtml
Make an Emergency Donation at http://stopwaroniran.org/donate.shtml
Tell a Friend
http://stopwaroniran.org/friend.shtml
Sign up for updates
http://stopwaroniran.org/updates.shtml
AUGUST 2:
An Emergency Call to Action
Stop War on IRAN
Troops Out of IRAQ
Actions in 50+ cities
Mass March in NYC
In Charlotte, NC:
Sat., Aug. 2 Demonstration to Stop War On Iran & Protest Gas Prices
1:00 pm
Independence Blvd & E. 3rd St, Charlotte, NC
In front of Chevron's Texaco Gas Station
Join us in Charlotte, NC as part of the day of worldwide actions to Stop War On Iran. We will be protesting in front of Texaco which is owned by Chevron, one of the five big western based oil companies to get a no-bid oil contract in Iraq & profit from war, misery & death. We will also call attention to the fact that oil was $29 a barrel (about $1.06/gal) before the invasion of Iraq. Threats against Iran alone cause spikes in the oil/gas prices, an attack will cause them to soar ever higher.
For more info see www.charlotteaction.blogspot.com or call (704) 492 - 5226.
Stop War On Iran
www.StopWarOnIran.org
No Blockade!
No War on Iran!
Sign the Petition Now
As we write, Congress is on the verge of voting on Congressional Resolution 362. (read text here)
This resolution, which has 220 co-sponsors from both major parties, demands that the President immediately impose a land, sea, and air blockade on Iran to stop shipments of gasoline, and to subject all cargo entering or leaving Iran to stringent inspection requirements. This would require a blockade of the Strait of Hormuz.
Imposing such a blockade is considered an act of war, and is clearly meant to escalate tensions and pave the way for use of military force against the people of Iran, with 'weapons of mass destruction' as a justification. The resolution makes no mention of the U.S. National Intelligence Estimate report of December 2007, which found that there was no credible evidence of an ongoing nuclear weapons development program Iran.
A similar vote, cast in October of 2002, paved the way for the brutal invasion and occupation of Iraq, which has cost the lives of 1 million Iraqis and more than 4100 U.S. soldiers.
This Resolution, which is paralleled by a similar Senate bill (S. RES 580), could come to a vote at any time. Congressional leadership has assumed that there will be little opposition to the resolution - a staffer in House Speaker Nancy Pelosi's office said that it is expected to "pass like a hot knife through butter." They need to hear from you today to let them know that we will not be silent as they initiate another illegal war in the Middle East using discredited lies about "weapons of mass destruction."
We must take action now to prevent another bipartisan rush to war.
Please take action today:
Sign the Petition at http://stopwaroniran.org/petition.shtml
Endorse the Emergency Call to Action for August 2 at
http://stopwaroniran.org/aug22008endorse.shtml
List your local action at
http://stopwaroniran.org/aug22008volorgcent.shtml
Make an Emergency Donation at http://stopwaroniran.org/donate.shtml
Tell a Friend
http://stopwaroniran.org/friend.shtml
Sign up for updates
http://stopwaroniran.org/updates.shtml
AUGUST 2:
An Emergency Call to Action
Stop War on IRAN
Troops Out of IRAQ
Actions in 50+ cities
Mass March in NYC
In Charlotte, NC:
Sat., Aug. 2 Demonstration to Stop War On Iran & Protest Gas Prices
1:00 pm
Independence Blvd & E. 3rd St, Charlotte, NC
In front of Chevron's Texaco Gas Station
Join us in Charlotte, NC as part of the day of worldwide actions to Stop War On Iran. We will be protesting in front of Texaco which is owned by Chevron, one of the five big western based oil companies to get a no-bid oil contract in Iraq & profit from war, misery & death. We will also call attention to the fact that oil was $29 a barrel (about $1.06/gal) before the invasion of Iraq. Threats against Iran alone cause spikes in the oil/gas prices, an attack will cause them to soar ever higher.
For more info see www.charlotteaction.blogspot.com or call (704) 492 - 5226.
Stop War On Iran
www.StopWarOnIran.org
Israel conducts war games over Iraq
Oil, Gasoline, Rise to Records on Middle East Violence Concern
Mark Shenk, Bloomberg.com, July 11, 2008
Crude oil and gasoline rose to records on growing concern about violence in the Middle East and supply disruptions from Brazil to Nigeria.
Oil jumped as high as $147.27 a barrel in New York after the Jerusalem Post said Israeli war planes practiced over Iraq. Israeli government spokesman Mark Regev denied the report. A Brazilian oil workers union is planning a five-day strike. Prices have jumped more than $10 a barrel since July 9.
``The Iran premium has come into the market over the last two days,'' said Adam Sieminski, Deutsche Bank's chief energy economist, in Washington. ``Nothing has changed except the perception about whether there will be a deal between the U.S. and Iran. The possibility of a conflict is of tremendous concern to the market.''
Crude oil for August delivery rose $3.43 or 2.4 percent, to settle at $145.08 a barrel at 2:50 p.m. on the New York Mercantile Exchange. Futures, which fell 21 cents this week, have doubled over the past year.
The gain in prices has triggered computer-generated buying programs. Futures tumbled 6.4 percent on July 7 and 8, the biggest two-session decline since March.
Gasoline for August delivery rose 5.23 cents, or 1.5 percent, to settle at $3.5632 a gallon in New York. Futures reached $3.631 a gallon today, an all-time high.
Regular gasoline, averaged nationwide, fell 0.8 cent to $4.096 a gallon, AAA, the nation's largest motorist organization, said today on its Web site. Pump prices reached a record $4.108 a gallon on July 7.
Lower Stocks
Rising energy prices helped push U.S. stocks lower today, extending the longest stretch of weekly losses for the Standard & Poor's 500 Index in four years. The S&P 500, which fell into a bear market for the first time since 2002 this week, is heading for its sixth-straight weekly decline.
Confidence among U.S. consumers in July remained near the lowest since 1980, a Reuters/University of Michigan preliminary index showed. The collapse in confidence signals spending may slow after the effects of the federal tax rebate fade.
``Eventually the economic worries will trump all else and prices will fall,'' said Michael Fitzpatrick, vice president for energy risk management at MF Global Ltd. in New York.
Oil also rose because of the weakening dollar, which bolstered the appeal of commodities as a hedge against the U.S. currency's drop. The dollar declined to within a cent of the all- time low against the euro on concern the U.S. government may be forced to take over mortgage lenders Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.
The dollar fell 0.9 percent to $1.5928 per euro at 3:15 p.m. in New York, from $1.5788 yesterday. It touched $1.5947, the weakest since April 23.
Israeli Maneuvers
Israeli war planes are conducting maneuvers in Iraqi airspace and using U.S. airbases in the country, possibly preparing for a strike against Iran, the newspaper reported, citing comments by Iraqi officials in local media.
``If the reports of the Israeli warplanes is true, it would be a major advance in the threat to Iran,'' said Mordechai Abir, director of energy research at Burnham Securities Inc. in New York. ``The noose is tightening around Iran,'' said Abir, who was speaking from Jerusalem.
Iran, the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries' second-biggest producer, this week tested missiles capable of reaching Israel. Iran has also said it may blockade the Strait of Hormuz, the shipping lane for a fifth of the world's crude, if its nuclear facilities are attacked.
Brent crude oil for August settlement rose $2.46, or 1.7 percent, to settle at $144.49 a barrel on London's ICE Futures Europe exchange. Prices climbed to a record $147.50 today.
Labor Action
About 4,500 employees of state-controlled Petroleo Brasileiro SA will take part in a protest on platforms in the offshore Campos Basin to get full pay for the day they return to the mainland after a 14-day shift at sea, a union official said yesterday. The basin is responsible for about 80 percent of the country's oil production.
The Movement for the Emancipation of the Niger Delta said attacks will resume on oil facilities. The Nigerian militant group said it will call off its unilateral cease-fire beginning at midnight on July 12.
MEND's attacks on pipelines and other installations have cut more than 20 percent of Nigeria's oil exports since 2006. MEND says it is fighting for a greater share of oil wealth for the impoverished inhabitants of the Niger Delta.
`True Gold'
``You have the potential of more loss of oil from Nigeria, and Nigerian oil is the true gold,'' said Gordon Elliott, risk management specialist at FC Stone LLC, in St. Louis Park, Minnesota.
Nigeria produces low-sulfur, or sweet, crude oil, prized by U.S. refiners because of the proportion of high-value gasoline and distillate fuel it yields.
Senator Joseph Lieberman proposed legislation today to end the exemption from position limits for commodity traders who do not take physical delivery of their purchases, in an effort to lower prices. The proposal would require the Commodity Futures Trading Commission to collect more information and to set limits on futures holdings, and it expands the CFTC's enforcement power.
To contact the reporter on this story: Mark Shenk in New York at mshenk1@bloomberg.net.
Mark Shenk, Bloomberg.com, July 11, 2008
Crude oil and gasoline rose to records on growing concern about violence in the Middle East and supply disruptions from Brazil to Nigeria.
Oil jumped as high as $147.27 a barrel in New York after the Jerusalem Post said Israeli war planes practiced over Iraq. Israeli government spokesman Mark Regev denied the report. A Brazilian oil workers union is planning a five-day strike. Prices have jumped more than $10 a barrel since July 9.
``The Iran premium has come into the market over the last two days,'' said Adam Sieminski, Deutsche Bank's chief energy economist, in Washington. ``Nothing has changed except the perception about whether there will be a deal between the U.S. and Iran. The possibility of a conflict is of tremendous concern to the market.''
Crude oil for August delivery rose $3.43 or 2.4 percent, to settle at $145.08 a barrel at 2:50 p.m. on the New York Mercantile Exchange. Futures, which fell 21 cents this week, have doubled over the past year.
The gain in prices has triggered computer-generated buying programs. Futures tumbled 6.4 percent on July 7 and 8, the biggest two-session decline since March.
Gasoline for August delivery rose 5.23 cents, or 1.5 percent, to settle at $3.5632 a gallon in New York. Futures reached $3.631 a gallon today, an all-time high.
Regular gasoline, averaged nationwide, fell 0.8 cent to $4.096 a gallon, AAA, the nation's largest motorist organization, said today on its Web site. Pump prices reached a record $4.108 a gallon on July 7.
Lower Stocks
Rising energy prices helped push U.S. stocks lower today, extending the longest stretch of weekly losses for the Standard & Poor's 500 Index in four years. The S&P 500, which fell into a bear market for the first time since 2002 this week, is heading for its sixth-straight weekly decline.
Confidence among U.S. consumers in July remained near the lowest since 1980, a Reuters/University of Michigan preliminary index showed. The collapse in confidence signals spending may slow after the effects of the federal tax rebate fade.
``Eventually the economic worries will trump all else and prices will fall,'' said Michael Fitzpatrick, vice president for energy risk management at MF Global Ltd. in New York.
Oil also rose because of the weakening dollar, which bolstered the appeal of commodities as a hedge against the U.S. currency's drop. The dollar declined to within a cent of the all- time low against the euro on concern the U.S. government may be forced to take over mortgage lenders Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.
The dollar fell 0.9 percent to $1.5928 per euro at 3:15 p.m. in New York, from $1.5788 yesterday. It touched $1.5947, the weakest since April 23.
Israeli Maneuvers
Israeli war planes are conducting maneuvers in Iraqi airspace and using U.S. airbases in the country, possibly preparing for a strike against Iran, the newspaper reported, citing comments by Iraqi officials in local media.
``If the reports of the Israeli warplanes is true, it would be a major advance in the threat to Iran,'' said Mordechai Abir, director of energy research at Burnham Securities Inc. in New York. ``The noose is tightening around Iran,'' said Abir, who was speaking from Jerusalem.
Iran, the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries' second-biggest producer, this week tested missiles capable of reaching Israel. Iran has also said it may blockade the Strait of Hormuz, the shipping lane for a fifth of the world's crude, if its nuclear facilities are attacked.
Brent crude oil for August settlement rose $2.46, or 1.7 percent, to settle at $144.49 a barrel on London's ICE Futures Europe exchange. Prices climbed to a record $147.50 today.
Labor Action
About 4,500 employees of state-controlled Petroleo Brasileiro SA will take part in a protest on platforms in the offshore Campos Basin to get full pay for the day they return to the mainland after a 14-day shift at sea, a union official said yesterday. The basin is responsible for about 80 percent of the country's oil production.
The Movement for the Emancipation of the Niger Delta said attacks will resume on oil facilities. The Nigerian militant group said it will call off its unilateral cease-fire beginning at midnight on July 12.
MEND's attacks on pipelines and other installations have cut more than 20 percent of Nigeria's oil exports since 2006. MEND says it is fighting for a greater share of oil wealth for the impoverished inhabitants of the Niger Delta.
`True Gold'
``You have the potential of more loss of oil from Nigeria, and Nigerian oil is the true gold,'' said Gordon Elliott, risk management specialist at FC Stone LLC, in St. Louis Park, Minnesota.
Nigeria produces low-sulfur, or sweet, crude oil, prized by U.S. refiners because of the proportion of high-value gasoline and distillate fuel it yields.
Senator Joseph Lieberman proposed legislation today to end the exemption from position limits for commodity traders who do not take physical delivery of their purchases, in an effort to lower prices. The proposal would require the Commodity Futures Trading Commission to collect more information and to set limits on futures holdings, and it expands the CFTC's enforcement power.
To contact the reporter on this story: Mark Shenk in New York at mshenk1@bloomberg.net.
Ask Conyers to Allow Kucinich to Present Impeachment Articles to House Judiciary Committee
David Swanson, AfterDowningStreet, July 10, 2008
On Thursday Congressman Dennis Kucinich, who had already introduced 3 articles of impeachment against Cheney and 35 against Bush introduced a single article of impeachment against Bush charging him with misleading Congress into a war on Iraq.
Also on Thursday, Speaker Nancy Pelosi -- FINALLY inching impeachment back onto the table -- told the media that she expected the Judiciary Committee to consider the matter.
And Kucinich held a press conference at which he said that what he wants is an opportunity to present his proposals to the Judiciary Committee.
Let's make sure that Committee Chairman John Conyers grants this request. Phone him now at 202-225-3951. Please post here what he tells you:
http://afterdowningstreet.org/node/34681
If you're able to speak with Conyers or his staff at any length, please remind them that Bush and Cheney and members of their administration are refusing to comply with numerous subpoenas and even contempt citations, as well as refusing to answer questions by claiming "executive privilege." During an impeachment hearing, there is no executive privilege. The Judiciary Committee should hold an impeachment hearing of Bush and Cheney on refusal to comply with oversight. It's the fastest way to justice and the only chance of establishing any oversight.
On Thursday Congressman Dennis Kucinich, who had already introduced 3 articles of impeachment against Cheney and 35 against Bush introduced a single article of impeachment against Bush charging him with misleading Congress into a war on Iraq.
Also on Thursday, Speaker Nancy Pelosi -- FINALLY inching impeachment back onto the table -- told the media that she expected the Judiciary Committee to consider the matter.
And Kucinich held a press conference at which he said that what he wants is an opportunity to present his proposals to the Judiciary Committee.
Let's make sure that Committee Chairman John Conyers grants this request. Phone him now at 202-225-3951. Please post here what he tells you:
http://afterdowningstreet.org/node/34681
If you're able to speak with Conyers or his staff at any length, please remind them that Bush and Cheney and members of their administration are refusing to comply with numerous subpoenas and even contempt citations, as well as refusing to answer questions by claiming "executive privilege." During an impeachment hearing, there is no executive privilege. The Judiciary Committee should hold an impeachment hearing of Bush and Cheney on refusal to comply with oversight. It's the fastest way to justice and the only chance of establishing any oversight.
Tell Obama to STOP the Bombing!
CODEPINK: Women For Peace, July 10, 2008
We recently asked our friends in Iran to send messages we could bring to Congress as we work tirelessly to stop the next war now. Here is one we received:
You can join our sit-in from the comfort of your own home. Call Representative Ackerman today, (202-225-2601) and urge him to withdraw H. Con. Res. 362 and promote diplomacy, not war. Your calls will strengthen the impact of our direct action, and will help Ackerman and the rest of Congress understand that the American people want to avoid another tragic and unnecessary war.
Please also sign our petition to Barack Obama, asking the presumptive Democratic nominee to pursue diplomacy with Iran and speak out against any acts of war by the Bush administration. Read and sign our petition here.
When our friends in Iran ask us again what we are doing to protect their country, we can say we added our names, added our voices, to the collective call for peace.
Thank you for adding your own name, your own voice.
With peace and hope,
Alicia, Anne, Dana, Deidra, Desiree, Farida, Gael, Gayle, Jean, Jodie, Liz, Lori, Medea, Nancy, Rae, Sarah and Tighe
P.S. If you want to step out of the comfort of your own home to stop the next war now, please consider joining one of our sister organization Global Exchange's reality tours to Iran. This life changing journey will open your eyes and heart and mind and give you important tools to counter the arguments for war.
We recently asked our friends in Iran to send messages we could bring to Congress as we work tirelessly to stop the next war now. Here is one we received:
I am from IRAN. My neighbor to the east, AFGHANISTAN, does not remember one year without war in 50 years, and my neighbor to the west, IRAQ, is covered with blood. Now it looks like the time has come for my country--IRAN. What can I do to save my family? What can I do to save my home, to save my country?We are haunted by this question, and strive to do whatever we can to protect our sisters and brothers in Iran as President Bush rattles his saber in their direction. This Wednesday, our CODEPINK flotilla staged a "peace blockade" around the Washington DC houseboat of Congressman Gary Ackerman (see press release here!). Ackerman, who just last year told us he'd love to go to Iran and get on a bicycle to promote peace, has proposed House Resolution 362, a naval blockade of Iran that sets us on the path to war. On Thursday, in DC and in Cong. Ackerman's home office in New York, we will stage a sit-in calling on him to withdraw the resolution.
I can do nothing. What about you?
You can join our sit-in from the comfort of your own home. Call Representative Ackerman today, (202-225-2601) and urge him to withdraw H. Con. Res. 362 and promote diplomacy, not war. Your calls will strengthen the impact of our direct action, and will help Ackerman and the rest of Congress understand that the American people want to avoid another tragic and unnecessary war.
Please also sign our petition to Barack Obama, asking the presumptive Democratic nominee to pursue diplomacy with Iran and speak out against any acts of war by the Bush administration. Read and sign our petition here.
When our friends in Iran ask us again what we are doing to protect their country, we can say we added our names, added our voices, to the collective call for peace.
Thank you for adding your own name, your own voice.
With peace and hope,
Alicia, Anne, Dana, Deidra, Desiree, Farida, Gael, Gayle, Jean, Jodie, Liz, Lori, Medea, Nancy, Rae, Sarah and Tighe
P.S. If you want to step out of the comfort of your own home to stop the next war now, please consider joining one of our sister organization Global Exchange's reality tours to Iran. This life changing journey will open your eyes and heart and mind and give you important tools to counter the arguments for war.
Three Years of Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions Against Israeli Apartheid
Three years ago today, Palestinian civil society issued a call for the rest of the world to support them by boycotting, divesting from, and sanctioning Israel until it complies with international law and universal principles of human rights. This call for campaigns of boycott, divestment, and sanctions (BDS) was issued on the one-year anniversary of the International Court of Justice's advisory opinion ruling Israel 's apartheid wall illegal.
The US Campaign is proud to say that we've answered this call for BDS. In addition to our ongoing work to stop Caterpillar from selling the D-9 bulldozers to the Israeli military, we've launched a corporate accountability campaign focused on Motorola.
Last year, at our national conference, US Campaign member groups voted to launch our Hang Up on Motorola project to boycott Motorola, as it profits from Israeli occupation and human rights abuses by:
* Selling Israel fuses for aerial munitions such as the kind of bombs dropped in its 2006 war with Lebanon .
* Providing the "Mountain Rose" communication system that the Israeli military uses in the Occupied Territories .
* Providing surveillance systems at 47 illegal Israeli settlements as well as along the illegal apartheid wall
Since our last conference the US Campaign, working with faith and corporate social responsibility groups, has begun a dialogue with Motorola. Click here to read our initial letter to Motorola CEO Greg Brown, Motorola's less-than-impressive response, and our rejoinder. Click here to send your own letter demanding accountability from Motorola!
We've also produced a factsheet that can be used to inform others about Motorola's support for Israeli apartheid. Click here to download a PDF of our Motorola factsheet.
Join us at this year's national conference as we lay the groundwork to escalate our Hang Up on Motorola project from polite corporate engagement to an all-out public boycott.
You can also get involved in our growing campaign to pressure our government to sanction Israel by cutting off aid for the human rights abuses it commits with our tax dollars. To learn more about our campaign to challenge U.S. military aid to Israel and get involved, please click here.
The US Campaign is excited to take part in the international response to Palestinian civil society's call for boycotts, divestment, and sanctions. As these tactics helped push South Africa to abandon apartheid, our hope is that they will do the same in Israel/Palestine.
The US Campaign is proud to say that we've answered this call for BDS. In addition to our ongoing work to stop Caterpillar from selling the D-9 bulldozers to the Israeli military, we've launched a corporate accountability campaign focused on Motorola.
Last year, at our national conference, US Campaign member groups voted to launch our Hang Up on Motorola project to boycott Motorola, as it profits from Israeli occupation and human rights abuses by:
* Selling Israel fuses for aerial munitions such as the kind of bombs dropped in its 2006 war with Lebanon .
* Providing the "Mountain Rose" communication system that the Israeli military uses in the Occupied Territories .
* Providing surveillance systems at 47 illegal Israeli settlements as well as along the illegal apartheid wall
Since our last conference the US Campaign, working with faith and corporate social responsibility groups, has begun a dialogue with Motorola. Click here to read our initial letter to Motorola CEO Greg Brown, Motorola's less-than-impressive response, and our rejoinder. Click here to send your own letter demanding accountability from Motorola!
We've also produced a factsheet that can be used to inform others about Motorola's support for Israeli apartheid. Click here to download a PDF of our Motorola factsheet.
Join us at this year's national conference as we lay the groundwork to escalate our Hang Up on Motorola project from polite corporate engagement to an all-out public boycott.
You can also get involved in our growing campaign to pressure our government to sanction Israel by cutting off aid for the human rights abuses it commits with our tax dollars. To learn more about our campaign to challenge U.S. military aid to Israel and get involved, please click here.
The US Campaign is excited to take part in the international response to Palestinian civil society's call for boycotts, divestment, and sanctions. As these tactics helped push South Africa to abandon apartheid, our hope is that they will do the same in Israel/Palestine.
Legal Update on Mumia Abu-Jamal
From: Robert R. Bryan, lead counsel, July 8, 2008
Subject: Petition for Rehearing and Rehearing En Banc, United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, filed on behalf of Mumia Abu-Jamal, death row, Pennsylvania
United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, Philadelphia On June 27, 2008, I submitted on behalf of my client, Mumia Abu-Jamal, a Petition for Rehearing and Rehearing En Banc in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit. Yesterday it was deemed "filed" by the court following rulings on related motions. The focus of the Petition is the issue of racism in jury selection. If unsuccessful, we will proceed to the United States Supreme Court.
Below are two news articles concerning the Petition. Today's Philadelphia Inquirer piece gives an overview of this newest development, while that by Dave Lindorff is a
brilliant analysis of these case developments and its politics. A copy of the actual Petition for Rehearing and Rehearing En Banc, which is before the federal court, is attached.
Donations for Mumia's Legal Defense in the U.S. To make tax deductible donations to the legal defense, please make checks payable to the National Lawyers Guild Foundation (indicate "Mumia" on the bottom left). They should be mailed to:
Committee To Save Mumia Abu-Jamal
P.O. Box 2012
New York, NY 10159-2012
Conclusion: Even though the federal court granted a new jury trial on the question of the death penalty, we want a complete reversal of the conviction. I will not rest until my client is free.
Yours very truly,
Robert R. Bryan
Law Offices of Robert R. Bryan
2088 Union Street, Suite 4
San Francisco, California 94123-4117
Lead counsel for Mumia Abu-Jamal
_______________
Inquirer
Posted on Mon, Jul. 7, 2008
Abu-Jamal seeks new trial in Phila. officer’s slaying
By Emilie Lounsberry, INQUIRER STAFF WRITER
Pennsylvania death-row inmate Mumia Abu-Jamal has asked a
federal appeals court to reconsider the decision that
denied him a new trial in the 1981 slaying of Philadelphia
Police Officer Daniel Faulkner.
In late March, a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of
Appeals for the Third Circuit left intact Abu-Jamal's
conviction but said a new jury should decide whether he
deserved death or should be sentenced to life behind bars.
In court papers docketed today, Robert R. Bryan, the San
Francisco lawyer representing Abu-Jamal with Widener
University law professor Judith Ritter, asked the
three-judge panel and the full Third Circuit court to take
another look.
They contended that the panel should have ordered a
hearing on Abu-Jamal's contention that prosecutors
intentionally excluded blacks from his jury in violation
of a later 1986 U.S. Supreme Court decision.
They noted that one of the panel members, Judge Thomas
Ambro, wanted a hearing held on that issue, and said the
majority "has backed away from this Circuit's historical
commitment to equal justice for all."
The three-judge panel affirmed the December 2001 ruling by
U.S. District Judge William H. Yohn Jr., who had thrown
out the death sentence after concluding that the jury
might have been confused by the trial judge's instructions
and wording on the verdict form filled out when the jury
decided on death.
Yohn found that the jury might have mistakenly believed it
had to agree unanimously on any mitigating circumstances -
factors that might have persuaded jurors to decide on a
life sentence, rather than death.
Abu-Jamal, 54, has been on death row since his 1982
conviction in the killing of Faulkner, who was shot to
death near 13th and Locust Streets early in the morning of
Dec. 9, 1981.
While Abu-Jamal is appealing because he wants a new trial,
the Philadelphia District Attorney's Office could ask the
U.S. Supreme Court to reinstate the death sentence.
Assistant District Attorney Hugh Burns said last month
that no decision had been made on whether to ask the high
court to consider the matter.
Abu-Jamal has written books and given taped speeches from
death row, and his case has been followed in many parts of
the world.
The Pennsylvania Supreme Court upheld his conviction and
death sentence in 1989, and also rejected three other
appeals - including one earlier this year.
_______________
OpEdNews
Original Content at
http://www.opednews.com/articles/Mumia-Abu-Jamal-s-Long-Sho-by-Dave-Lindorff-080707-97.html
July 7, 2008
Mumia Abu-Jamal's Long-Shot Appeal for Reversal of Last Year's Disastrous Third Circuit Ruling
By Dave Lindorff
Mumia Abu-Jamal and his attorney Robert R. Bryan
yesterday filed a formal petition seeking a full en banc
reconsideration of last spring’s decision by a
three-member panel of the Third Circuit Federal Court of
Appeals rejecting his claim of a constitutional violation
in the selection of jurors at his 1982 murder trial in the
shooting death of Philadelphia police officer Daniel
Faulkner.
The three-judge panel, in a 2-1 ruling, rejected
Abu-Jamal’s claim of a so-called Batson violation—namely
that the city prosecutor trying his case had denied him a
fair trial by improperly barring qualified African
Americans from sitting on his jury. The two judges in the
majority--both appointed to their posts by President
Ronald Reagan--stated that Abu-Jamal had failed to raise
the issue at the time of his trial, and that he had failed
to make a prima facie case of racial discrimination.
In their majority opinion rejecting Abu-Jamal’s
Batson claim, Judge Anthony Scirica and Judge Robert Cowan
had argued that even though it was demonstrably true that
Assistant DA Joseph McGill had used 10 of his 15
peremptory challenges to reject two-thirds of the
potential black jurors who had agreed that they could vote
for a death penalty in the case, it could not be seen as a
prima facie case of impermissible racial discrimination,
because no one had established the racial make-up of the
total jury pool. In other words, as one of the two judges
actually stated during the hearing, “perhaps the jury pool
itself was two-thirds black.” The majority also ruled that
because Abu-Jamal had not formally raised the objection
about the number of racial jury strikes at the time they
occurred, his claim was denied.
As attorney Bryan pointed out in his request for a
re-examination of the ruling by the full Third Circuit
panel of 12 judges, however, both these arguments fly in
the face of both US Supreme Court and Third Circuit
precedents. Under Batson, a defendant, in order to obtain
a full hearing into the issue of race discrimination in
jury selection, need only demonstrate that one single
juror was improperly rejected by the prosecution on the
basis of race. Furthermore, both those courts have also
established that all relevant issues must be taken into
consideration, not just the juror strike (dismissal) rate.
Bryan noted, for example, that the case was racially
charged, given that the defendant was black and the victim
was white, and that it was especially charged, given that
the defendant had been a Black Panther and had been
associated with the MOVE organization, while the victim
had been a police officer. Both the Supreme Court and the
Third Circuit Court of Appeals have held that such issues
can contribute to making a prima facie case of
discrimination, yet neither was considered by the
three-judge panel in its ruling in this case. Bryan also
noted that at the time of the trial, there was no Batson
standard to raise an objection to (the US Supreme Court’s
Batson standard was established in 1986, but was made
retroactive for all cases). Indeed, in 1982, at the time
of Abu-Jamal’s trial, it was technically legal for
prosecutors to reject jurors on the basis of race, so he
and his trial attorney would have been making a pointless
objection at trial had they formally complained back then.
All these points, Bryan argues in his petition for a
re-consideration of his client's Batson claim, were also
powerfully made in a dissent by the third appellate judge,
Thomas Ambro (a Clinton appointee), who charged that his
two senior colleagues on the bench were making “a newly
created contemporaneous objection rule for habeas
petitions,” which he warned would conflict with all the
court's prior decisions.
Judge Ambro, Bryan points out, also was dismissive in
his dissent of his two colleagues’ claim that they needed
to know the composition of the jury pool before they could
say the prosecutor’s dismissal of two thirds of the
qualified black jurors might constitute improper
discrimination in jury selection. “It is my belief,” he
wrote, “that this strike rate without reference to total
venire (jury pool) can stand on its own for the purpose of
raising an inference of discrimination.”
In any event, Bryan went on to demonstrate, using the
trial transcript record and some simple math, that in fact
the racial composition of the original jury pool can be
established: it was 14 blacks and 31 whites, or in other
words, 31 percent black. Since it has been stipulated by
the district attorney’s office, and accepted as fact by
the state courts, that the prosecutor used his ability to
dismiss jurors peremptorily (without cause) to eliminate
10 black jurors already considered acceptable by the
court, that gives the prosecution a strike rate of 66.67
percent, or more than double the actual percentage of
available black jurors in the pool. Admittedly it would
have been better had the defense been able to make that
damning point at the Third Circuit hearing last year, when
the two Republican judges on the bench were demanding it,
properly or not. That said, it is still a point that the
full Third Circuit bench should consider carefully, in
examining lst year's bizarre ruling by the three-judge
panel of Scirica, Cowen and Ambro.
The challenge faced by Abu-Jamal in this bid for a
reconsideration of his Batson claim ruling is that the
three judges who already ruled, including Judge Cowen,
could be part of any en banc reconsideration. Judge
Marjorie Rendell, one of the 12 active members of the
Third Circuit, has recused herself from the hearing
because her husband, Gov. Ed Rendell, was district
attorney and as such was boss of the prosecutor, Joe
McGill, when the case was tried. Another judge, Clinton
appointee Theodore McKee, also recused himself, as did
Bush appointee D. Michael Fisher. Ordinarily, en banc
deliberations are limited to active judges, but Judge
Cowen, though retired, might be able to participate, since
he was one of the judges who issued the ruling in
question. If Judge Cowan did not participate in an en banc
session, that would mean four additional judges would have
to side with Judge Ambro, for a reversal and an order for
a hearing on Abu-Jamal’s Batson claim. If Cowan were to
join the bench, however, that would mean a total of 10
judges, and thus a majority of six--or five in addition to
Ambro--would be needed for a reversal.
Without Cowan, the odds would be daunting enough.
Even if the other two Clinton appointees to the Third
Circuit Court and one remaining Carter appointee were to
side with Ambro, Abu-Jamal would need one Bush appointee
to come over to get five votes for a reversal. With Cowan
voting, five votes would just give a tie, leaving last
year’s ruling standing. For a reversal, a second Bush
appointee would have to be swayed to Abu-Jamal’s side.
That is quite a hurdle. Then again, stranger
things have happened: One of the key Third Circuit rulings
establishing the precedent that it should be relatively
easy for a death row prisoner to establish prima facie
evidence of race-based jury selection (to which Judge
Ambro referred when he said his colleagues were ignoring
the precedents of their own circuit) and gain a full
hearing of the evidence, was written by a recent member of
the Third Circuit Court of Appeals, Samuel Alito. Alito,
recall, left the Third Circuit when he was appointed last
year to the Supreme Court by Bush.
Technically, what Abu-Jamal is seeking at this
point is an order from the Third Circuit Court of Appeals
for a full Batson hearing, at which all evidence could be
presented, and the prosecution questioned, about the
prevailing practice by the district attorney's office in
1982 of excluding blacks from juries in Philadelphia
(academic research shows that under Rendell's direction,
prosecutors struck blacks from capital-case juries 58
percent of the time, compared to only 22 percent for
whites), the record of prosecutor Joe McGill (who records
show struck black jurors from the capital cases he tried
74 percent of the time, vs. 25 percent of the time for
whites), and about what actually happened during jury
selection process at Abu-Jamal's own trial, when
two-thirds of black jurors were struck by the prosecutor.
If a judge were to establish after such a hearing
that there was a racial motive behind McGill's actions
during jury selection, or during the removal of one seated
black juror early in the trial, or that even one juror was
removed for racial reasons, under Batson rules, it would
result automatically in Abu-Jamal's getting a new trial
before a new, fairly selected jury.
The Third Circuit drama over Abu-Jamal’s Batson claim
plays out as evidence continues to mount that his trial
was a sham and a travestry. Among these are new
photographs showing: 1) police manipulation of the
evidence at the crime scene, 2) a lack of any bullet holes
in the sidewalk surrounding the spot where officer
Faulkner was lying when he was allegedly shot by
Abu-Jamal, and 3) no indication of a taxi cab parked where
cab driver Robert Chobert, a key prosecution
“eye-witness,” claimed he had been located during the
shooting incident. Other credible witnesses are also
surfacing with evidence that there was never a shouted out
“confession” in Jefferson Hospital’s emergency room, and
that witness Chobert was actually not a witness to the
shooting, but was rather parked on another street, facing
away from the incident.
The District Attorney’s office is expected to file
a counter petition opposing an en banc review of last
year's Third Circuit ruling.
Author's Website: http://www.thiscantbehappening.net
Author's Bio: Dave Lindorff, a columnist for Counterpunch,
is author of several recent books ("This Can't Be
Happening! Resisting the Disintegration of American
Democracy" and "Killing Time: An Investigation into the
Death Penalty Case of Mumia Abu-Jamal"). His latest book,
coauthored with Barbara Olshanshky, is "The Case for
Impeachment: The Legal Argument for Removing President
George W. Bush from Office (St. Martin's Press, May 2006).
His writing is available at
http://www.thiscantbehappening.net
Subject: Petition for Rehearing and Rehearing En Banc, United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, filed on behalf of Mumia Abu-Jamal, death row, Pennsylvania
United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, Philadelphia On June 27, 2008, I submitted on behalf of my client, Mumia Abu-Jamal, a Petition for Rehearing and Rehearing En Banc in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit. Yesterday it was deemed "filed" by the court following rulings on related motions. The focus of the Petition is the issue of racism in jury selection. If unsuccessful, we will proceed to the United States Supreme Court.
Below are two news articles concerning the Petition. Today's Philadelphia Inquirer piece gives an overview of this newest development, while that by Dave Lindorff is a
brilliant analysis of these case developments and its politics. A copy of the actual Petition for Rehearing and Rehearing En Banc, which is before the federal court, is attached.
Donations for Mumia's Legal Defense in the U.S. To make tax deductible donations to the legal defense, please make checks payable to the National Lawyers Guild Foundation (indicate "Mumia" on the bottom left). They should be mailed to:
Committee To Save Mumia Abu-Jamal
P.O. Box 2012
New York, NY 10159-2012
Conclusion: Even though the federal court granted a new jury trial on the question of the death penalty, we want a complete reversal of the conviction. I will not rest until my client is free.
Yours very truly,
Robert R. Bryan
Law Offices of Robert R. Bryan
2088 Union Street, Suite 4
San Francisco, California 94123-4117
Lead counsel for Mumia Abu-Jamal
_______________
Inquirer
Posted on Mon, Jul. 7, 2008
Abu-Jamal seeks new trial in Phila. officer’s slaying
By Emilie Lounsberry, INQUIRER STAFF WRITER
Pennsylvania death-row inmate Mumia Abu-Jamal has asked a
federal appeals court to reconsider the decision that
denied him a new trial in the 1981 slaying of Philadelphia
Police Officer Daniel Faulkner.
In late March, a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of
Appeals for the Third Circuit left intact Abu-Jamal's
conviction but said a new jury should decide whether he
deserved death or should be sentenced to life behind bars.
In court papers docketed today, Robert R. Bryan, the San
Francisco lawyer representing Abu-Jamal with Widener
University law professor Judith Ritter, asked the
three-judge panel and the full Third Circuit court to take
another look.
They contended that the panel should have ordered a
hearing on Abu-Jamal's contention that prosecutors
intentionally excluded blacks from his jury in violation
of a later 1986 U.S. Supreme Court decision.
They noted that one of the panel members, Judge Thomas
Ambro, wanted a hearing held on that issue, and said the
majority "has backed away from this Circuit's historical
commitment to equal justice for all."
The three-judge panel affirmed the December 2001 ruling by
U.S. District Judge William H. Yohn Jr., who had thrown
out the death sentence after concluding that the jury
might have been confused by the trial judge's instructions
and wording on the verdict form filled out when the jury
decided on death.
Yohn found that the jury might have mistakenly believed it
had to agree unanimously on any mitigating circumstances -
factors that might have persuaded jurors to decide on a
life sentence, rather than death.
Abu-Jamal, 54, has been on death row since his 1982
conviction in the killing of Faulkner, who was shot to
death near 13th and Locust Streets early in the morning of
Dec. 9, 1981.
While Abu-Jamal is appealing because he wants a new trial,
the Philadelphia District Attorney's Office could ask the
U.S. Supreme Court to reinstate the death sentence.
Assistant District Attorney Hugh Burns said last month
that no decision had been made on whether to ask the high
court to consider the matter.
Abu-Jamal has written books and given taped speeches from
death row, and his case has been followed in many parts of
the world.
The Pennsylvania Supreme Court upheld his conviction and
death sentence in 1989, and also rejected three other
appeals - including one earlier this year.
_______________
OpEdNews
Original Content at
http://www.opednews.com/articles/Mumia-Abu-Jamal-s-Long-Sho-by-Dave-Lindorff-080707-97.html
July 7, 2008
Mumia Abu-Jamal's Long-Shot Appeal for Reversal of Last Year's Disastrous Third Circuit Ruling
By Dave Lindorff
Mumia Abu-Jamal and his attorney Robert R. Bryan
yesterday filed a formal petition seeking a full en banc
reconsideration of last spring’s decision by a
three-member panel of the Third Circuit Federal Court of
Appeals rejecting his claim of a constitutional violation
in the selection of jurors at his 1982 murder trial in the
shooting death of Philadelphia police officer Daniel
Faulkner.
The three-judge panel, in a 2-1 ruling, rejected
Abu-Jamal’s claim of a so-called Batson violation—namely
that the city prosecutor trying his case had denied him a
fair trial by improperly barring qualified African
Americans from sitting on his jury. The two judges in the
majority--both appointed to their posts by President
Ronald Reagan--stated that Abu-Jamal had failed to raise
the issue at the time of his trial, and that he had failed
to make a prima facie case of racial discrimination.
In their majority opinion rejecting Abu-Jamal’s
Batson claim, Judge Anthony Scirica and Judge Robert Cowan
had argued that even though it was demonstrably true that
Assistant DA Joseph McGill had used 10 of his 15
peremptory challenges to reject two-thirds of the
potential black jurors who had agreed that they could vote
for a death penalty in the case, it could not be seen as a
prima facie case of impermissible racial discrimination,
because no one had established the racial make-up of the
total jury pool. In other words, as one of the two judges
actually stated during the hearing, “perhaps the jury pool
itself was two-thirds black.” The majority also ruled that
because Abu-Jamal had not formally raised the objection
about the number of racial jury strikes at the time they
occurred, his claim was denied.
As attorney Bryan pointed out in his request for a
re-examination of the ruling by the full Third Circuit
panel of 12 judges, however, both these arguments fly in
the face of both US Supreme Court and Third Circuit
precedents. Under Batson, a defendant, in order to obtain
a full hearing into the issue of race discrimination in
jury selection, need only demonstrate that one single
juror was improperly rejected by the prosecution on the
basis of race. Furthermore, both those courts have also
established that all relevant issues must be taken into
consideration, not just the juror strike (dismissal) rate.
Bryan noted, for example, that the case was racially
charged, given that the defendant was black and the victim
was white, and that it was especially charged, given that
the defendant had been a Black Panther and had been
associated with the MOVE organization, while the victim
had been a police officer. Both the Supreme Court and the
Third Circuit Court of Appeals have held that such issues
can contribute to making a prima facie case of
discrimination, yet neither was considered by the
three-judge panel in its ruling in this case. Bryan also
noted that at the time of the trial, there was no Batson
standard to raise an objection to (the US Supreme Court’s
Batson standard was established in 1986, but was made
retroactive for all cases). Indeed, in 1982, at the time
of Abu-Jamal’s trial, it was technically legal for
prosecutors to reject jurors on the basis of race, so he
and his trial attorney would have been making a pointless
objection at trial had they formally complained back then.
All these points, Bryan argues in his petition for a
re-consideration of his client's Batson claim, were also
powerfully made in a dissent by the third appellate judge,
Thomas Ambro (a Clinton appointee), who charged that his
two senior colleagues on the bench were making “a newly
created contemporaneous objection rule for habeas
petitions,” which he warned would conflict with all the
court's prior decisions.
Judge Ambro, Bryan points out, also was dismissive in
his dissent of his two colleagues’ claim that they needed
to know the composition of the jury pool before they could
say the prosecutor’s dismissal of two thirds of the
qualified black jurors might constitute improper
discrimination in jury selection. “It is my belief,” he
wrote, “that this strike rate without reference to total
venire (jury pool) can stand on its own for the purpose of
raising an inference of discrimination.”
In any event, Bryan went on to demonstrate, using the
trial transcript record and some simple math, that in fact
the racial composition of the original jury pool can be
established: it was 14 blacks and 31 whites, or in other
words, 31 percent black. Since it has been stipulated by
the district attorney’s office, and accepted as fact by
the state courts, that the prosecutor used his ability to
dismiss jurors peremptorily (without cause) to eliminate
10 black jurors already considered acceptable by the
court, that gives the prosecution a strike rate of 66.67
percent, or more than double the actual percentage of
available black jurors in the pool. Admittedly it would
have been better had the defense been able to make that
damning point at the Third Circuit hearing last year, when
the two Republican judges on the bench were demanding it,
properly or not. That said, it is still a point that the
full Third Circuit bench should consider carefully, in
examining lst year's bizarre ruling by the three-judge
panel of Scirica, Cowen and Ambro.
The challenge faced by Abu-Jamal in this bid for a
reconsideration of his Batson claim ruling is that the
three judges who already ruled, including Judge Cowen,
could be part of any en banc reconsideration. Judge
Marjorie Rendell, one of the 12 active members of the
Third Circuit, has recused herself from the hearing
because her husband, Gov. Ed Rendell, was district
attorney and as such was boss of the prosecutor, Joe
McGill, when the case was tried. Another judge, Clinton
appointee Theodore McKee, also recused himself, as did
Bush appointee D. Michael Fisher. Ordinarily, en banc
deliberations are limited to active judges, but Judge
Cowen, though retired, might be able to participate, since
he was one of the judges who issued the ruling in
question. If Judge Cowan did not participate in an en banc
session, that would mean four additional judges would have
to side with Judge Ambro, for a reversal and an order for
a hearing on Abu-Jamal’s Batson claim. If Cowan were to
join the bench, however, that would mean a total of 10
judges, and thus a majority of six--or five in addition to
Ambro--would be needed for a reversal.
Without Cowan, the odds would be daunting enough.
Even if the other two Clinton appointees to the Third
Circuit Court and one remaining Carter appointee were to
side with Ambro, Abu-Jamal would need one Bush appointee
to come over to get five votes for a reversal. With Cowan
voting, five votes would just give a tie, leaving last
year’s ruling standing. For a reversal, a second Bush
appointee would have to be swayed to Abu-Jamal’s side.
That is quite a hurdle. Then again, stranger
things have happened: One of the key Third Circuit rulings
establishing the precedent that it should be relatively
easy for a death row prisoner to establish prima facie
evidence of race-based jury selection (to which Judge
Ambro referred when he said his colleagues were ignoring
the precedents of their own circuit) and gain a full
hearing of the evidence, was written by a recent member of
the Third Circuit Court of Appeals, Samuel Alito. Alito,
recall, left the Third Circuit when he was appointed last
year to the Supreme Court by Bush.
Technically, what Abu-Jamal is seeking at this
point is an order from the Third Circuit Court of Appeals
for a full Batson hearing, at which all evidence could be
presented, and the prosecution questioned, about the
prevailing practice by the district attorney's office in
1982 of excluding blacks from juries in Philadelphia
(academic research shows that under Rendell's direction,
prosecutors struck blacks from capital-case juries 58
percent of the time, compared to only 22 percent for
whites), the record of prosecutor Joe McGill (who records
show struck black jurors from the capital cases he tried
74 percent of the time, vs. 25 percent of the time for
whites), and about what actually happened during jury
selection process at Abu-Jamal's own trial, when
two-thirds of black jurors were struck by the prosecutor.
If a judge were to establish after such a hearing
that there was a racial motive behind McGill's actions
during jury selection, or during the removal of one seated
black juror early in the trial, or that even one juror was
removed for racial reasons, under Batson rules, it would
result automatically in Abu-Jamal's getting a new trial
before a new, fairly selected jury.
The Third Circuit drama over Abu-Jamal’s Batson claim
plays out as evidence continues to mount that his trial
was a sham and a travestry. Among these are new
photographs showing: 1) police manipulation of the
evidence at the crime scene, 2) a lack of any bullet holes
in the sidewalk surrounding the spot where officer
Faulkner was lying when he was allegedly shot by
Abu-Jamal, and 3) no indication of a taxi cab parked where
cab driver Robert Chobert, a key prosecution
“eye-witness,” claimed he had been located during the
shooting incident. Other credible witnesses are also
surfacing with evidence that there was never a shouted out
“confession” in Jefferson Hospital’s emergency room, and
that witness Chobert was actually not a witness to the
shooting, but was rather parked on another street, facing
away from the incident.
The District Attorney’s office is expected to file
a counter petition opposing an en banc review of last
year's Third Circuit ruling.
Author's Website: http://www.thiscantbehappening.net
Author's Bio: Dave Lindorff, a columnist for Counterpunch,
is author of several recent books ("This Can't Be
Happening! Resisting the Disintegration of American
Democracy" and "Killing Time: An Investigation into the
Death Penalty Case of Mumia Abu-Jamal"). His latest book,
coauthored with Barbara Olshanshky, is "The Case for
Impeachment: The Legal Argument for Removing President
George W. Bush from Office (St. Martin's Press, May 2006).
His writing is available at
http://www.thiscantbehappening.net
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)