Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

If impeachment doesn't happen, the president's new dictatorial powers become law.

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU
 
Kablooie Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-23-07 01:17 PM
Original message
If impeachment doesn't happen, the president's new dictatorial powers become law.
The new president won't have to spend their time in office building up new powers the way Bush's administration did.

They will enter the office with the right in place to ignore any laws they wish including Constitutional law.

They will also have the right to spy on Americans, and write decrees that will imprison any person for offenses defined exclusively by the executive office.

Congress, in not denying these powers to the president by impeaching him, have accepted them as law.

So the next administration will START as a dictatorship as opposed to Bush who will have spent 8 years building up his dictatorial powers.



So, if Hillary wins the election, she will become the lawful DICTATOR OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA.


Do you think she will be a benevolent or malevolent dictator?


The Republicans must think she will be benevolent since they are greatly responsible for giving her these unprecedented powers.




Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
MonkeyFunk Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-23-07 01:18 PM
Response to Original message
1. and if they impeach and fail to convict
the same is true.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Maven Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-23-07 01:23 PM
Response to Reply #1
2. Wrong.
Because the next president would be on notice that such abuses come with consequences, which become real upon a slight shift in the balance of power in the Senate.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
lynnertic Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-23-07 01:35 PM
Response to Reply #2
9. Korman's Congress to Next Prez: "Now go away or I shall taunt you a second time."
Edited on Mon Jul-23-07 01:38 PM by lynnertic
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Maven Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-23-07 01:51 PM
Response to Reply #9
10. This is about separation of powers, co-equal branches, etc.
Edited on Mon Jul-23-07 01:53 PM by Harvey Korman
Impeachment is necessary to reaffirm that Congress still has powers as against the pResident, whose goal since he took office has been to usurp power for the executive.

Anything useful to add, or just a smartass comment + google images?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
PBass Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-24-07 01:43 AM
Response to Reply #2
44. House impeachment without Senate conviction is still very very powerful.
Impeachment will always be a black mark on Bill Clinton and Richard Nixon (and neither of them were convicted, either).

Doing nothing will make the Democrats look patheticly weak. It will be a disgrace to the Democratic party, IMO.

I also agree with the basic premise of the thread: Bush is changing the office of president, and changing the balance of powers. These changes will be considered precedent, and normal, if Congress takes no action.

"... But Bush did it, too!" You can expect to hear that a LOT in the future, if the House fails to impeach.

The idea that only the Senate's conviction and removal really accomplishes anything, is totally false.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
still_one Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-23-07 01:27 PM
Response to Reply #1
5. If they don't impeach then they are acknowledging that it is OK
Not impeaching just because you don't think you can convict doesn't cut it. Impeachment is a political process, but it will be the court of PUBLIC opinion that will eventually decide, and there is more than enough evidence for the PEOPLE to judge.

The media WILL NOT ignore any impeachment proceedings...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
nadinbrzezinski Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-23-07 01:27 PM
Response to Reply #1
6. Wrong,
By the way, the Democrats played the same stupid bet in 1988... tell me did Walter Mondale win the President back then?

They used the same logic... so tell me, did they win?

In your alterante reality for sure cowardice paid

In my reality a certain George Herbert Walker Bush was sworn in.

Who is right>
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MonkeyFunk Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-23-07 01:54 PM
Response to Reply #6
12. are you saying
that if the Dems had tried to impeach reagan, Mondale would've won?

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
nadinbrzezinski Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-23-07 01:57 PM
Response to Reply #12
13. For the same reason we had a bumper crop
in '76

History ain't your strong point, is it?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MonkeyFunk Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-23-07 01:59 PM
Response to Reply #13
14. Interesting that somebody who thinks
Walter Mondale ran for President in 1988 and who thinks the Senate held impeachment hearings in 1974 would mock my knowledge of history.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
nadinbrzezinski Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-23-07 02:13 PM
Response to Reply #14
16. Want me to go back to the Time Line for Watergate
and show you ONCE AGAIN THE SENATE HEARINGS IN THE TIME LINE?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MonkeyFunk Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-23-07 04:20 PM
Response to Reply #16
20. You won't find any
impeachment hearings, as you characterized them.

And who was the Democratic nominee in 1988?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
nadinbrzezinski Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-23-07 06:50 PM
Response to Reply #20
26. You will find HEARINGS and they were part of the process
even if you keep beging stuborn about it... and will be until YOU LOOSE THE WHITE HOUSE AGAIN SINCE YOU ARE PERSOANLLY A COWARD

Oh and Dukeakis, so you were right down there, only because Mondale was the eternal candidate and you NEVER EVER MAKE MISTAKES

(Like those senate hearings that you didn't even know were held)

Now go on, you have a choice, continue to be a coward and aagin LOOSE THE WH and whatever power the Dems have in the House and the Seante, SAME FUCKING BET THEY MADE IN '88 over Iran Contra, or DO THE RIGHT THING

You will choose door number one, and with the DLC you will help to loose the election

Congratulations

You and the Dems who resist this are on the wrong side of history.

Enjoy your defeat in 2008

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
nadinbrzezinski Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-23-07 02:14 PM
Response to Reply #14
17. Oh even better
on the teevee, files from hearingts starting on FEBRUARY 8th, of 1973

http://www.ford.utexas.edu/museum/exhibits/watergate_files/content.php?section=2&page=e
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
nadinbrzezinski Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-23-07 02:18 PM
Response to Reply #14
18. And my error, it was Dukakis
still,

The Democrats PLAYED THE SAME STUPID BET AND THEY LOST.

CLEAR ENOUGH FOR YOU?

At least they had the excuse that Reagan was a popular president

Unlike this idiot

Same result

In 2008 they don't, they already lost

Bumper crop of '76

And you are parroting the lines used back then (the WH is sown in, so why even impeach) and now, and the lines today come straight from the Democratic Leadership Council

What the Dems need to do is grow a pair... if they don't... history has a woenderful way of repeating istelf... and that precipice ahead is the loss in 2008

The only thin the pubbies need is a close election... They've proven this repeteadely.

And you... are playing THEIR GAME
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MonkeyFunk Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-23-07 04:24 PM
Response to Reply #18
22. I don't even know what the hell you're talking about...
Edited on Mon Jul-23-07 05:09 PM by MonkeyFunk
there wasn't any serious discussion of impeaching Reagan, and it certainly wouldn't have been successful.

Just saying that if they had impeached, Mondale (or Dukakis) would've won is just making shit up. Dukakis was NEVER going to win that election.




We have only one recent case of impeachment - Clinton's. The republicans were hurt by their attempt.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
nadinbrzezinski Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-23-07 07:04 PM
Response to Reply #22
28. One resaon we lost
was people were fed up with people who put politics before the country, and mark my words, it will happen again
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
PBass Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-24-07 01:56 AM
Response to Reply #22
45. The Republicans were not hurt by impeaching Clinton. What makes you say that?
Impeaching Clinton gutted his last two years in office. Impeachment also helped lead to Gore's defeat in 2004, and Congressional gains for the Republicans in 2000, 2002 and 2004.

Only the GOP sex and corruption scandals in 2005 and 2006 have taken the "family values" issue off the table. Before that, the image of Lewinsky was still motivating some voters to punish the heathen Democrats.

I can't think of a single way that Democrats gained anything, by Clinton's impeachment. I'll even challenge you to back up your claim, that it did..
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
nadinbrzezinski Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-23-07 02:22 PM
Response to Reply #14
19. And I never expect you to apologize
just to keep follwoign around trying to prevent the floodgates of a demand from our leadership to do the RIGHT THING

Not the POLITICALLY EXPEDIENT RIGHT THING, but the RIGHT THING.

That is an alien concept to the likes of you and the leadership
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MonkeyFunk Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-23-07 04:22 PM
Response to Reply #19
21. apologize for what?
Continually correcting your mistakes?

The senate hearings were not impeachment hearings. The Senate doesn't impeach.

They were an investigation into Watergate.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
nadinbrzezinski Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-23-07 06:46 PM
Response to Reply #21
24. What mistakes the FACT that the US Senate HELD
hearings during Watergate? HOW MANY FUCKING LINKS DO YOU NEED?

And YOU ARE WRONG, they don't impeach, kiss the power the Democrats have right now GOOD BYE
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MonkeyFunk Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-23-07 06:49 PM
Response to Reply #24
25. They weren't impeachment hearings
as you asserted.

And no amount of capitalization will change that.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
nadinbrzezinski Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-23-07 07:04 PM
Response to Reply #25
27. They were held and they were PART OF THE PROCESS
weren't they?

Any way you slice it THEY WERE HELD

Now here is your moral choice

You can choose the morally correct thing to do, or the politically expedient one

The politrically expedient one is usually the wrong one.

Your choice
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MonkeyFunk Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-23-07 07:47 PM
Response to Reply #27
29. You claimed they were impeachment hearings.
That is untrue. In fact, the claim is ridiculous on its face, because the Senate doesn't impeach.

You're the one who mocked MY knowledge of history, while repeatedly making bone-headed errors yourself. Don't insult other people while making sophomoric errors.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Thothmes Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-23-07 07:53 PM
Response to Reply #29
30. Impeach
Per the Constitution of the United States, it is the House of Representatives, not the Senate that Impeaches. The Senate tries the impeachemnt charges
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
nadinbrzezinski Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-23-07 10:33 PM
Response to Reply #30
31. Correct but here is the tittle to the
Speccial Senate Committe on Impeachment back in watergate, here a link for you

On Feb. 7, 1973, the Senate voted 77 to 0 to authorize a seven-member special committee. Forty-five Democrats and 32 Republicans voted yes. Republicans tried to expand the inquiry to probe also the 1964 and 1968 presidential elections, but failed to muster the votes. Democrats demanded and received a 4-to-3 majority on the committee-something House Republicans should remember today.

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3827/is_199803/ai_n8803064

Now our friend is too thick to undestaend that this Special Committe IN THE SENATE held many of the haerings and its evidence was used in drawing the articles of impeachment in the house

Essentially, not that he undestands the process, the Special Comittee in the Senate became part of the impeachment process

Oh and here are further web links.

http://www.museum.tv/archives/etv/W/htmlW/watergate/watergate.htm

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,942694,00.html?promoid=googlep

And I could go on.

It is not my fault that the US SENATE got involved in hearings over impeachment back in 1973 and he has a problem with that piece of history

He also has a problem with the fact that if the Dems don't do a thing, the 2008 elections have been lost...

Oh and he is fully and completely against impeachment due to political calculations. tell me friend, how was the Dukakis administration?

I fail to remember it, but perhaps in his alternate reality he got elected.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MonkeyFunk Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-23-07 10:39 PM
Response to Reply #31
32. LOL
I love how you keep insulting me, while being absolutely wrong.

It wasn't an impeachment hearing - the notion is absurd. The Senate doesn't impeach. It was an investigatory hearing - exactly the kind I support now. YOU, on the other hand, want to impeach now and then have the hearings.

You're wrong. You were wrong about that hearing. You were wrong about Mondale running in 1988. You're wrong about so many things it it just baffles me how you can be so arrogant and insulting regarding my grasp of history.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
nadinbrzezinski Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-23-07 10:56 PM
Response to Reply #32
33. Ok lets see if now you can understand this
Edited on Mon Jul-23-07 10:59 PM by nadinbrzezinski
were these hearings part of the process? YES OR NO

Where their findings used in the writing of the Bill of Impeachment? Yes or no?

To both questions the answer is yes

If you cannot get it, and have basically insulted me and worst, don't expect me to respect you

Now at this point you have three options,

1.- Not follow me around (doubt it)

2.- Ignore my posts (Not really)

3.- Start doing what you cannot do with those who essentially and fundamentally don't agree with you... in other words we do not agree that political expedience will save the day. On the contrary. As I told you once, something about enemies both Foreign and DOMESTIC... and oaths that some of us have taken, including Congress Critters.

We can agree to disagree, but I fear you cannot do that much

There is an agenda, from the DLC. Whether you are part of the DLC or not, does not matter. You repeat their talking points to the letter. I don't agree with them and I don't agree with you.

Is this clear to you? Or do I need to spell it?

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MonkeyFunk Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-23-07 11:05 PM
Response to Reply #33
34. No
they were NOT part of the impeachment process.

They LED to impeachment.

Last week I was arguing exactly for this: investigations that can LEAD to impeachment, and you were rude and insulting then. Now you agree with me, and you're STILL condescending, despite being WRONG.

Let me type it slowly.


The senate hearings were NOT impeachment hearings. The notion is stupid. The Senate does not impeach.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
nadinbrzezinski Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-24-07 12:05 AM
Response to Reply #34
35. Let me type it slowly for you
Edited on Tue Jul-24-07 12:07 AM by nadinbrzezinski
the hearings were part of the process

Got it

They were part of the process

By your own admission they led to impeachment

Now in my world that means they were part of the process... the process went like this. Break in... investigations, bill of impeachment, and a step down of a President who knew he would be convicted.

In my world we use LOGIC

You may want to try it sometime

Now here is another fundamental difference between you and me

Though we both agree that investigations are critical to the process, you don't believe we have the votes, hence we should never go all the way

Unlike you, I UNDERSTAND how critical it is to go all the way. And if the democrats don't do it... you can kiss the American Republic good bye

That is the critical and major difference between you and me.

I understand what is at stake and dread lack of action

you welcome that lack of action... because we don't have enough votes to convict in the senate

In the final analysis, you are complicit with those who will use any and all excuses to stop just short.

May you enjoy the death of the republic on the altar of political expediency.

As to being condescending, try the mirror, that image you see, is yours.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MonkeyFunk Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-24-07 12:11 AM
Response to Reply #35
36. At least when I condescend
I don't have a history of making enormous historical errors while lecturing you.

You can type "process" all you want, but the Senate hearings were not impeachment hearings. The senate hearings were not impeachment hearings. The Senate hearings were not impeachment hearings.

You're just wrong. Way wrong. Very wrong. Entirely wrong.

And Mondale didn't run in 1988, either.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
nadinbrzezinski Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-24-07 12:17 AM
Response to Reply #36
37. Yeah right
the two I made I admited

One... it was not 100,000 but a million

the other, well we all make mistakes

yes even you

Now... I will repeat your choices

Ignore those of us who want to see impeachment as an end result of all these investigations

Or

Continue to push the DLC talking points

I will continue to call you on your DLC surrender tactics. They have worked great

NOT

And no, I am not saying you are DLC, but in this matter, you repeat their talking points to the letter, and I may add, they have been wrong
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MonkeyFunk Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-24-07 12:22 AM
Response to Reply #37
38. DLC talking points?
yet again, you're mistaken.

The DLC hasn't taken a position on whether the Sam Ervin watergate hearings were impeachment hearings.

But if they did, they'd probably agree that they were not.

Give it up, already.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
nadinbrzezinski Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-24-07 12:29 AM
Response to Reply #38
39. No, not those you silly... or are you trying to misrepresent AGAIN
Edited on Tue Jul-24-07 12:31 AM by nadinbrzezinski
THESE are the DLC talking points

We do not have enough votes in the Senate (How many times have you repeated this> We didn't at watergate either when it started)

We need to investigate (They are, they have... we want more than just empty rhetoric)

We are going to take the WH, why make waves? (1988 redux)

Do you need me to continue? You know what talking points I am talking about

Oh and one more thing... I will not give up on this Republic, not even they arrest me after they finally put the last nail in the coffin

And yes, you are responsible for that death. Now I will ask you once again, why are you willing to surrender? It is shameful that you are willing to surrender in the name of political expediency.

Oh and in addition, the DLC wasn't even around as an organization in 1973, but if they had... I am betting they would have had the same trouble finding their backbone as they do today



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MonkeyFunk Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-24-07 12:37 AM
Response to Reply #39
40. You're wrong again
when impeachment began in Nixon's case, the House voted 404 to 4. There was HUGE bipartisan support.

I'm not asking you to give up on the republic. I'm not giving up either. I simply argue that if we impeach now, the effort will not succeed in removing Bush.

Please stop using historical arguments, because even I'm starting to feel embarrassed for you.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
nadinbrzezinski Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-24-07 12:49 AM
Response to Reply #40
42. Ok shall we post the time line again?
here you go... and I will continue to use Historical arguments becuase you know what? HISTORY IS WHERE WE CAME FROM, and were we are going to

I am actually not surprised that you have this huge allergy to it.

But here you go, YOUR TIMELINE, and YOUR ANSWER as to why things went the way they went...

(And for the record I am embarrased at the lack of knowldge and abilty to do historical analysis AMERICANS LIKE YOU have, as well as disdain for history)

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/onpolitics/watergate/chronology.htm
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
GreenPartyVoter Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-23-07 01:25 PM
Response to Original message
3. Maybe that's the real point of not impeaching?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
baldguy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-23-07 01:26 PM
Response to Original message
4. Without impeachment, America is a dictatorship.
Congress might as well go home.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
nadinbrzezinski Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-23-07 01:28 PM
Response to Reply #4
7. This would be so much easier if this was a
dictartorhsip, as long as I am the dictator, George Bush 2000


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bdamomma Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-23-07 01:31 PM
Response to Reply #7
8. when he said that, that should have
gave everyone a clue how psychotic this ignorant and arrogant man is.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
nadinbrzezinski Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-23-07 01:51 PM
Response to Reply #8
11. When people say things like that you take them
at their word

And no, it is not psychosis or ignorance, but intent

He is not mentally ill, or an ignorant fuck, what he is, well in older times it was called a monarchist or a royalist.

It comes with his class
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
PBass Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-23-07 02:06 PM
Response to Original message
15. Bush is setting a disasterous precedent. His changes to the balance of power must not go unanswered.
If Republicans in the Senate refuse to convict, then let history show that. But let history show that Dems in the House stood up for the Constitution, and that they weren't all "Vichy Democrats"

If Democrats do nothing, it will neuter the party, IMO... "spinelessness" as an official policy.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Solve et Coagula Donating Member (11 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-23-07 04:27 PM
Response to Original message
23. Operation FALCON - The USA is turning into a Police State
Operation FALCON - The USA is turning into a Police State

Mike Whitney

On 29th June, 1934, Chancellor Adolph Hitler, accompanied by the Schutzstaffel (SS), arrived at Wiesse, where he personally arrested the leader of the Strum Abteilung (SA), Ernnst Roehm. During the next 24 hours 200 other senior SA officers were arrested on the way to Wiesse. Many were shot as soon as they were captured but Hitler decided to pardon Roehm because of his past service to the movement. However, after much pressure from Hermann Goering and Heinrich Himmler, Hitler agreed that Roehm should die. At first Hitler insisted that Roehm should be allowed to commit suicide but, when he refused, Roehm was shot by two SS men. (Spartacus.schoolnet.co)
Later, Hitler delivered a speech at the Reichstag in which he justified the murders of his rivals saying:

"If anyone reproaches me and asks why I did not resort to the regular courts of justice, then all I can say is this: In this hour I was responsible for the fate of the German people, and thereby I became the supreme judge of the German people. It was no secret that this time the revolution would have to be bloody; when we spoke of it we called it 'The Night of the Long Knives.' Everyone must know for all future time that if he raises his hand to strike the State, then certain death is his lot."

The Night of the Long Knives is seen by many as the turning point where Hitler made it clear that he was above the law and the supreme leader of the German people.

Operation Falcon: Blueprint for removing dissidents and political rivals

The Bush administration has carried out three massive sweeps in the last two years, rolling up more than 30,000 minor crooks and criminals, without as much as a whimper of protest from the public.

So far, not one of the more than 30,000 victims has been charged with a terror-related crime. So far, not one of the more than 30,000 victims has been charged with a terror-related crime.Operation Falcon is the clearest indication yet that the Bush administration is fine-tuning its shock-troops so it can roll up tens of thousands of people at a moment's notice and toss them into the newly-built Halliburton detention centers. This should be a red flag for anyone who cares at all about human rights, civil liberties, or simply saving his own skin.

Operation Falcon was allegedly the brainchild of Attorney General Alberto Gonzales and his counterpart in the US Marshal's office, (Director) Ben Reyna. But its roots go much deeper into the nexus of right-wing Washington think tanks where fantasies of autocratic government have a long history. The name, Falcon, is an acronym for “Federal and Local Cops Organized Nationally.” It relates to the more than 960 state, local and federal agencies which are directly involved in the administration's expansive criminal dragnets.

Typically, law enforcement agencies are protective of their own turf and wary of outside intervention. The Falcon program overrides these concerns by streamlining the information-sharing processes and setting up a chain-of-command structure that radiates from the Justice Department. This removes many of the traditional obstacles to agency interface. It also relocates the levers of power in Washington where they can be manned by members of the Bush administration.

Dictatorships require strong centralized authority and the Falcon program is a logical corollary of that ambition. It creates new inroads for Bush to assume greater control over the nationwide police-state apparatus. That alone should be sufficient reason for alarm.

The first Operation Falcon took place during the week of April 4 to April 10, 2005. According to the US Marshal's official website, “The emphasis centered on gang related crimes, homicides, crimes involving use of a weapon, crimes against children and the elderly, crimes involving sexual assaults, organized crime and drug related fugitives, and other crimes of violence.” More than 10,000 criminal suspects were arrested in a matter of days. It was the largest criminal sweep in the nation's history and, according to U.S. Marshall chief Ben Reyna, “produced the largest number of arrests ever recorded during a single initiative.” The Washington Times noted, “The sweep was a virtual clearinghouse for warrants on drug, gang, gun and sex-offender suspects nationwide.”

The emphasis was clearly on quantity not quality.

Still, this doesn't explain why state and federal agencies had to be integrated with local law enforcement simply to carry out routine police work.

More importantly, it doesn't explain why local police ignored their duty to protect the public just so they could coordinate with outside agencies. According to one report “162 accused or convicted of murder” were picked up in the first sweep. That means that the police knowingly left murderers on the street and put the public at risk while they orchestrated their raids with federal agencies?

That's irresponsible. It also suggests that there may be a more sinister motive behind the program than just ensuring public safety. The plan appears to have been devised to enhance the powers of the “unitary” executive by putting state and local law enforcement under federal supervision. Once again, it's an attempt by the administration to extend its grip to the state and local level. We saw a similar strategy unfold after Hurricane Katrina when the Bush administration used the tragedy to seize control of local police and National Guard units so they could establish de facto martial law. Troops, armored vehicles and mercenaries were deployed to New Orleans to fight lawlessness and looting even though desperate people were still stranded on their rooftops waiting for food, water and medical attention.

Operation FALCON II was another massive dragnet which covered the western half of the country and focused primarily on “violent sex offenders”. The raids took place from April 17-23, and succeeded in apprehending 9,037 alleged fugitives. The US Marshals web site boasts that the operation “took some of the country's most dangerous wanted criminals off the streets and made America's communities safer”.

Nonsense. Despite the claims of success, only 462 “violent sex crime” suspects were arrested, along with 1,094 “unregistered sex offenders” and other minor “sex crime” suspects. That leaves 7,481 suspects who were rounded up for other unrelated reasons.

Who are they and what crime did they commit? Were these drug violations, dads who were delinquent on child-support payments, traffic tickets, jay-walking?!?

7,481 people who were incarcerated are unaccounted by the government's estimate. This means that the bulk of them were probably undocumented workers who were shunted off to the INS (Immigration and Naturalization) or dispatched to Cheney's tent-city gulags in western Texas. (See: Democracy Now “Human Rights Groups Call for Closure of Texas Jail Holding Undocumented Immigrants” 2-23-07)

Similar inconsistencies appear in “Operation FALCON III, which covered the eastern half of the country from October 22 - 28, 2006.” State, local and federal police-units arrested 10,773 fugitives; including 1,659 sex offenders, 971 unregistered sex offenders, 364 gang members, 140 homicide suspects, and 3,609 drug violations. Once again, the US Marshal's official tally doesn't pencil out. This time, 4,030 extra people were rounded up without any further explanation.

Who are they and have they been charged with a crime?

Furthermore, sex offenders, drug users and gang-bangers are not what we normally consider “some of the country's most dangerous wanted criminals”. In fact, there are indications that the great majority of these people are not violent at all. For example, of the 30,110 total fugitives who were apprehended in all three Falcon sweeps, a measly 586 firearms were seized.

Clearly, the people who were arrested for the most part were not “armed and dangerous” nor were they a serious threat to public safety. They were probably just the unwitting victims of an overzealous US Marshals office and an ideologically-driven Justice Department.

So, what was the real impetus for the Falcon raids? Was it just a bean-counting exercise to see how many people would fit in the back of a Paddy-wagon or are they a dress rehearsal for future crackdowns on potential enemies of the state?

Bogus News Reports

The Falcon operation illustrates the incestuous relationship between the media and the state. They are two wings on the same plane. The Justice Department provided the TV networks with official footage of policemen and government agents raiding homes and handcuffing suspects; and the media dutifully aired the video on stations across the country. The scenes were accompanied by a reassuring commentary lauding the administration's new crime fighting strategies and linking homeland security with the nebulous war on terror.

Attorney General Gonzales told reporters, “Operation FALCON is an excellent example of President Bush's direction and the Justice Department's dedication to deal both with the terrorist threat and traditional violent crime.” He added, “This joint effort shows the commitment of our federal, state, and local partners to make our neighborhoods safer, and it has led to the highest number of arrests ever recorded for a single initiative of its kind.”

So far, not one of the more than 30,000 victims has been charged with a terror-related crime.

The media-hype surrounding the raids has been celebratory and uniform; cookie-cutter articles appeared throughout the US press (most of them unsourced) highlighting the cooperation between the divers agencies while providing an upbeat account of what amounts to police repression. Thousands of nearly identical articles appeared in the nation's newspapers which seem to have been authored by high-ranking officials at Homeland Security and protégés of George Orwell; although the difference between the two is far from certain.

Even stranger, most of the articles in the mainstream media can no longer be retrieved via a Google search. They seem to have vanished into the black-hole of Homeland propaganda.

No matter. If the media was supposed to make Gestapo-like crackdowns look like normal police operations; they succeeded admirably. Mission accomplished.

Former Governor of Louisiana, Huey Long once opined, “When fascism comes to America, it will come wrapped in an American flag.” Indeed, he could have added that the corporate media will gladly provide the flag and the public relations campaign as they have with Falcon.

Falcon; new drills for a new world order

The Falcon operations can only be understood in the broader context of the ongoing assault on the constitutional system of checks and balances; including the repeal of habeas corpus, warrantless wiretaps and searches, and the use of torture.

For the last 6 years, the Bush administration has been busy dismantling the legal safeguards which protect the citizen from the arbitrary and, oftentimes, ruthless actions of the state. To that end, detention camps are being prepared by Halliburton within the U.S., secret courts have been established which deny due process of law, American citizens are arrested without charge, law enforcement is increasingly militarized, and the media has strengthened its alliance with the central government.

Additionally, in October 2006, George Bush quietly changed the Insurrection Act, which prevented the President from deploying troops inside the United States. Bush's revision effectively overturns the Posse Comitatus Act which put strict limits on the executive's power to use US troops in domestic situations. Just days earlier Bush signed a similar bill, "The John Warner Defense Authorization Act of 2007" which gives Bush the power to take command of National Guard units across the country which are traditionally under the control of the state governors.

Without fanfare, Bush has taken control of all armed forces and militias inside and outside of the country and now has a monopoly on all the state-sanctioned tools of organized violence. It's a coup that could never have succeeded without the tacit cooperation of the media.

Bush is now free to declare martial law in response to a natural disaster, a pandemic or a terrorist attack. The congress is powerless to stop him.

Also, Bush recently signed the Military Commissions Act of 2006, which allows the president to arbitrarily declare citizens and non citizens “enemy combatants” and imprison them indefinitely without charge. The new law gives Bush the authority to disregard the Geneva Conventions and the 8th amendment's ban on “cruel and unusual” punishment and apply “harsh interrogation” which may include torture. The act effectively repeals habeas corpus, the cornerstone of American jurisprudence and the Bill of Rights.

The Military Commissions Act cannot coexist with the US Constitution; the two are mutually exclusive.

The Military Commissions Act, The John Warner Defense Authorization Act, the Homeland Security Act, the Patriot Act, and the myriad presidential signing statements have conferred absolute power on George Bush. The question is whether or not some incident will arise that will persuade Bush to use his extraordinary new powers.

General Tommy Franks predicted that a “massive, casualty producing event” might cause “our population to question our own Constitution and begin to militarize our country;” a scenario that many see as likely now.

Is that it? Will another terrorist attack provide the rationale for overturning republican government and declaring martial law?

If so, then we should know what to expect.

According to FEMA (Federal Emergency Management Agency) it would mean “the suspension of the normal functions of civilian government, implying the cancellation or postponement of state and federal elections.” (Global Research) It would also “close public and government facilities not critical for continuity of essential operations.” (FEMA)

Northern Command would assume control and under “the classified 'Continuity of Government” (COG) Operations Plan' a secret 'shadow government' would become functional, redeploying key staff to secret locations.” (Global Research)

Also, “all forms of public gatherings or citizen's protests which question the legitimacy of the emergency procedures and the installation of a police state” would be banned. The military would be deployed to carry out “police and judicial” functions.

Martial law in the US would be applied with the utmost attention to public sensibilities and perceptions, avoiding the garish display of force we see in Iraq. It would be a “kinder and gentler” martial law with a limited number of military personnel on the streets (just enough to remind us that things have changed) and an emphasis on “preemptive” policing operations. (Expect Falcons' 4, 5 and 6 etc) It would probably be disguised by a carefully crafted public relations campaign and a predictably cheery moniker, such as, “The Security Enhancement and Homeland Fortification Act”. The possibilities are limitless.

The Bush administration is also prepared if some unforeseen tragedy befalls congress, like another anthrax attack.

In fact, the American Enterprise Institute, to which the Bush team is closely aligned, has already "issued proposals for the operation of Congress following a catastrophic terrorist attack". They advocate the "APPOINTING" of individuals to the House of Representatives "to fill the seats of dead or incapacitated members, a first in American history" "The Continuity of Government Commission is self-commissioned', its members being neither elected nor appointed by any government body and mostly made up of professional lobbyists". ( Read the whole article ) (Coincidentally, Newsweek article “White House Rehearses for Domestic Attack” 2-23-07; “The White House is staging a high-level exercise Saturday to test responses to the prospect of a massive domestic terrorist attack.” These drills are a critical part of the C.O.G. regimen dating back to the Reagan administration)

According to the AEI's plan, the future United States congress will be comprised of lobbyists and industry representatives. What else would one expect from an organization that believes that corporate interests should determine policy?

These are the chilling precedents which have paved the way for further government lawlessness and abuse. They foreshadow the ominous transition from representative government to autocratic rule; from inalienable rights to martial law.

The Falcon operations are just a small part of this larger paradigm. The program is not designed for rounding up minor crooks and drug dealers, (which no one really cares about anyway) but for removing leftists, dissidents and political rivals. These are the real targets. The power of the state is measured in terms of how effectively it defeats or eliminates its enemies. And, the Bush administration has shown a remarkable aptitude for crushing its rivals.

The Crawford Fuehrer

One day, after a particularly savage domestic purge; we can expect President Bush to stride to the presidential podium and reiterate the same words that were uttered by his German predecessor 60 years ago:

"If anyone reproaches me and asks why I did not resort to the regular courts of justice, then all I can say is this: In this hour I was responsible for the fate of the American people, and thereby I became the supreme judge of the American people….Everyone must know for all future time that if he raises his hand to strike the State, then certain death is his lot."

http://www.marketoracle.co.uk/index.php?name=News&file=article&sid=431
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Exultant Democracy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-24-07 12:41 AM
Response to Original message
41. the unitary executive is terrifying n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
zonmoy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-24-07 01:07 AM
Response to Original message
43. what makes you think that they will give her these powers
rigging the election isn't hard anymore, and it wont take too much to set things up so that there isn't an election to elect her with.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Mon May 06th 2024, 06:56 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC