Friday, July 11, 2008

DRANT #311: REPUBLICAN SENATORS DEMAND IMPEACHMENT



FROM: OpEdNews
July 11, 2008



Seven Republican Members of House Judiciary Call for Impeachment out of Duty to the Constitution

By Cheryl Biren-Wright

GOP Reps. Smith, Sensenbrenner, Coble, Gallegly, Goodlatte, Chabot, and Cannon after much deliberation put the Constitution and rule of law before politics. Rep. Lamar Smith stated, “As much as one might wish to avoid this process, we must resist the temptation to close our eyes and pass by. The president's actions must be evaluated for one simple reason: the truth counts.” Read their statements below.

Hon. Lamar Smith (TX) Phone 202-225-4236 . Fax: 202-225-8628
We should not underestimate the gravity of the case against the president. When he put his hand on the Bible and recited his oath of office, he swore to faithfully uphold the laws of the United States - not some laws, all laws.

As to the uniqueness of the office the president holds, he is a person in a position of immense authority and influence. He influences the lives of millions of Americans. When he took the oath of office, he swore to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States and to take care that the laws be faithfully executed.

When someone is elected president, they receive the greatest gift possible from the American people, their trust. To violate that trust is to raise questions about fitness for office. My constituents often remind me that if anyone else in a position of authority - for example, a business executive, a military officer or a professional educator - had acted as the evidence indicates the president did, their career would be over. The rules under which President Nixon would have been tried for impeachment had he not resigned contain this statement: "The office of the president is such that it calls for a higher level of conduct than the average citizen in the United States."

This will not be an easy task. In fact, it is a difficult ordeal for all Americans, but we will get through it. We are a great nation and a strong people. Our country will endure because our Constitution works and has worked for over 200 years. As much as one might wish to avoid this process, we must resist the temptation to close our eyes and pass by. The president's actions must be evaluated for one simple reason: the truth counts.

As the process goes forward, some good lessons can be reaffirmed. No one is above the law, actions have consequences, always tell the truth. We the people should insist on these high ideals. That the president has fallen short of the standard doesn't mean we should lower it. If we keep excusing away the president's actions we as a nation will never climb upwards because there will be no firm rungs.

Hon. James Sensenbrenner
(WI) Phone (202) 225-5101
…being a poor example isn't grounds for impeachment; undermining the rule of law is.

When Americans come to Washington, they see the words "equal justice under law" carved in the facade of the Supreme Court building. Those words mean that the weak and the poor have an equal right to justice, as do the rich and the powerful.

The framers of the Constitution devised an elaborate system of checks and balances to ensure our liberty by making sure that no person, institution or branch of government became so powerful that a tyranny could be established in the United States of America. Impeachment is one of the checks the framers gave the Congress to prevent the executive or judicial branches from becoming corrupt or tyrannical.

I do so with no joy but without apologies, just as those on this committee who voted to impeach President Nixon, 24 years ago, did. Watergate and the Nixon impeachment reversed the results of an overwhelming election and were extremely divisive to our country, but America emerged from that national nightmare a much stronger country and will do so again after this sad part of our history is over. What is on trial here is the truth and the rule of law.

Hon. Howard Coble (NC) Phone (202) 225-3065 . Fax: (202) 225-8611
Much has been made about the absence of bipartisanship on this issue, and I want to reiterate my position on that. Do not point accusatory fingers at Republicans or Democrats because there is disagreement. Assuming we vote our consciences and exercise sound judgment, little else can be asked.

...I take umbrage to charges that some are out to get the president...I take umbrage as well to those who claim that some approach this arduous task in a gleeful manner. I take no joy in discharging this duty before us, but it remains our duty nonetheless.

...I can't see that this is going to shut down the government or tie it up, assuming it does advance to the Senate.

Hon. Elton Gallegly (CA) Phone (202) 225-5811 . Fax (202) 225-1100
This has been a very trying time. In a democracy, there are few more serious acts than to consider the possible impeachment of a president. I can tell you in true conscience it has caused me many sleepless nights.

I wanted to hear the evidence that would prove the charges were false. I believed that was the only fair way to proceed, and it was also my solemn constitutional duty and immense responsibility. I waited, I read, and I listened.

Mr. Chairman, I'm not a lawyer -- one of the few on this committee -- however, everyone that knows me knows I believe in the rule of law -- believe the rule of law is fundamental to our society. A society without laws is anarchy. Societies that ignore the laws are condemned to violence and chaos.

That bothers me. My district is considered among the safest communities in the nation. We have fine police officers, which certainly helps, but every officer from the chief to the beat officer will tell you a low crime rate begins with citizens who obey the law. Every citizen must obey the law, every law.

He violated the Constitution. To condone this would be to condemn our society to anarchy. Mr. Chairman, I cannot and will not condone such action.

Hon. Bob Goodlatte (VA) Phone (202) 225-5431 . Fax (202) 225-9681
Mr. Chairman, this is a somber occasion. I am here because it is my constitutional duty, as it is the constitutional duty of every member of this committee, to follow the truth wherever it may lead. Our Founding Fathers established this nation on a fundamental yet at the time untested idea that a nation should be governed not by the whims of any man but by the rule of law. Implicit in that idea is the principle that no one is above the law, including the chief executive

Since it is the rule of law that guides us, we must ask ourselves what happens to our nation if the rule of law is ignored, cheapened or violated, especially at the highest level of government. Consider the words of former Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis, who was particularly insightful on this point. "In a government of laws, the existence of the government will be imperiled if it fails to observe the law scrupulously. For good or for ill, it teaches the whole people by its example. If government becomes a lawbreaker, it breeds contempt for the law. It invites every man to become a law unto himself."

Mr. Chairman, we must ask ourselves what our failure to uphold the rule of law will say to the nation, and most especially to our children, who must trust us to leave them a civilized nation where justice is respected.

If we truly respect the presidency, we cannot allow the president to be above the law. Millions of law-abiding Americans from all walks of life, including my constituents, put in an honest day's work, follow the rules and struggle to teach their children respect for the law and the importance of integrity. When a factory worker or a medical doctor or a retiree breaks the law, they do so with the knowledge that they are not above the law.

This same principle must also apply to the most powerful and privileged in our nation, including the president of the United States. To lose this principle devastates a legacy entrusted to us by our founding fathers and protected for us by generations of American families.

I have a constitutional duty to follow the truth wherever it leads. The truth in this case leads me to believe that the president knowingly engaged in a calculated pattern of lies, deceit and delay in order to mislead the American people…

The precious legacy entrusted to us by our founders and our constituents is a nation dedicated to the ideal of freedom and equality for all her people. This committee must decide whether we will maintain our commitment to the rule of law and pass this precious legacy to our children and grandchildren, or whether we will bow to the political pressure for the sake of convenience or expediency.

Hon. Steve Chabot (OH) Phone (202) 225-2216 . (202) 225-3012
Thank you. Mr. Chairman, every member of our committee recognizes that this is likely the most important vote we will ever cast, and all of us would prefer that the president's actions had not led us down this fateful path. However, we have sworn an oath to uphold the Constitution and we must fully accept that responsibility.

Back in 1974, Congresswoman Elizabeth Holtzman, who served on the judiciary committee during Watergate, said that she would vote to impeach President Nixon, in part, because -- and I quote -- "the presidential cover-up is continuing even through today."

The historic record, the law, and the Constitution tell us that the charges against the president do indeed rise to the level of impeachable offenses. They constitute serious violations of criminal law and fall squarely within our Founding Fathers' definition of "high crimes and misdemeanors."

Mr. Chairman, impeaching the president is an extremely serious matter. Throughout these proceedings, I've tried to keep an open mind, giving the president every opportunity to refute the facts that have been laid before our committee, but now all of the evidence is in and a decision is at hand.

It has become apparent to me that impeachment is the only remedy that adequately addresses this president's illegal and unethical acts. Allowing the president's actions to go unpunished would gravely damage the Office of the President, our judicial system and our country.

I have not reached this decision lightly. I have done my share of soul searching, I have listened carefully to the views of my constituents, and I've reviewed the evidence in excruciating detail. And much of it wasn't particularly pleasant, I can assure you. And I've been guided by our Constitution.

When we cast our votes, we are not voting as Republicans or Democrats, we are voting as Americans. Our allegiance does not lie with any one president but with our country. Our charge is not handed down from any one political party but from the Constitution. Every member of this body is duty-bound to put politics aside, follow our conscience, and uphold our oath of office.

Hon. Chris Cannon (UT) Phone (202) 225-7751 . Fax (202) 225-5629
We are at a defining moment in our history. What we do here will set the standard for what is acceptable for this and future presidents.

I believe profoundly that the behavior of this president is unacceptable because I agree with John Jay, one of our Founding Fathers, who said, "When oaths cease to be sacred, our dearest and most valuable rights become insecure."

[Quoting President John F. Kennedy], "I think you gentlemen should recognize the responsibility of the president of the United States. His responsibility is different from what your responsibility may be. In this country, I carry out and execute the laws of the United States. I also have the obligation of implementing the orders of the courts of the United States. And I can assure you that who's ever president of the United States, he will do the same, because if he did not, he would begin to unwind this most extraordinary constitutional system of ours. So I believe strongly in fulfilling my oath in that regard." And that regard means if he didn't fulfill his oath, the system would begin to unwind. It's inexorable.

I submit that in the spirit of our Founding Fathers and John F. Kennedy, that our first duty is to provide for the security of the fundamental rights of Americans.

To properly perform that duty, we must vote to impeach the president. Thank you.

The statements above are excerpts from transcripts of the House Judiciary Committee's impeachment hearings. December 10-11, 1998. Each congressman is a current member of the House Judiciary Committee.




Authors Bio: Writer/Photographer/Activist. An advocate for clean government, media integrity and civil liberties. Chair of the Progressive Democrats of America S. Jersey Chapter Impeachment Team and co-leader of the New Jersey Impeach Groups. Founder of the Strike08 campaign. Working to end the war in Iraq and prevent one with Iran. Writer and editor for OpEdNews.com. cherylbirenwright.wordpress.com

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Read more!!

Wednesday, July 9, 2008

DRANT #310: ACTA-- BEND WAAAAAY OVER !

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
In DRANT # 304, I wrote about ACTA-
please check it out here.

Yesterday, the G-8 countries put it officially on the table.



The right to peer inside your iPod

An agreement on intellectual property rights to be ratified by the G8 heads of government highlights conflicts between ownership and privacy









Photograph: Nick Veasey/Getty Images

The heads of the G8 governments, meeting this week, are about to ratify the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (Acta), which - it's claimed - could let customs agents search your laptop or music player for illegally obtained content. The European Parliament is considering a law that would lead to people who illicitly download copyrighted music or video content being thrown off the internet. Virgin Media is writing to hundreds of its customers at the request of the UK record industry to warn them that their connections seem to have been used for illegal downloading. Viacom gets access to all of the usernames and IP addresses of anyone who has ever used YouTube as part of its billion-dollar lawsuit in which it claims the site has been party to "massive intentional copyright infringement".

It seems that 20th-century ideas of ownership and control - especially of intellectual property such as copyright and trademarks - are being reasserted, with added legal muscle, after a 10-year period when the internet sparked an explosion of business models and (if we're honest) casual disregard, especially of copyright, when it came to music and video.

But do those separate events mark a swing of the pendulum back against the inroads that the internet has made on intellectual property?

'A finger in the dyke'

Saul Klein, a venture capitalist with Index Ventures who has invested in the free database company MySQL, Zend (the basis of the free web-scripting language PHP) and OpenX, an open-source advertising system, is unconvinced. "In a world of abundance - which the internet is quintessentially - that drives the price of everything towards 'free'," he says. "People don't pay for any content online. Not for music, not for video. They get it, either legally or illegally."

Is that sustainable? "The model of suing your best customers and subpoenaing private information is doomed to failure," Klein observes. "It's putting a finger in the dyke. It won't change the macro trend, which is that there's an abundance of information. Copyright owners need to find new ways to generate income from their product. The fact is, the music industry is in rude health - more people than ever before are going to concerts, making it, listening to it. It's the labels that are screwed. The artists and managers are making money. The labels aren't.

"What is broken is the paid-for model for content, though it won't go away entirely. We look to invest in scarcity, where people will pay a premium for something not in abundance." He gives the example of Viagogo - a ticket-selling site that Index Ventures has invested in: "Selling tickets for Madonna or Prince capitalises on the public's interest in paying for scarcity." guardian.co.uk © Guardian News and Media Limited 2008
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~



G-8 Declarations on Economy, Environment

Read the Group of Eight's declarations on the world economy and the environment and climate change.
"Protection of Intellectual Property Rights (IPR)
17. Effective promotion and protection of IPR are critical to the development of creative products, technologies and economies. We will advance existing anti-counterfeiting and piracy initiatives through, inter alia, promoting information exchange systems amongst our authorities, as well as developing non-binding Standards to be Employed by Customs for Uniform Rights Enforcement (SECURE) at the World Customs Organization. We encourage the acceleration of negotiations to establish a new international legal framework, the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA), and seek to complete the negotiation by the end of this year. We will promote practical cooperation between our countries to develop tools to combat new techniques in counterfeiting and piracy and spread best practices. We reaffirm our commitment on government use of software in full compliance with the relevant international agreements and call on other countries to follow our commitment."
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Public Knowledge - Blogging, Events, and Action Alerts
G8 Endorses ACTA: Great, so what’s in it?

Sherwin Siy
Today, 05:39 PM
In its “Declaration on the World Economy”, the G-8 included an endorsement of ACTA and ongoing efforts to “standardize” IP enforcement through customs organizations. “We encourage the acceleration of negotiations to establish a new international legal framework, the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA), and seek to complete the negotiation by the end of this year,” the statement says.

So we have a major endorsement of ACTA from the leadership of Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, Russia, the United Kingdom, and the United States. And pressure to have this international legal agreement ready to roll at the end of the year. So what’s going to be in this critically important, possibly binding international agreement, to be completed in less than six months?

We have no idea.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
ACTA PUBLIC COMMENTS--One-Stop Shop
Ari Abramowitz
Today, 04:11 PM
We recently scanned all of the documents filed in response to the USTR’s request for public comments regarding the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA). They are presented below, if sometimes angularly, as well as on our issue summary page here. The USTR’s initial “fact sheet,” request for public comment, and the leaked “discussion paper” are also included.

• USTR’s Fact Sheet (October, 2007)

• USTR’s Notice for Public Comments (February, 2008)

• The Leaked “Discussion Paper” (leaked May, 2008)
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement
Webmaster
Thursday, 11:40 AM




ACTA is the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement being negotiated by the US, the EU, Japan, South Korea, Canada, Mexico, Australia, and New Zealand. The stated goal of the agreement is the international enforcement of strong intellectual property rights through increased cooperation and coordination among international governmental agencies. ACTA does not yet exist, though its ongoing discussions are confirmed by all of the participating governments.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
What Does NebuAd Know About You? What Doesn't It?
Art Brodsky
Yesterday, 10:00 PM
While the full United States Senate on Wednesday (July 9) takes up the subject of wiretapping by the government, the Senate Commerce Committee will take up the subject of wiretapping by private industry. It’s a tossup which one is more scary.

The Senate votes July 9 on the bill to grant the Executive Branch almost unlimited authority to wiretap private citizens without any judicial oversight. The Commerce Committee will hear testimony from Robert Dykes, the chairman of NebuAd, a controversial company recently in the news because his group came up with a novel way of getting detailed information about Internet users. NebuAd wasn’t satisfied to get information only from a customer’s use of one Web site. Instead, they want to see everything that a Web surfer does online.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Read more!!