If Rosa Parks had lived two years longer, what happened today in the halls of Congress might have killed her. It certainly would have broken her heart.
Rep. John Conyers, venerable member of Congress, finally chair of the House Judiciary Committee, a man who worked with Parks in Alabama and then hired her on his staff after he won election to Congress in Detroit, today had several dozen impeachment activists, including Gold Star Families for Peace founder Cindy Sheehan, Iraq Veteran Against the War activist Lennox Yearwood and Intelligence Veterans for Sanity founder Ray McGovern arrested for conducting a sit-in in his office in the Rayburn House Office Building.
The three, together with several hundred other impeachment activists who packed the fourth floor hallway outside Rep. Conyers’ office, had come to press Conyers to take action on impeachment, and specifically to start action on H.Res. 333, the bill submitted nearly three months ago by Rep. Dennis Kucinich calling for the impeachment of Vice President Dick Cheney.
After nearly an hour of talking with Conyers, a clearly angry Sheehan emerged together with Yearwood and McGovern, and announced to the waiting throng in the hall that Conyers had told them “impeachment isn’t going to happen because we don’t have the votes.” Sheehan said Conyers had insisted that the best thing was for Democrats to focus on “winning big in 2008.”
To a loud and angry chorus of boos and hisses, the three went back inside Conyers’ office suite, where they were joined by some 30 other supporters, and all were subsequently arrested, at Conyers’ request, by Capitol police, who cuffed them and walked them off for booking. Several of those who sat in refused to walk and were carried or dragged out of the Rayburn Office Building, as the activists in the hall chanted “Shame on Conyers! Shame on Conyers!” and “Arrest Bush, Not the People!”
It was a thoroughly disgraceful scene wholly unworthy of a dean of the Congressional Black Caucus.
Before returning to sit in the Judiciary Chairman’s office and await arrest, Sheehan publicly announced her intention to run in 2008 as an independent candidate for Congress against House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, and she called on Americans everywhere to run not just against Republicans in 2008, but against Democrats too.
Yearwood, who is a chaplain in the Air Force, said that Conyers had been a mentor to him, but he declared that he now felt betrayed and that Americans needed to take back their government. As he was led down the hall to his arraignment, the handcuffed Yearwood pointedly sang “We Shall Overcome!”
This reporter subsequently called Conyers’ press office for an explanation of Conyers’ true position on impeachment. Only a few days earlier the congressman, visiting a San Diego meeting on health care reform, had told members of Progressive Democrats of America that it was time to “take these two guys (Bush and Cheney) out” and had promised that if just “a few more” members of the House signed on to the Kucinich bill (it already has 14 co-sponsors), he would move it forward for consideration in his Judiciary Committee. Asked how that statement squared with what he had told the group of activists in his office, the spokesman said Conyers’ “must have been misunderstood” in San Diego. He said that in view of Conyers’ statement to Sheehan and the others today, the Kucinich bill was “not going to go anywhere.”
As impeachment activist David Swanson of AfterDowningStreet.org has said, there “seems to be two John Conyers,” one who, in 2005 and early 2006, while Republicans controlled the House, was systematically making the case for impeaching the president and vice president (he had even submitted a bill, with 39 co-sponsors, which called for creation of a select committee to investigate possible impeachable crimes by the administration), and one who, submitting to the wishes of the new House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, was keeping impeachment “off the table.”
Occasionally the former Conyers breaks out, saying things such as that the president needs to be “taken out” or, as he put it at an anti-war rally last spring, that “we can fire him!” But then the other Conyers comes to the fore, and stands in the way of impeachment action.
This time, however, it was worse than just doing nothing. The arrest of impeachment activists and their forcible eviction from his office was a betrayal of people who were doing the very kind of thing that had allowed Conyers to make his way into Congress in the first place: sitting in to insist on action on their demands for justice. It was, after all, sit-ins that helped lead to the Voting Rights Act which allowed African American candidates like Conyers to finally win seats in the US Congress.
It is becoming increasingly clear that the Democratic Party—Congressional Black Caucus and Progressive Caucus included--has become nothing but a dried out husk, living on old glories and devoid of any principle other than returning its elected officials to their offices and their perks, year after year. As one angry activist in the hallway remarked, “Where is today’s (Rep. Allard) Lowenstein or Father Drinan. There is none!”
It’s ironic that Rep. Conyers, speaking in 2005 on “Democracy Now!” following Rosa Parks’ death at the age of 92, said her passing “is probably the end of an era.” Certainly, with his request to have Capitol Police officers enter his office (the very office where Parks once had worked as a staff member!) to cuff and arrest peaceful protesters who were trying to defend the Constitution, he has made that point far more clearly than he could have expressed it in mere words.
But as in the case of Rosa Parks and the Civil Rights movement, arrests and fines will not stop the national grassroots drive to impeach this president and vice president. With polls showing that a majority of the country now favors impeachment, and with Conyers, Pelosi, and the Democratic Congress sinking deeper and deeper into disfavor even as the president continues to add to his list of Constitutional crimes, something’s gotta give. After all, the Founders, in writing impeachment into the Constitution, did not say the test was whether Congress had the votes to impeach. They wrote that if the president abused his power, or committed other high crimes and misdemeanors, bribery or treasson, Congress "shall" impeach.
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
I have mixed feelings on this, many questions unanswered...
... the important part is what you left out. What were the circumstances of the demonstrators going into his office the second time? What did they say? Were they asked to leave? If so, did they refuse?
On the other hand, Conyers shouldnt have been so final about it. He COULD have set up additional meetings with other congresspeople so he and Cindy and some key others could try to get them to change their minds.
Oh well. The more I think, the more questions and disappointment I have about both sides. I guess I am going to have to call both parties myself to be satisfied.
by
Steven Leser (227 articles, 49 quicklinks, 34 diaries, 1636 comments)
on Monday, July 23, 2007 at 10:22:57 PM
But they told Conyers that they were planning to stay until he agreed to let the Cheney impeachment bill, HRes 333, move forward in his committee.
When he told them he was not going to do that, and that impeachment was not going to happen, they stayed, along with several dozen others, sitting in peacefully following the program of the movement that John Conyers was a part of long ago. He then called in the Capitol Police and had them arrested.
It was a sad moment in the history of the House, and of John Conyers' career, and it was a sad commentary on the state of the Democratic Party.
by
Dave Lindorff (354 articles, 0 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 163 comments)
on Tuesday, July 24, 2007 at 8:37:27 AM
Don't get me wrong - I support the protest, but an arrest had to happen there for the protest to end with the protestors protesting.
For impeachment to work Conyers has to coordinate a strategy that is legally valid, not just respond to an on the spot demand. Its not unreasonable that he would want more political support to be successful.
What I am more concerned about is that Conyers seems to have reversed or discounted earlier reports that he would pursue impeachment given only 3 more signatures.
by
Brett Paatsch (0 articles, 2 quicklinks, 22 diaries, 1041 comments)
on Tuesday, July 24, 2007 at 4:09:41 PM
You can't be serious. What--"mixed feelings?" Are you so dumb or weak-willed that you don't understand what it is to stand on principle? While you rummage around for something to clarify your thinking, let the rest of us press forward to save this shattered Republic.
We don't need help from the likes of you.
by
Moss David Posner, M.D. (7 articles, 1 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 43 comments)
on Sunday, July 29, 2007 at 4:20:48 AM
I continued to hold out hope that Conyers was one of us. I thought he would stand for justice but now he has refuted the demands of millions of people who have no represenatation. (Sheehan, Yearwood et al represented millions of us.)
Now he is publicly setting aside his principles because of politics.
There is no way we should be bribed into voting for more spineless politicians in '08. They just take the money and do what they want.
by
Kathlyn Stone (42 articles, 227 quicklinks, 27 diaries, 663 comments)
on Monday, July 23, 2007 at 11:29:30 PM
The only proper instrument for accountability -- when a president (or vice-president) becomes despotic in his actions -- is impeachment, trial, and removal for failure to respect and honor the Constitution and faithfully execute the laws of the land.
Impeachment is a just and necessary remedy and I disagree, as Conyers, Reid and Pelosi suggest, that it takes away from other work Congress should and can be doing. When you have a president who openly flouts and disobeys the law, intentionally attempts to erase the separation of powers of our tripartite government and assume dictatorial powers, no work, as has been the case so far, except for the minimum wage bill, will be accomplished!
Here's the simple reason why: No matter what legislation Congress passes, Bush will veto it, ignore it, or add a dubious "signing statement", making unilateral claims he may ignore it or claim the bill is "unconstitutional", plainly bypassing the judicial process of the Supreme Court, as well. As many historians have appropriately point out, not even King George III of England had or assumed these kinds of tyrannical powers.
There must be far more significant consequences (than perceived landslide elections) for these abuses of power, or the actions of Bush and Cheney will simply become historical precedence for future abuses by future presidents, Republican or Democratic.
The fabric of democracy is feeling the strain and we must unburden our country from a despotic president and a dangerous vice-president who uses fear and subjugation to rule by and not the rule of law to govern our nation.
Frank J Ranelli
by
Frank J. Ranelli (66 articles, 143 quicklinks, 29 diaries, 383 comments)
on Tuesday, July 24, 2007 at 1:06:38 AM
In some respects, you have to see it from his standpoint.
Before I go any further, let me just make it perfectly clear that I am for IMPEACHMENT %1000000.
But on the other hand; if there was EVER a time and a place for due process, it was right there and then.
Oh I can appreciate that these faithful American patriots had walked a long way, and that their premise was honorable;
BUT,
that does NOT mean that charging into, around, over or anywhere near Conyers office was going to be the way to get anything done.
These Faithful Patriots were out of line.
It's a pity that there wasn't a better way, but Mr. Conyers may have felt; threatened, cornered, got at, harrassed, intimidated, pressured, crowded or just plain old overwhelmed,
and though I'm not for Police or handcuffs or jails, for minor 'crimes', the same result would have been forthcoming under any other circumstances in any other office in any other country.
GET REAL !
You don't stage a sit in on private property and make demands, and protests and loud, disturbing occupation in someone else's work place and expect to be given an honorable reception.
What I want to be sure of though,
is WHERE they are being held,
WHEN they are released,
and WHAT are they charged with.
I just pray they aren't Gitmo bound.
Peace Out,
Rev. Michael Valentine Goldsun
Radical Priest
by
Rev. Michael Valentine Goldsun (1 articles, 0 quicklinks, 16 diaries, 37 comments)
on Tuesday, July 24, 2007 at 2:15:23 AM
Respect for our right to peaceful petition our government
Hi Rev MVG,
Your viewpoint is duly noted, however, While Conyers does not deserve to be harassed or intimidated; "pressured, crowded or just plain old overwhelmed" is exactly what is needed to affect change in D.C.!
One small peccadillo,
“You don't stage a sit in on private property and make demands, and protests and loud, disturbing occupation in someone else's work place and expect to be given an honorable reception.”
Staging sit-ins, AKA peacefully demanding redresses and voicing your grievances from your government is a time-honored practice of American patriotism. This is not private property and John Conyers is a public, elected official, whose only job is to represent the will of the people – in this case impeachment – which he has failed to do.
Honorable reception, no. Respect for our right to peaceful petition our government, absolutely.
by
Frank J. Ranelli (66 articles, 143 quicklinks, 29 diaries, 383 comments)
on Tuesday, July 24, 2007 at 2:29:42 AM
Arrangements were made properly, in advance. Conyers came up to meet them after they had already arranged an appointment.
They did everything by the book, and simply told the congressman that they would not be leaving if he would not promise to let HRes 333 move forward (the Cheney impeachment bill filed by Dennis Kucinich has 14 co-sponsors, but has sat immobilized in Conyers' committee for three whole months now).
They did what they promised, when he said he would not act. they sat down, peacefully.
He did what countless people in power have done over the years when confronted by peacefull protesters. He called in the cops and had them cuffed and busted.
It was shameful and Conyers should be condemned for his action--and more importantly for his inaction.
by
Dave Lindorff (354 articles, 0 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 163 comments)
on Tuesday, July 24, 2007 at 8:41:49 AM
Unfortunately, it has come to this: Unless outrageous, if not illegal protests are going to be made, there is little hope of reform and getting anyone's attention.
Conyers is a coward, just like the rest of them. He needs to be told that in no uncertain terms. The people need to be informed that there are those ready and willing to go to extreme lengths to save this country.
by
Bill Cain (2 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 320 comments)
on Tuesday, July 24, 2007 at 7:53:43 PM
I was trying to get to what the Rev was saying, because he is right. But so is Dave and Frank. The point is, if you are ready to be arrested for a cause, be ready to be arrested. Don't take away from the nobility of your act and sacrifice (because, yes, being willing to give up your liberty temporarily for a cause is a noble sacrifice) by whining about it.
"Oh, he was so bad he had us arrested"
That isn't the point. The point is they were expecting action and didn't get it. Of course they were arrested. That is nothing to be surprised about given what they did. That does not say anything else bad about Conyers.
by
Steven Leser (227 articles, 49 quicklinks, 34 diaries, 1636 comments)
on Tuesday, July 24, 2007 at 11:49:57 AM
Think of the "Sweetest" dream that you have ever had.....and consider that as what is provided to our political spokespersons, as a gift. All paid for with taxpayer dollars.
This is one of the main ways in which the predator classes keep the politicians "Up," to do what they are told by the Master class.
by
Patrick (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 417 comments)
on Tuesday, July 24, 2007 at 1:02:43 PM
Thank you Frank and Dave, you make all the right points. But why is nobody listening? What does it take to move our representatives to action? Where is the major news media on this subject? Where is the justification for complacency? The erosion of our constitution, the abuse of executive power, and nothing less than the needless death of our soldiers and Iraqi citizens has to be at least as important as lying about having sex in the White House. Why aren't we calling out the hypocrites? Please tell me, where is the outrage?!?!?
by
Judy Ramsey (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 82 comments)
on Tuesday, July 24, 2007 at 2:13:43 PM
Shame, indeed. The sleepwalking through this nightmare continues. It's refreshing to know that there are people out there willing to risk arrest to save what's left of this country.
by
Bill Cain (2 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 320 comments)
on Tuesday, July 24, 2007 at 7:57:34 PM
We cannot allow maniacs to run the country. It should be a bit more complicated than a bunch of activists terrorizing a senator into submission.
I'm not saying the the country is not run by maniacs, but they were put there by dumb voters and the smart people in power as the result of our corrupt election system.
There are more civilized ways to make your voice heard, especially these days of easy access to media. Activist are usually not very blessed, they can only see one side of the coin and rarely bother to think about the consequences of their actions. It's an unfortunate situation: decent and intelligent people almost never will run for office or turn into activists. So we're stuck with corrupt politicians and insane activists to run our lives.
As for the arrests, Mr. Conyers did what he had to do. Imagine a group of peace activist occupying the "greatest president's" office during the Civil War? "Honest" Abe would have thrown them into one of his many jails reserved for people who dared to disagree with him. Those prisons were not very friendly and comfortable places.
I see no reason to complain, if you refuse to leave my office, I may throw you out myself or call the police. Even a braindead peace activist should know that.
by
Stan Lee (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 1 comments)
on Tuesday, July 24, 2007 at 2:34:59 PM
I continue to believe that we Democrats are again engaged in pointless internal factional disputes regarding ideological and moral purity at the expense of developing a strategy and skill for actually governing this nutty place if a Democrat ever wins the White House again. If John Conyers is a bad guy, we are in big trouble. We meaning Democrats.
by
jmundstuk (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 5 comments)
on Tuesday, July 24, 2007 at 3:38:03 PM
We are attacking and making an enemy of one of only five Congressman who originally supported impeachment of Cheney/Bush? We close his office down by inundating him with hundreds of phone calls and block his office so he cannot do Congressional business. Where were you when Tom Delay was around? I could understand doing it to the offices of Bush, Cheney, The Pentagon, Rice, Gonzales, Roberts, Thomas, Scalia, Hastert, and how many others?
I understand some on this blog are anarchist and some just plain hate the Americn form of government and the freedom of the politcal fray, but John Conyers as the enemy? Give me a break!
by
pratliff94 (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 969 comments)
on Wednesday, July 25, 2007 at 9:28:25 AM
No shame for anyone. This event is expected at this point
I admire David Swanson and his perseverance, skill and intelligence. He neither seeks nor encourages celebrity. Rather, he is a consistent advocate for his cause. I am in full agreement with that cause. I also admire John Conyers. Where would we be today without his courage. He went into the heart of election fraud darkness, Ohio, after 2004. He issued a thorough report which legitimized questions on the election almost immediatly . And he's been in the face of the tyrants on the war.
People participating in focused or general advocacy reflect the general mood of the nation, which they helped create. They stand out, hwoever, due to their depth of knowledge and participation. It's now time to do something! The demonstration is an obvious outcome.
At the same time, Conyers and the few insiders are struggling against unparallelled ignorance and passivity on the part of members of contress. What can he do, he must think, when surrounded by sleep walkers.
The demonstration and Conyers reaction are perfectly undnerstandable.
There should be no shame on either side. This is not a personality contest. It's not the Plymouth settlement where we parade around those to be shamed. And it certainly should not begin to look like middle school with insults hurled in all directions fits of frustration.
All of this is expected given the intensity, frustration, and lack of action.
But Conyers is not, nor has he ever claimed to dominate or fully identify with the Congressional Black Caucus; nor has he ever held himself out for saithood. Apparently enough people have resulting in the shock at his frustration with 300 or so people who he's stood with, by, and for over the past two years at considerable personal and political cost.
by
Michael Collins (105 articles, 16 quicklinks, 5 diaries, 355 comments)
on Saturday, July 28, 2007 at 11:58:15 AM
Look, it's one thing to write letters, make phone calls, even march into a Congressmans office to draw attention to an issue, but Ms Sheehan overstepped some important boundaries and the Congressman was certainly within his rights to call in Security. Think about this. What sort of country would we have if this kind of behavior were productive? If the Congressman had capitulated? We would very quickly have had every congressional office inundated with every faction you can think of demanding a like outcome for their own "righteous" cause. Including a lot of right-wingers, who by the way, are also Americans and have the same right we have on the left have to petition their government. Sounds more like intimidation than petitioning to me.
We cannot afford to repeat the mistakes of the 60s and 70s. That generation was absolutely right about that war. But they got a whole lot else wrong. This war is wrong but this kind of hubris will do our anti-war message a lot more damage than good. If you don't think so, find any conservative or pro-war activist who's mind was changed by what went down in Mr. Conyers office, just one. I don't think you can find one. Try applying this same senario to your own place of business. Say you are a small businessman, you make flashlights. There are a group of people who think your flashlights are the wrong color. They have tried other avenues to persuade you to change the color of your flashlights to no avail. So they invade your place of business and tell you, in so many words, you either make flashlights in the color we want or you won't do any business. Now mind you, it isn't that they don't need flashlights, they just won't tolerate a flashlight of any other color than the one they want. They don't take into consideration a huge price increase that will insue if he does what they want, or even that flashlights in the color they favor are toxic. What does the businessman do? Capitulate? Or call in the police? You know what he does and nobody would argue he shouldn't.
I have been very sympathetic with Ms Sheehan in the past but she needs to re-retire. Yes, I want to see them impeached, both of them and then I want to see them standing in the dock in the Hague being tried as the war criminals they are. But this kind of behavior won't accomplish that. It's almost as if Ms Sheehan has adopted a "George Bush" strategy, talk big, swagger a lot, kick a lot of ass in the mistaken belief that it will win "hearts and minds", and make damned sure you never intertain even a glimmer of a thought that your strategy might be wrong.
Sorry, but even with all my frustration, I don' think that is the way to get it done. Ms Sheehan has suffered a great loss in the death of her son. So have the families of every other dead soldier. They don't all agree with Ms Sheehan. So should they start invading Congressional offices demanding we continue the war?
When I was a girl, I am now nearly 71, my mother taught me to alway consider my actions this way: What would be the result if everyone in the world behaved in similar fashion?. So I ask you to consider that same proposition. What would be the result if everyone in the US behaved in like fashion? One of the above posters referred to anarchism and that is exactly right. Isn't that what we have seen insue in Iraq? Is that what you would want for America? I don't think so. Just as war is too important to be left to Generals, this is too important a matter to be left to Cindy Sheehan.
by
bmobley (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 30 comments)
on Sunday, July 29, 2007 at 8:34:22 AM
