if they impeached either Bush or Cheney, so much would come to light about Congress' own complicity in Bush and Cheney's crime rings, that they would be impeaching themselves along with the two murderers holding nuclear weapons in their hands. We need a communal brainstorm about how to get impeachment back on the table.

::::::::

So, why is impeachment "off the table?" Of course, it is not within my powers to read minds and hold a crystal ball. Not being some kind of Merlyn or Wizard of Oz, all I can do is speculate. But based on a few facts, I think there is ample evidence to conclude that Congress fears not turning off their constituents with the "waste of time" argument by doing a negative show where impeachment is concerned. Neither are they, I believe, lying down or "caving" in to Bush's fear mongering.

Instead, I believe they are protecting themselves. If they impeached either Bush or Cheney, so much would come to light about Congress' own complicity in Bush and Cheney's crime rings, that they would be impeaching themselves along with the two murderers holding nuclear weapons in their hands.

Having posted this a million times before, let me apologize right now for the eyeball-rolling repetition. Those of you who have read what I have posted about the Congressional voting record, may sign off here right now, keeping in mind what I have stated above. But before you do sign off, let me suggest that it would be terribly important to have a communal brainstorm: How do we get around the problem of impeachment being "off the table"  based on Congress' attempts to protect their seats in office, and not to earn themselves a seat in jail? I doubt that they are protecting Bush and Cheney, who are disgraces to the Republican and Democratic parties alike. Far from it. Instead, they are self-concerned. And until we can find a way to break through, impeachment is never going to happen. Period.

What do you, dear readers, think is the solution?

More about the Congressional voting record here: I spent four hours at a time, for a number of nights in a row, combing through the *entire* Congressional voting record as pertains to several of the post-911 bills. Who voted for the Patriot Act? The Military Commissions Act (torture bill)? Restore the Constitution Act? Who voted to oppose the government control of American travels in CAPPS II, and who voted for it? I wanted to know.

You can verify all the facts below on the ACLU"s website, the Center for Constitutional Rights, and the Electronic Frontier Foundation, by punching in the names of each bill into their search boxes: www.aclu.org www.ccrjustice.com   www.eff.org

It was the former Republican majority which passed the Military Commissions Act (MCA, or torture bill) by nearly unanimous vote. This bill allows for the euphemistic term "torture" of detainees and their confessions squealed up under pain levels "equivalent to severe organ failure or death", such as invoked by a "hand slap" done with steel cables three inches thick. This false evidence, squealed up by mostly completely innocent detainees, is permissible as "evidence" in the MCA. Habeas corpus is nixed, meaning that the detainees have no right to challenge the grounds for their detention (thus assuring the secrecy of the crime ring, in which mostly innocent people are captured and tortured as so-called "terrorists").

Worse yet, and here is the really cryptic piece of information, the MCA grants the President the unilateral authority to "interpret" the Constitution and the Geneva Conventions, which provide us with a guide regarding what torture consists of. Thus, the President himself decides ("interprets") what exact form torture takes. Again, this euphemistic "torture" is defined in the MCA as invoking "severe pain levels equivalent to organ failure or death". Not funny.

And worse still, it grants the Prez, and future Prez's, immunity from prosecution as a war criminal for invoking this kind of cruel and unusual punishment for the crime of not being a terrorist at all, in most cases. To boot, a mere photo in the newspapers would seem to be enough "evidence" to convince a world full of people that a "terrorist ringleader" has been caught. All this in absence of court trials...and we automatically believe everything we hear and read! Please pass word on: It ain't right, to say the least, to consider a mere newspaper photograph as ample "proof" that the Government has caught a "terrorist".

In fact, the ACLU states in its movie Stop the Abuse of Power, that out of 850 Guantanamo detainees, only twelve of them (in the best of my memory) are guilty. The Red Cross estimates that more than 75% of "terrorist" detainees are innocent, and Amnesty International is vociferous. Check out the Center for Constitutional Rights's website about this, too.

So....why the "revelation" and "Surprise" and "horror" to "find out" that Bush presided over individual torture cases all along, and that he "approved" ?

Repeat: CONGRESS voted for this. IE it wasn't just Bush who is The Problem Acting Alone. It was the Republicans, by nearly solid unanimity who voted for the MCA. Democrats just as solidly voted against it.

Is the "Surprise" and the ensuing "investigations" of Bush's torturing a big pretense? Methinks the answer is "yes", as may be obvious by now.

If Dems voted against the MCA, are they innocent and not guilty? Far from it. The unconstitutional Patriot Act works hand-and-glove with the MCA. It may be subtle, but on close analysis one comes to realize that the Patriot Act is actually quite instrumental in capturing innocent "Terrorists":

a) Defines "terrorists" to include activists. The Center for Constitutional Rights is vociferous about this, stating that the definition of terrorists in the PA "Could be misconstrued" to crack down on "First amendment rights", ie, free speech. Thus, vocal individuals would be vulnerable to targeting as "Terrorists". Witness: 911 truth activists called "Terrorists" by the Administration. After all, the rationale is this: If you expose the truth about 911, you are siding with terrorists, ie committing treason. That's a twisted rationale which, in fact, is more likely a stunningly accurate projection of the Government's own dynamic. What we reject in ourselves, we see in the world around us. Such would seem to be the case, where our Government is concerned.

 b) Grants expanded wiretapping powers without warrant. Thus, the PA side-steps the power of the judiciary as a fundamental arm of government, with the function of putting a "check" on government power. The implications of this unchecked power is scary.

c) Capital punishment in the absence of Congressional oversight, even if only for non-citizens, is none-the-less as unconstitutional as it comes. The 4th amendment states that the right of "The People" to be secure in their houses, persons, papers and effects "shall" not be violated. It does not say that the right of "all citizens" is protected. Repeat: It says "The People". Elsewhere in the Constitution the words "All persons" appear. Thus, the outreach is to protect all people from government abuse, not merely American citizens.

d) FBI is granted unilateral "Terrorist" investigation powers based an "an authorized investigation". That sounds reasonable at first glance, until one realizes that there is no judge "authorizing" this investigation with a warrant based on probable cause. Thus, the FBI are self-certifying their investigations of "Terrorists" based on nothing more than their own unilateral whims. If they don 't like YOU, all they have to do is SAY that YOU are a terrorist and go after you, based on their own self-certified "authorized investigation".

Alas, the ACLU's statistics bear out the reality of the abuses in spades. Nearly one million people now appear on the no-fly list, among whom are babies (because their names match someone else's on the "terrorist" database), Democrats in public office (no Republicans, and no partisan statement intended here. Just plain old fact). Activists commonly appear on the no-fly list. Even bird watchers have been targeted by the agenda-crazed FBI: http://www.rightsmatter.org/multimedia/

You get the picture.

Between the "terrorist" definition which includes activists, warrantless wiretapping, and FBI investigative powers, the "War on terror" is really a witchhunt for vocal Americans. The Patriot Act and other post-911 legislation is "sold" to the public in the guise of hunting down terrorists, but in actual fact it goes after vocal people with one very pointed reason: To cover up the crimes of the Bush administration and its accomplices in public office. Keeping people quiet is a keystone to that cover-up.

e) The gag orders in the Patriot Act are the best instrument for covering up such crimes and abuses on the part of the FBI, and the Government at large. Under the Patriot Act, if a doctor is ordered to fork YOUR records over to the Feds, s/he would go to jail for six years if s/he told you, his/her partner, a staff member, or for that matter Any Person. Period. That six year sentence was reduced to five years in the second version of the Patriot Act. Even lawyers are gagged. With secrecy thus virtually guaranteed, no wonder Americans still have the illusion of free speech and that all is fair and square!

Not so! See this actual account of someone who chose to break the gag order: www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/03/22/AR2007032201882_pf.html

f) Under the Patriot Act, 183,000 FBI-issued National Security Letters (which contain the gag orders) were issued between the years 2003-2005 alone. Of these, 53% were for Americans, born and naturalized alike, according to Mike German, former FBI agent and now counsel to the ACLU. The ACLU also reports that only ONE terrorist was caught during that same period.

Wowee. Impressive, eh? Does everybody feel really safe now? Actually, we all should be quaking in our boots at the implications of the term "terrorist" as applied to peaceful activists.

Back to the main point.....Since Congress voted for the Patriot ACt by almost solid majority (only two lone Senators said "NO" the first time around, with only 1/3 the House opposing it, and very little improvement on the second round)....

 Wouldn't it seem clear that if Bush was investigated for warrantless wiretapping and breaking the 4th amendment, for torture, and for any other numerous crimes....that Congress would be implicated too?

Hey, please tell me: Even if an investigation of Bush did come up for torture, how would he be impeached under current US "Law", given the immunity from war crimes prosecution granted by the Military Commissions Act?

I bookend this presentation with a public request:

We need to brainstorm about how to get impeachment back on the table. Too much is at stake for Congress, who would be sticking their necks out so far as not only to lose their seat in office, but to earn a seat in jail while they are at it. Clearly, they are not going to do that. (Even if it also would be the best thing that could ever happen. If we want OUR Constitution back, then we need to replace about 85% of Congress. How about YOU for public office?)

What do YOU think the impeachment solution is?

Folks, may I urge you with utmost importance: DEPRESSION GOVERNS OUR MASSES. PLEASE POST INSIGHTS AND HOPE, NOT RANTS AND RAVES. Because the only thing those will get accomplished is to disable the readers with more depression than is already the case. Our nation is already "lying down" enough. We need ENcouragement, not DIScouragement.

When we have come to some group conclusions, may I urge you to forward them to your favorite impeachment groups, such as After Downing Street, Democrats.com, to David Swanson personally, etc.

Authors Bio:
This quote summarizes the nature of my concerns and the content of personal experiences which stir my activism:

"Necessity is the plea for every infringement on human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves". --Paul Revere, House of Commons