Police State around the corner

[ranxer]

removing habeus corpus will usher in America the Police State 8/
http://indypgh.org/uploads/boyleone050328k.ram

www.votetoimpeach.org

[ranxer]

another vid with professor boyle:
http://images.indymedia.org/imc/chicago/boylethree28.rm

and transcript:
STOPPING A POLICE STATE: Francis A. Boyle

Excerpts of an April 28 interview with Professor Boyle, University of Illinois, Champaign-Urbana. The interview is streaming on Chicago Indymedia, and on ww.snowshoefilms.com

The Federalist Society

“Justice Rehnquist joined the Supreme Court before the founding of the Federalist Society, but the four colleagues that he works with in the 5-4 majority that we’ve seen now for several years – Scalia, Thomas, Kennedy, O’Connor have been members of the Federalist Society, appear at their functions, and work with them -- and he works quite closely with those four Justices…This same 5-4 majority gave the Presidency to Bush in violation of the Constitution and a federal statute mandating that disputed elections get decided by Congress – the House of Representatives.

“You have to understand the agenda of the Federalist Society is to turn the United States and the federal judiciary back to before Franklin Roosevelt and the New Deal. That is how reactionary the Federalist Society really is. Ashcroft is a member. His deputy Viet Dinh, who drafted Patriot Act I and Patriot Act II is a prominent member. White House counsel Gonzales is a member. His entire staff are members. Most of the Bush federal judiciary appointees are members of the Federalist Society…

“You do not have to accept my word for that. It was Lawrence Walch who has also said the same thing. Judge Walsch was independent counsel in the Iran/Contra scandal, by appointment of the Reagan administration. He’s a life-long Republican. He worked for Dewey in New York. He then became deputy attorney general for President Eisenhower, and then a federal district judge, president of the American Bar Association. Judge Walsch is a conservative, as traditionally defined, and a conservative Republican. And even he has publicly condemned the Federalist Society for trying to turn the federal judiciary, and this country, back beyond Franklin Roosevelt and the New Deal. I think that gives you an idea of how radical these ideologues really are, and how dangerous their philosophies and practices are. And we are seeing this now – every day – in the Bush administration, at the White House, at the Department of Justice, and many of the other executive offices that have been populated by Federalist Society Lawyers.”

International Criminal Court

“Right now a case is being prepared in the International Criminal Court in the Hague against Tony Blair and British government officials because Britain is a party to the Rome statute on the International Criminal Court. The US is not. President Clinton signed it. Bush repudiated that immediately upon coming to power [and] has done everything humanly possible to sabotage the International Criminal Court. And the reason is obvious. If you are contemplating an aggressive war against Afghanistan, and an aggressive war against Iraq, you do not want an International Criminal Court looking over your shoulder. That being said, I believe it would be possible to include President Bush, Vice President Cheney, Defense Secretary Rumsfeld, certainly Deputy Secretary of Defense Wolfowitz, Tommy Franks and the others, in the British complaint – as aiders and abettors, conspirators, those who are complicit. Basically you need to establish a nexus, and the nexus would be: Britain is a party [of the ICC] and Bush et al. are aiders and abettors, facilitators, co-conspirators. They’re complicit, they’re accomplices...”

Impeachment

“Last October, in light of the two horrendous speeches given by Vice President Cheney calling for a preventive war against Iraq, I set up a national campaign to impeach Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld and Ashcroft – and have been working on it ever since then…a group of 10 students here set up a committee. We have a web page. We’ve contacted just about every member of Congress – in support of my draft bill of impeachment. Finally, on March 11, 2003, Congressman John Conyers, ranking member of the House judiciary committee, that has jurisdiction over any bill of impeachment, called for a meeting in Washington, DC to discuss introducing a draft bill of impeachment against President Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld and Ashcroft.

“At the meeting were 40 to 50 of his top advisors, most of whom were lawyers. And Congressman Conyers invited in myself and former Attorney General Ramsey Clark to argue the case for impeaching them all.

“Ramsey also set up his campaign – I believe it was January 17, 2003. We are working independently of each other, but in the same direction. For two hours, Ramsey and I did the best we could (this was before the war started) to put in a bill of impeachment right away. Most of the lawyers and advisors there are affiliated with the Democratic National Committee (I’m not. I’m a political independent.) and they seemed to take the position that it would be politically inexpedient for the Democratic Party to put in a bill of impeachment at this time. I didn’t argue that point. It’s not for me to tell the Democrats how to get their people elected. I just argued the merits of the issue: violations of the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, Human Rights, the UN Charter, international law, etc.

“Today there is now a second, revised draft bill of impeachment sitting on Capitol Hill. It is there. It is in circulation. What we need now is pressure being brought to bear on member of Congress to put this bill in – and to make it clear that this is not a question of political expediency, rather this is a question of our future republic.

“With all the faults and imperfections and defects and indeed sometimes the crimes this republic has committed, not only here internally – African Americans, American Indians – but externally, we are still the oldest republic in the world – but you are going to have to act to keep it that way. Because Bush and Ashcroft, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz want to turn this into a police state at home and an empire abroad. So I would encourage you all, contact members of Congress. They have to listen to their constituents. Tell them you want that bill in right away, and that you will support them when they put that bill in.”

[mburbank]

Shouldn't this be the sort of thing Liberatrains are hopping mad about? Shouldn't there be strident Liberatarian voices openly criticizing the Bush adminsitration and railing against the way they hide behind September 11'th as if it's a blanket excuse to do whatever the hell they want?

[CaptainBubba]

Yes.

Personally, I refuse to be associated with any political party because that comprimises my own opinions by labeling myself as a particular "type" of political ideology. However if someone insisted on calling me something, I would prefer it be Libertarian.

These are very very bleak times and I fear that some Libertarians (and myself) are in a state of shock and disbelief of how ignorant and completely sheep like the American people are. Our most fundamental rights are being stripped away and all we seem to give a crap about is fucking tax cuts and the god damn war in Iraq. Bush has the majority of Americans supporting him and that gives me a sense of despair in matters of politics.

Its very sad. :(

[mburbank]

Good for you sir! We may disagree, but I like the 'cut' of your 'jib'!

[ranxer]

hopping mad, nodoubt a tiny minority :( i hope a huge diversity of people unite to oppose the bush administration.. it seems we will be waking up after our rights are taken for there isnt much stopping them from throwing out the constitution right now. i wont be talking about the greens much if we can unite around issues.. parties come second.

and the thing that gets me even more hopping mad is those folks that are trying to tell us it's in our best interest to throw out our rights.. haha, yea a police state will make you safer! yay, armed to the teeth and feeling safe :) fuckin take yer meds when you start to get scared.

[Ronnie Raygun]

Yes! Yes!

....and "Iraq" is arabic for "Vietnam".

[VinceZeb]

CB, please, you are too much of an idiot to be a libertarian.

Yes, libertarians are throwing a major shit fit about this whole idea of the Patriot act and the other items that are coming about. I do as well.

[Carnivore]

So... if a gigantic idiot calls you an idiot, does that mean you're actually smart? :confused

[mburbank]

"Yes, libertarians are throwing a major shit fit about this whole idea of the Patriot act and the other items that are coming about. I do as well."

Huh. Well, in your case you haven't written about it on your site and the only mention I've seen you make of it here was to say you thought Janet Reno was 1000 times more dangerous. I've seen you throw multiple 'shit fits' over all sort of things. How'd you miss this one. I mean, you being Liberatarian and all. I bet you can't even write an article about how awful the Bush administration is on civil rights and how un-american John Ashcroft is without qualifying it and saying how much worse you think the Democrats were.

So far the only place I see you being more Liberatarian than your average right wing fringe lunatic is you like to talk about sex.

[VinceZeb]

I'm sorry that my site doesnt cater to you, Max. Pay me money and I'll put up what you want.

[mburbank]

Does it 'cater' to Liberatarians? You DO concider yourself a Liberatarian, right? Why, amongst your many important concerns, (Hot Ethnic Chicks!) do civil liberties not bear mentioning?

[VinceZeb]

I'm a conservative with libertarian leanings. I am going to write about it sooner or later, but not right now. Don't have the time to do the proper research that it so rightfully deserves.

[mburbank]

A Conservative Republican with Liberatarian leanings, or a Conservative independant with Liberatarian leanings? You know Conservative is just a descriptive word and not a political philosiphy?

And is being a Conservative Republican/independant with Liberatarian leanings different from being a Liberatarian in the same way, say being a Democrat with socialsit leanings is different from being a socialist?

[CaptainBubba]

"CB, please, you are too much of an idiot to be a libertarian."

"Personally, I refuse to be associated with any political party because that comprimises my own opinions by labeling myself as a particular "type" of political ideology."

Also because, as I have said in previous posts, lunatics have an affinity for labeling themselves as "Libertarian".