Thursday, January 12th, 2006

Francis A. Boyle Law Building
504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign, IL 61820 USA
217-333-7954 (voice)
217-244-1478 (fax) fboyle@law.uiuc.edu
(personal comments only)

—–Original Message—–

From: Institute for Public Accuracy

Sent: Thursday, January 12, 2006 10:46 AM

To: Institute for Public Accuracy

Subject: Alito & Issues: * Torturing People’s Children * War Powers * Geneva Conventions

Institute for Public Accuracy
915 National Press Building, Washington, D.C. 20045
(202) 347-0020 * http://www.accuracy.org * ipa@accuracy.org

Thursday, January 12, 2006

Questions Not Asked:

* Torturing People’s Children * War Powers * Geneva Conventions

DOUG CASSEL, doug.cassel@nd.edu Cassel is director of Notre Dame Law School’s Center for Civil and Human Rights. He said today: “At a time when the commander in chief asserts that his war powers give him carte blanche, it is critical that the Supreme Court be composed of individuals committed to the rule of law. Justices must be prepared to tell a president who claims the power to torture in our name, that American laws and values give a very simple answer — and that answer is no.”

On Dec. 1, 2005, Cassel debated John Yoo, who was mentioned by Sen. Biden on Thursday morning and who has been one of the main legal planners of the Bush administration’s torture policies. Here is part of their exchange:

Cassel: “If the president deems that he’s got to torture somebody, including by crushing the testicles of the person’s child, there is no law that can stop him?” Yoo: “No treaty.” Cassel: “Also no law by Congress — that is what you wrote in the August 2002 memo.” Yoo: “I think it depends on why the president thinks he needs to do that.”

Audio is available at:
http://dc.indymedia.org/media/all/display/28613/index.php.

Further background on Yoo is available at:
http://www.tomdispatch.com/index.mhtml?pid=32668 .

IVAN ELAND, ieland@independent.org ,
http://www.independent.org/newsroom/article.asp?id=1651

Senior fellow at The Independent Institute, a non-partisan think tank, Eland commented today: “Alito said that the Constitution has meaning independent of what he or anyone else might like it to say. I couldn’t agree more. The Constitution clearly states that it is up to Congress to decide on war. That may not be fashionable, given that the U.S. hasn’t fought a declared war since World War II, but that is what the Constitution says. All the senators asking him questions are pledged to uphold the Constitution, including Article I, Sec. 8, which gives to Congress its war powers. They should ask Alito what the Constitution says about what branch of government should decide on war. Particularly those members, mostly Republicans, who claim the mantle of original intent of the Constitution, should be upholding the power of the Congress on its war powers. The president is claiming extraordinary war powers when there is no declared war. “Also, the Bush White House’s lawyers have taken the position that the president, in wartime, is allowed to disregard laws passed by Congress. Examples are domestic spying without warrants, which are required by statute, and declaring the option to circumvent an anti-torture statute recently passed by Congress. The president is reading his constitutional authority as commander-in-chief much much wider than the founders had intended. Judge Alito should be asked to delineate his conception of the scope of the executive power under the commander-in-chief provision.” Eland is a director of the Institute’s Center on Peace and Liberty and author of the book “The Empire Has No Clothes.”

FRANCIS BOYLE, fboyle@law.uiuc.edu Boyle is professor of law at the University of Illinois. Alito stated Wednesday: “I think that the war powers are divided between the executive branch and the Congress.” Boyle said today: “Article I, Sec. 8 of the Constitution says: ‘The Congress shall have power … to declare war…’ The president has nothing to do with it. When Congress declares war, then that declaration triggers the Commander in Chief Clause of the Constitution. Alito is mistakenly attributing War Powers to the president in violation of the War Powers Clause of the U.S. Constitution and in violation of Congress’s War Powers Resolution of 1973, which is ‘the supreme Law of the Land’ according to Article VI of the Constitution. Alito’s argument is a fundamental alteration of one of the most basic principles for both separation of powers and checks and balances set up for our Republic by the Founders in the U.S. Constitution. “But this unconstitutional argument for presidential war powers is part of the standard Federalist Society ideology propounded by its prominent members such as Alito, John Roberts, and John Yoo. It has led to the abuses of Guantanamo, Abu Ghraib, pervasive torture, ‘extraordinary renditions,’ criminal NSA spying on U.S. citizens, ‘enemy combatants,’ wholesale violations of the Geneva Conventions, assassinations, massive religious and racial profiling of Muslims/Arabs/Asians, an unconstitutional war against Iraq and the numerous other constitutional atrocities perpetrated by Bush’s hyper-imperial presidency. The Democrats have not asked serious questions about most of these issues.” Boyle is author of the book “Destroying World Order.”

For more information, contact at the Institute for Public Accuracy: Sam Husseini, (202) 347-0020; or David Zupan, (541) 484-9167

From: activists
wethepeople@emailtocongress.com
Date: January 12, 2006 9:00:27 AM PST
Subject: URGENT: LAST opportunity to save the supreme court

THE NEXT TWO WEEKS WILL DECIDE IF DEMOCRACY WILL SURVIVE

Bush is now completely and certifiably out of control. But to remove the last restraint on the creation of a new American dictatorship they must install one more lock down vote on the Supreme Court, in the person of Sam Alito.

Despite Alito's extreme right wing voting record and lifelong ideological agenda, nobody expected him to show up at his hearing sporting a tail and horns wearing a red suit. But what he have seen is an nominee who appears incapable of telling the truth about what really stands for, who has not so much testified as allowed his advocates to testify for him. Indeed, Senator Graham, one of the judiciary committee panel members was personally involved in coaching Alito how to evade their questions, while they themselves emphasize how much they believe he will overturn every progressive precedent of the last 100 years. About that they are not kidding. And only your voices speaking out now can turn the tide against this judicial coup.

ACTION PAGE: http://www.emailtocongress.com/no_rightwing.htm

We are planning a two-stage action. First with the action page above we will build a consensus that ANY replacement for Sandra Day O'Connor must be no worse than a true moderate and centrist. Then after the conclusion of the hearings we will speak out AGAIN on specific question of the final vote in the Senate. Please submit every possible action page you can get your hands on, and keep speaking out until we prevail, just as we did on ANWR and the torture prohibition.

But remember that Alito was the author of the tactic of Bush trying to spin acts of Congress with so-called "signing statements" in hopes that some future Supreme Court (including now guess who) would give them weight over the will of the people. And Bush did just that with the anti-torture bill, declaring that he really didn't consider himself bound at all. Every day from now on must be STOP Alito day, otherwise our democracy is doomed.

ACTION PAGE: http://www.emailtocongress.com/no_rightwing.htm

Even if you have submitted something else recently, please go to the page above and take a moment to submit it. This battle must be won, there must be a filibuster, or all else will be ultimately lost. We must all speak out now to save our privacy, our freedom, and our democracy itself.

or to get no more simply email to no_more@emailtocongress.com


Informant: John Calvert

Thousands of you put great effort into producing over 150 Out of Iraq town hall forums on Saturday. By all accounts they were a tremendous success.

Author and media critic Norman Solomon, mother/activist Cindy Sheehan, and actor Sean Penn, at Out of Iraq forum in Sacramento on Saturday.

Below you'll find a report on what topic seemed most to interest participants at events around the country. Hint: It starts with the letter I.

You'll also find a report of an important new story confirming the Downing Street Minutes and detailing which Americans Sir Richard Dearlove met with before he reported to Prime Minister Tony Blair that the "facts were being fixed around the policy." We need your help in forcing the media to cover this new development. See the link below.

You'll also want to read the cover story from the latest issue of The Nation: The Impeachment of George W. Bush By Elizabeth Holtzman, The Nation http://www.afterdowningstreet.org/?q=node/6682


Most Popular Idea at Last Weekend's Out of Iraq Events? Impeachment.

By David Swanson

Your great work put together over 150 town hall forums last Saturday on the topic of getting out of Iraq. Reports, and audio and video, from dozens of these events have been posted at www.afterdowningstreet.org. What I gather from reviewing the reports, and from the two events I attended, is that the most popular topic was not the horrors of war or any legislation to end it, but the demand to impeach President Bush and Vice President Cheney.

Given that opposition to this war has grown as exposure of the lies that launched it has advanced, going after the war-makers could turn out to be the fastest way to end the war. No doubt, it's the best way to end the war on terms that make the next war less likely to come soon. In any case, it's where the people's passion is, and at some point a democratic movement has to let that be its guide.

Of course, we've known the popularity of impeachment from polling.
http://www.afterdowningstreet.org/polling

But it's powerful to hear it in person in so many different voices. And it means more now that Congressman John Conyers has introduced a bill to create an investigation into grounds for impeachment, and the bill has begun to pick up cosponsors. Judging by Congress Members' remarks on Saturday, there should be some more cosponsors on the list soon.
http://www.afterdowningstreet.org/?q=node/5921

We don't have reports from all of the events, but we know that overflow crowds were turned away in Sacramento, Chicago, Wisconsin, and Michigan. Progressive Democrats of America has summarized the day of events here:
http://www.afterdowningstreet.org/?q=node/6549

The Lincoln Journal Star in Nebraska ran this headline: "Antiwar rally reflects changing attitudes," and wrote about people's opinions shifting against the war.
http://www.afterdowningstreet.org/?q=node/6544

READ ABOUT THE OUTPOURING OF SUPPORT FOR IMPEACHMENT:
http://www.afterdowningstreet.org/?q=node/6631


New Book "State of War" by NY Times' James Risen Gives Vital Background to Downing Street Memo
By Jonathan Schwarz

After the Downing Street Memo was leaked last May, the U.S. and U.K. governments were eventually forced to admit it was genuine. However, they never revealed any background to the memo—most importantly, who did Richard Dearlove, head of British intelligence, meet with in Washington just before the July 23, 2002 high-level U.K. government meeting the memo memorialized? This would go a long way to answering why Dearlove believed "Military action was now seen as inevitable" and "the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy."

State of War, the just-released book by New York Times reporter James Risen, sheds important new light on these issues. (State of War is now best known for its revelations about warrantless spying by the NSA, but it contains a great deal of other significant information.) Regarding the Downing Street Memo, the most important points made by State of War are these:

• Dearlove was in part reporting on a CIA-MI6 summit he attended with other top MI6 officials at CIA headquarters on Saturday, July 20, 2002 • According to "a former senior CIA officer," the meeting was held "at the urgent request of the British"; CIA officials believe "Blair had ordered Dearlove to go to Washington to find out what the Bush administration was really thinking about Iraq" • During the day-long summit, Dearlove met privately with CIA head George Tenet for an hour and a half

This obviously raises other questions, such as:

• What records of the meeting exist on the American side?
• Will the Senate Intelligence Committee examine the meeting as part of its Phase II Iraq intelligence investigation?
• What specifically did Dearlove and Tenet discuss when alone?
• Why has the New York Times failed to publish Risen's information about the Downing Street Memo background?

READ THE RELEVANT BOOK EXCERPTS:
http://www.afterdowningstreet.org/?q=node/6558

TELL THE MEDIA TO REPORT THIS STORY:
http://www.afterdowningstreet.org/media


FORWARD THIS INFORMATION

Democrats on the Senate Judiciary Committee accused President Bush's latest Supreme Court nominee of being far too deferential to executive power and invariably favouring the state over the rights of the individual.

http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/011106I.shtml

By drawing attention in his opening statement to his biography, Alito may have opening up the strongest line of attack against him, writes Bruce Shapiro.

http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/011106H.shtml

The United States will start new military trials of "war on terror" detainees at the Guantanamo Bay naval base, amid new criticism of the camp and its courts.

http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/011106A.shtml

Since the Bush administration took office in 2001, it has been more lenient than its predecessors toward mining companies facing serious safety violations, issuing fewer and smaller major fines and collecting less than half of the money that violators owed, a Knight Ridder investigation has found.

http://www.truthout.org/issues_06/011106LA.shtml

In the wake of Oregon State University's recent findings that post-burn logging is not healthy for forests, a timber industry leader from Idaho, Brett Bennett of Bennett Lumber Products, has responded with an intimidating message to Matt Koehler, director of Missoula-based conservation group Native Forest Network.

http://www.truthout.org/issues_06/011106EC.shtml