(Bumped. Also see Vermonster’s recommended diary. Bulk of content moved below the fold.   – promoted by kestrel9000)

by Dan DeWalt

Its time for Vermonters to draw the wagons into a circle.  Aided and abetted by the NRC, Entergy Nuclear of Louisiana is trying to crush state sovereignty in the federal courts. Salivating in the wings, Monsanto is now threatening to sue the state because House bill H722 calls for honest labeling of genetically modified (mutated) food. The legislative leadership is faltering and Monsanto’s bullying threats may prevent the bill from getting to the governor’s desk.

This Saturday, April 14, from 12-2, Governor Shumlin, Senator Sanders, Attorney General Sorrel, along with other legislators and representatives of citizen groups, will be joining with Vermonters at the Brattleboro Commons to declare our solidarity as a state and to make it clear that we will only increase the pressure on Entergy to shut down VY before an accident shuts it down for us. The people have already shown their support for the state on the first day that Entergy operated VY without its license. Now our government representatives will be joining us to show America that Vermont stands united and will not back down in the face of corporate intimidation. This is not a struggle of activists or malcontents. This is no less than an existential struggle for the right of states to govern themselves.

Corporations are used to throwing their weight around using vehicles like the WTO, GATT or NAFTA, to decimate environmental, labor and health/safety laws in underdeveloped countries. Now they want to do the same to us. Vermont, with its long history of true democracy, clear thinking, pragmatic idealism and community values poses a threat to the juggernaut of profit-making at all costs which has become the norm (along with extreme weather events) marking our brave new world: government of, by and for the corporations. If Vermont successfully saves itself from the hazards of nuclear pollution, if we become the first state in the nation to label GMO foods, we would pose a threat to more than just the profits of particular enterprises. Across the country, from Progressives to Tea Party groups, Americans are sick of the self serving plunder-fest that the 1% try to pawn off as a viable economy. Successful actions in Vermont could trigger something much bigger. The power elites will stop at nothing to crush this resistance to their unbridled power.

The governor’s participation is a strong sign of his continued leadership in this struggle. It is also an acknowledgment of the hard work that citizens have done independently of state actions. He and the other elected officials know that only by a highly visible unified effort, combining the legal system, legislative action and citizen actions, can we hope to prevail against the threat we now face.

Under the Statehouse dome last Monday morning,  the governor addressed a conference of high school students who want to make a difference in the world. He frankly laid out the failures of our current generation of leaders (himself included) to realistically assess and address the threat of climate change. He outlined the new thinking that will be necessary for us to develop a strong local economy that promotes local foods, local businesses and a green energy future.  He challenged them to join him in taking the initiative and welcomed the leadership role that their generation will have to play.

In the meantime, our work must continue. Saturday’s rally is an embodiment of the efforts of citizens to create a vision of a Vermont that no longer allows corporate America to dictate the terms of our lives, safety and future. We have to create a new paradigm that controls how we are governed. We have to craft a way that our government, backed by the indomitable will and muscle of the masses, can exercise its sovereignty in spite of federal meddling on behalf of the corporate and financial sectors. We have to let abominations like Monsanto and Entergy understand that no amount of bullying or intimidation will stop us from passing laws that act in the interest of Vermonters. And if the legal system undermines our rights, we the people will follow the example of Ethan Allen (as engraved in marble in the halls of the Statehouse) and resist by all means necessary until the Constitutional powers of the state have been restored.

Bernie’s voice will also be welcomed at the rally. But as well as appreciating his words of support, why not press him to use congressional power to help the cause? Congress gave the NRC its mandate. Over time, the NRC has shown itself to be a cheerleader, not a regulator. Why not demand that Congress revisit the NRC mandate? Why not demand that safety be acknowledged as a legitimate concern of states and citizens? Why not hold hearings forcing the NRC to justify some of its most astounding rulings that have benefitted the nuclear industry to the detriment of citizens? Our state legislature may be momentarily stymied by the power of Entergy, Monsanto and others, but there is no excuse for Bernie, Peter Welch or Patrick Leahy not to be acting on Vermont’s behalf in Washington D.C. right now.  President Obama’s nuclear policies have been influenced by the political contributions of the nuclear industry. That doesn’t mean that Welch and Leahy need to remain silent team players while their state is twisting in the wind.

Although we have done great work in the last few years to support the state of Vermont, this is no time to rest on any laurels. It is time to increase the pressure on all fronts. On Saturday you can show your appreciation of our representatives while making it clear to them that their (and our) work has only begun.

 

by Dan DeWalt

In a sort of surreal thrill ride of an opinion piece circulated recently, executive director of the Brattleboro Development Credit Corporation Jeffrey Lewis,  led us on an historically charged adventure in search of violence, war, economic decay and culminating in a public relations nightmare. What’s puzzling is why he tried use Entergy Nuclear’s  litigation against the state of Vermont as his example.

First, he dismisses the Attorney General’s legal arguments in the face of “a well reasoned decision” by Judge Murtha without offering any evidence. How reasoned is Murtha’s embrace of Entergy’s argument based on proactive clairvoyance, when it flies in the face of a Supreme Court ruling penned by Samuel Alito that instructs the lower courts to consider the text of the laws, rather than some notion of legislative intent?  Why did Murtha not seem to take into account the testimony of Entergy’s own management, saying that the legislature voted no because they couldn’t trust Entergy not to lie to them not because of radioactivity safety concerns.

From the hands of the good judge we then slide into the world of Clarl von Clausewitz’s 19th century military strategy. Seeing no Henry Kissinger on the horizon to perform some miraculous last minute diplomacy, Mr. Lewis despairs for the lost chance and concludes that violence is the inevitable next step.          

‘” “War” wrote Clausewitz, “is an act of violence to compel

  our opponents to fulfill our will.” Exactly.”‘

Exactly? Suddenly, the state of Vermont’s efforts to defend itself from litigation, as well as its normal process of crafting and passing legislation are re-defined as acts of violence? This logic would have to extend to citizen actions, so that puts us on a par with terrorists in his eyes. The only trouble is that among the myriad groups and individuals from across the entire region who are putting their energies into the defense from Entergy, with all of their diverse and even divergent ideas about how best to meet their common goal, the one message that has been universally embraced is that of non-violence. That would be the opposite of violence. It means that no matter how outraged we may be at the hubris and arrogance of a Louisiana company’s actions, we will not allow that outrage to color our actions when we speak out against them. If people are arrested at Entergy’s corporate headquarters, they will do so by stepping over some boundary. That step will be taken with respect for the law officers who are present, and with respect for any one else who is there, including VY employees. If we are looking for violence, we’d find it more quickly by looking at Entergy’s record of walking away from an entire region when  damage repair from hurrican Katrina proved to be too expensive to their profit margin. The people who were stranded and abandoned without power in the aftermath of a giant storm felt the collateral damage, but Entergy couldn’t have cared less.

Instead Lewis cites  “policy consistency” as his first example of collateral damage.  Most would refer to this as an election result. In this case, the Douglas administration, which had served as an Entergy cheerleader, was replaced by a Shumlin administration that has been consistently clear about where it would stand on the VY question. The  state government has never been anti-nuclear power or anti-business. What they are is anti-bad-business. Our governor and representatives know a snake oil salesman when they see one and they know that a healthy business climate depends upon a healthy business community. Entergy is a runny nosed germ-fest in Vermont’s business community. Even Entergy’s peers in the nuclear industry have complained about how Entergy is giving them a bad name with its lax practices. Vermont is interested in promoting businesses that will not lie, pollute or put peoples’ health at risk. Knowing that Vermont cares about such things is enough to attract many businesses who recognize that quality of life is important for good employee retention. If the state’s vigilance at preventing corporate malfeasance saves us from being visited by another corporation that behaves badly, we will all the the better off for it. Our economic future lies in our citizens’ entrepreneurship and energy, not with corporations milking us for profits.

Mr. Lewis advocates diplomacy, equating Entergy and the state as two equally empowered actors. But Entergy is not an equal to our state. Entergy is a for-profit corporation that is required by law to answer only to its stockholders. The state, on the other hand, is us. It is charged with protecting our interests and reflecting the wishes of a majority of the population. Its legal and moral duty is to represent and, in this case, protect us from danger, whether it come from flood, fire, or corporate malfeasance. The state is charged with legislating and executing our laws, not to negotiate deals with bad actor corporations. In Vermont, Entergy will be in breach of contract after March 21. They knew when they bought the plant that they had to get another Certificate of Public Good after 3/21/2012. Rather than earn it, they want the judge to force the state to give it to them. The idea that we would agree to give Entergy close to 20 more years of operation in exchange for a pledge to fully fund the decommissioning fund is laughable. Entergy has already shown its willingness to lie. To trust them would be the height of folly. Besides, the NRC, not the state has jurisdiction over the decommissioning fund.

The PSB has recently asked Entergy what it intends to do with the spent fuel, since it has no permit to add more to the on-site storage after March 22. Instead of  dreaming about cooperating with Entergy to engineer a soft landing in twenty years, let’s let them concentrate on the hard work of answering the questions that remain in the domain of our regulators. Let’s not mistake Entergy for anything other than just another company trying to take advantage of a small state. Let’s stop trying to demonize legitimate state actions and citizen concerns by cavalierly calling them acts of violence. Its good for a laugh for all the wrong reasons and debases the discussion. If someone wants to root for the corporations against the people, then they should do so; trying to disguise the bias as an objective viewpoint doesn’t fool anybody.

by:Dan DeWalt, Charlotte Dennet, John Nirenberg and Martha Hennessy

        On March 30, Senator Patrick Leahy gave five Vermonters a half hour of his time. We were: Martha Hennessy, a peace activist from Weathersfield, John Nirenberg, a Brattleboro man who walked from Boston to Washington D.C. in 2007 to call for impeachment, Charlotte Dennett from Cambridge, who ran for Attorney General in Vermont in 2008 on a pledge to prosecute Bush, Kurt Daims, the author of the Brattleboro indictment resolution passed in 2008 and Dan DeWalt of Newfane, who has been active promoting impeachment and accountability. We were there to discuss the Senator’s idea for a “truth commission” to investigate criminality by the Bush/Cheney administration, and our ideas about why only prosecutions of the culpable will give us a chance to prevent a recurrence of these crimes and abuses of the Constitution.

        America, due to Bush/Cheney policy, has added torture to our standard operating procedure, even if it is now held in abeyance by the Obama administration. That morally reprehensible act, while now out of favor, could easily recur if there is no Congressional objection and no one has been held accountable.

       We pointed out that we are a nation with a well established judicial system  and it should be used as it was intended  to be, or the American people will become forever estranged from the Congress and our ideals.

       And we noted that commissions are usually inadequate when it comes to fully understanding events and their origins. All too often unanswered questions remain and then they seldom succeed in holding the guilty accountable. Indeed, often the culprits are free to pursue careers in which they can try to rehabilitate their image and continue to mold public opinion.

       “We come here not out of anger, DeWalt began – and Leahy interrupted by saying, “I don’t blame you if you are angry” – “but out of concern” DeWalt continued, ” for the future of our country. We are deeply concerned about dangers to our democracy, with the trend going to executive power and damaging our constitution. We are a nation of laws. If we have a system of justice, why not let it take its course?  It seems to many Americans that the rich and powerful don’t have the same system of justice, and they’re getting away with torture, murder, fraud, and Ponzi schemes.” This contrasts starkly with the plight of the poor and the powerless who are daily paying the price of a failing system.

       DeWalt handed him a copy of a complaint that will be filed by Jackson Committee of the Massachusetts School of Law. Leahy said he was aware of that. he acknowledged that a judge in Spain  was doing something similar.

       The Senator didn’t mince his words when it came to condemning some of the actions of Bush’s “justice” department, but his response was  more muted on the question of just how to effectively redress the damage.

“I’ll keep going. I’m getting lots of information through subpoenas that many people told me we would never get.” He was referring to memos coming out of the Office of Legal Counsel (OLC). “Opinions from the OLC have the weight of law.” he said. Before Bush/Cheney, administrations had honored the content of those memos, even if they came from an earlier administration, but the OLC under Bush seems to have operated differently.

       He bemoaned the fact that he has not received enough support in Congress to implement his idea of a  truth commission. “I can’t get a single Republican to support it”, he said, and doesn’t think that it will happen. We responded by asking why not hold hearings in the judiciary committee into many of these nefarious actions and let that course of action lead to wherever it leads, including prosecutions if applicable. He didn’t respond directly, but instead referred to his success at holding Attorney General Gonzales’ feet to the fire until he was finally eased out of office by Bush. He reminded us that the prosecutions for abuses at Abu-Garib only led to convictions of some low ranking soldiers, but offered no remedy as to how to hold accountable those who enacted the policy at the higher levels of power.

       Martha Hennessy shared a personal story. She read from a letter from an inmate at Guantanamo that had been released through the Center for Constitutional Rights (CCR). The letter had been classified and then declassified. The prisoner said that he thought there was a double standard for those who get justice and those who don’t. Some of the detainees, many of whom have been tortured, have been waiting for seven years to either be put on trial or be released.  Reports now indicate that most of the detainees at Guantanamo were innocent. “We need to put a personal face on the issue.” said Hennessy.

       Leahy acknowledged Martha’s point, but had no response.. He didn’t acknowledge that the Constitution has been quietly amended as a result of Congressional inaction over the usurpation of unconstitutional power by the executive over the last eight years.

       Indeed, the strongest impression he gave was that he is a Senator who, while sharing our general beliefs about justice, can pragmatically only really operate within the parameters that are available to him in Washington. There was no indication that we would be seeing any more bold and daring moves like when he revealed   information to a reporter in the Reagan era, putting at risk his own position on the intelligence committee in order to alert the nation to facts that he knew need to be aired.

       Afterwards, his aide, Chuck Ross, returned to the group, took down names and then tried to explain that “with meetings like these,” he didn’t want us to think that the senator abruptly left as if he didn’t care about what we had said. “He has been persistent in the face of obfuscation. He got rid of Gonzalez. I would challenge you to find someone who has done more to defend the Constitution.” Ross said that Leahy had to function in a pragmatic way, saying “you should see what it’s like to take leadership in an unfriendly environment.”

       DeWalt replied, “Understood, but he’s our senator, and who else can we turn to? When you’re down in the engine room and the boat is sinking, it doesn’t matter how good of an engineer you are. You need to get up on top and do some steering. This is no ordinary time with no ordinary future.’

       This Patrick Leahy still clearly cares about what is right, but he has the air of a man who is being beaten down by the system. If we do not want him to recede into the twilight as a noble voice in the wilderness, then we had better figure out how to get him the support he needs to re-gird himself to battle for justice and honor in the halls of Congress. Meanwhile, the accountability ball is now in the court of those who want to press the Attorney General to appoint a special prosecutor. To make that happen, there must be a concerted show of political will. Remember what Obama said: “It’s not up to me, it’s up to you.”

I want Gaye Symington and Anthony Pollina to lock themselves into a room and not come out until one of them is running with the other’s support.

             Because that person would become the next governor. And if they both stay in the race, its welcome back governor Douglas.

                I asked Gaye what she thought of the idea. “Not much” was her immediate response. She said that it was the 11th hour, and this should have been worked out long ago.

            But that has it exactly backwards. Only because it is the 11th hour does it make sense to think about unity. In the early months of the campaign, each campaign had every reason to make their case that their candidate would be the star for us to hitch our wagon to.

           But neither Gaye nor Anthony have taken that commanding lead. They should sit down together, realistically decide who has the forward momentum, who has the dynamism to win, then give us a real chance to get rid of Douglas.

          Why couldn’t Governor Symington work with Agricultural Commisioner Pollina, or Governor Pollina work with Transportatipn Secretary Symington, for example?

            It seems obvious to me that Gaye has struggled during this campaign and is barely holding her own if not sinking. Anthony’s performance on the campaign trail and in the debates have been able to keep him abreast with Symington in spite of a fraction of the campaign money, He is my obvious candidate to choose

            But if the two of them emerge and tell me that Gaye is to be the standard bearer, I would do everything that I could to help her get elected. Likewise, If Dems would support a Pollina choice, we could change the political landscape in this state in the next ten days.

by Dan DeWalt

Thomas Hermann for Congress Campaign

The Democrats in Congress,  abetted by the Republican leadership, have once again succumbed to fear and threats and have sold the American people down the river to the tune of over 700 billion dollars. Just as the Bush/Cheney administration used the uncertainty surrounding the attacks of  September 2001 to push through the previously prepared, draconian and un-American USA PATRIOT Act, so they now have taken advantage of financial turmoil to pillage the Treasury. The bankers and speculators needn’t be jealous of their war profiteering friends any longer; the government has graciously decided that the rest of us can pitch in and help them maintain their august stations.

Saying that Bush’s bail-out plan did not address the cause nor offer a solution to the problem, Peter Welch voted no and helped to defeat the first version of the bill. The defeat shocked Congress, but they did not recognize the foolishness of their haste. Rather than listening to the advice of scores of economists, including Nobel Prize in Economics Laureate, Joseph Stiegliz, who wrote them ,saying that the sky was not falling , that they had time to work out a plan that would actually address the problem, Congress instead chose to hold themselves hostage to the Dow Jones Industrial Average, twisted each other’s arms, added another $150 billion in tax breaks, pork and raising FDIC insurance, and lo and behold, Monday’s prowess and principles turn into Thursday’s shuffling into line and “reluctantly” voting yes.

This vote proves once again that Peter Welch’s first loyalty is to Nancy Pelosi and the Democratic Party leadership, with the interests of everyday Vermonters coming second.

To his credit, Bernie Sanders understood that this bail-out was wrong from the start, and he represented Vermonters well by voting no.

Vermonters have a clear choice and opportunity to let Peter Welch know that we do not approve of his vote for the bail-out. A vote for Progressive Party nominee Thomas Hermann, an Iraq war veteran serious about ending the war, is also a vote to resist the corporate influenced Democratic leadership that has neither the will nor the wherewithal to stand up to Bush/Cheney outrages. A vote for Thomas Hermann will tell Mr. Welch that we’re not going to be bamboozled any longer. If the government needs to rescue Capitalism from its excesses, taxpayer money should be used to stabilize the equation from the homeowners’ side, re-writing mortgages to reflect current market conditions, and providing jobs by spending on things like roads and bridges, health care and education, not keeping afloat the investment banks who have created this mess for their own profit. Taxpayers should not have to sacrifice critical needs, let alone our homes, to bail out the speculators.

by Dn DeWalt

     As Peter Welch has travelled the state this summer, he has been telling Vermonters that, contrary to critics’ assertions, he has done all that he could to stop the war and bring the troops home. During the August 8, 2008 airing of VPR’s “Vermont Edition, Congressman Welch was asked about his votes concerning Iraq. In his response he said:  “Now, my commitment, and one I’ve adhered to steadfastly, was to do everything within my power as a member of Congress, to bring this war to an end, including use my vote on the power of the purse to cut off funding for the war. And I’ve consistently done that. Every chance I have had to vote, I’ve voted to end war funding, unless it was specifically tied to spending money to bring our troops home.”  

      The September 7, 2008 Burlington Free Press quoted him making

the same claim: “Welch says he opposed war funding ‘unless it was tied to bringing our troops home.'”

      The only trouble is, it isn’t true.    

     On May 10, 2007 Peter Welch voted “yea” on H.R. 2206, that provided $96 billion to continue the occupation of Iraq. H.R. 2206 had no time line for bringing the troops home.

     Then, on September 26, 2007 Peter Welch did it again: he voted for H.J. 52 which gave another $9 billion in war funding, again without any provisions to bring any troops home.

     Mr. Welch cannot be allowed to dodge the inconvenient truths of his voting record. His failure to vote against war funding is precisely why he faces the election opposition that he does have. The Thomas Hermann campaign for Congress is calling for a correction and explanation from Mr. Welch.

        Progressive Party candidate Hermann has made his own position clear:  “The most effective way to end the war is to vote down funding. Only a bare majority is needed in the House to vote down funding and end the war. Only 41 votes are needed in the Senate to block war funding from even coming up for a vote. Voting down funding in either chamber ends the war, and it cannot be vetoed. Voting down funding for war will save lives of Americans and Iraqis, stop the destruction of their country, and free up billions of dollars for desperate needs at home.”

     “Peter Welch should not be permitted to misrepresent his record on this crucial matter. He repeatedly voted to fund the war without any provision to bring any troops home. He should forthrightly admit that he voted to fund the war without any time line for withdrawal.

      “If elected I will represent the views of Vermonters by speaking against and voting against all funding bills for the war. I will call for using money already in the pipeline to bring all our soldiers home. And I will fight hard to make sure we take good care of them when they get home.”

      Mr. Welch can make whatever excuses he wants to for his votes, but he cannot try to pretend they didn’t happen. We have a right to expect honest answers from our representatives.

      While Peter Welch was making promises he did not keep during his run for Congress in 2006, Thomas Hermann was serving as a combat soldier in Iraq. He is a member of Iraq Veterans Against the War and is the Progressive Party candidate for US Representative. Links to the congressional funding bills and Welch’s interviews can be found at www.thomashermanforcongress.com.

Yesterday was a red-letter day in my email in-box. I heard from both of my U.S. senators, Pat Leahy and Bernie Sanders. Leahy was lamenting the cost of the Iraq occupation, and wishing that we weren’t spending so much. He was pleased to have entered a recent article by Joseph Stiglitz and Linda Bilmes outlining the occupation’s true cost into the Congressional record.

Sanders wrote to inform me that me must consider three trends when considering the nation’s budget: inequality of wealth, children in poverty and the growing debt. Below are two open letters to our Senators.

Dear Senator Leahy,

My question to you is; why aren’t you doing anything about it? Your voice (and Bernie’s) should be dominating the airwaves calling for an end to the occupation.  Instead of repeatedly caving in to the “President’s” requests for funding, you should be leading filibuster efforts refusing one more nickel unless it’s for withdrawal.

Instead of being pleased with your efforts to nibble around the edges of Pentagon contractor fraud, or worrying about Harriet Meyers and whether you dare have her arrested for contempt, you should be going after the real villains from this crime scene: Bush/Cheney.

Your fine words are a cheap currency sir, better left to those of us who hold no power. You are in a position to do something about this administration that has lied us into war, has decided to use torture has spied on Americans, to mention just a few of their crimes. I don’t need to hear your lament; I want Congressional action.

.

Sincerely, Dan DeWalt

South Newfane VT

Dear Senator Sanders,

You list three major trends that must be addressed to better our nation, but, incredibly, you don’t even mention the two that are most significant: Iraq and the suspension of the rule of law and Constitutional adherence by the Bush/Cheney administration.

You would like to garner a few billion dollars here and there by increasing taxes on millionaires (a fine idea), yet you say not one word about the occupation in Iraq, which costs more in one month than your tax plan will reap in a year. And how can see importance only in economic terms, when this occupation has degraded us morally, debased us in the eyes of the world, and helped to foster a new status of America as a pariah nation, embracing torture as an important “tool” of our foreign policy, and engaging in an illegal war of aggression?

Equally incredible is your decision to blatantly ignore the flagrant violations of the Constitution and American law by the Bush/Cheney administration. The proud maxim once promulgated by our political leaders that we are a country of laws, not of men, has been disgracefully reduced to sniveling about getting a veto proof majority and the rule of law be damned.

I admire your interest in economic justice. But putting your head in the sand about Iraq and the Constitution does nothing but make your objectives unattainable.

Dan DeWalt

South Newfane VT

It’s a bit discouraging but I guess not surprising that those who disagree with our indictment initiative should resort to character assasination to make their case. It works for Rush Limbaugh, so why not the loyal opposition?

The indictment idea was born out of an acknowledgement that our government is no longer operating under the constitutional structure that is its foundation. The executive branch has placed itself above the law, and the Congress refuses to hold it accountable. As our founders were forced to take the drastic action of declaring independence when Britain acted so egregiously upon the colonies, we thought, why can’t we as well make the declaration that if Congress will not act to defend the Constitution and the rule of law, then we as citizens and towns can at least put on the record that we recognize lawlessness when we see it and call them out for these actions?

As news of the initiative spread, we received opinions from legal minds that told us that, beyond being a symbolic act, there is some legal justification for this action as well. Francis Boyle, a human rights lawyer and law professor at the University of Illinois worked with John Conyers to draw up the impeachment indictments against Bush (before Conyers got the news that impeachment was off of the table). But Mr. Rouser craftily outed him as a wack-job because he holds the view that at some time American intelligence (sic) agencies infiltrated Amnesty International. Do you really find that so impossible to believe? You might ask some of the Vermont Quakers who discovered that they also were the unknowing targets of similar actions by the same agencies. And is it really reason to dismiss someone because he has the temerity to question the coincidence theory about 9/11 that the government hastily presented to the American people as the truth about the events of that day?

And in Mr. Burbank’s case, I wonder if being a Green today is somewhat like being a Progressive in Vermont back in the day, before they started winning mayoral races and seats in the legislature?

The indictment does not claim to be supported by federal statute. Its force is derived from the Common Law, which underlies our nation’s jurisprudence, and internationally acknowledged standards of what constitute war crimes. Someone should tell the judge in Spain, who indicted General Pinochet for crimes committed in Chile, and who managed to get him apprehended in England (escaping trial only because of failing health) about the pronouncements of the blogger on daily Kos telling us what a load of hooey this concept is.

The most cursory reading shows that the referendum is not an indictment. The referendum calls for the selectboard to issue an indictment. A selectboard is at once an executive body, a legislative body, and at times a quasi-judicial body. If it decides to call for an indictment it is free to do so. The city council of Dublin Ireland did just that in fact, in February of 2005, calling for either the International Criminal Court of the World Court (I’m sorry that I forget which) to indict Bush and others in his administration for torture. In fact over 200 similar indictments are waiting to be opened on the day after Bush/Cheney leave office. If Brattleboro’s town attorney cannot figure out how to frame the indictment, or under which statute he has the authority to write it, that is a separate if related question to solve as the process moves along (or not).

How is this supposed to stimulate dialogue? Why don’t you ask the New York Times which gave the story a prominent placement and referred to it asking a “provocative question” in the headline? I would say that over 8000 emails to the town of Brattleboro (running 60/40 pro-indictment) is some indication of dialogue as well. Retired Federal prosecutor Elizabeth de la Vega sees this initiative as an important and powerful idea. Please advise me of her looney tendencies ASAP.

If we thought that our ideas were the only right ones, we would have rested our laurels on the Town Meeting impeachment votes and called it a day. It is precisely because we are continually working to find an approach that can convince a critical mass of Americans that all is not well and action must be taken that we are now trying the indictment path as well.

I’m not sure what makes us such an ugly, yahooish, egotistical, ignorant bunch of spotlight hounds with a tenuous grasp on reality. As hard as I try, I can’t seem to get in touch with my inner rage, but I see now that its in there and I’ll try harder.

Obviously, this indictment idea has touched a raw nerve. I’m not exactly sure why, but it may be a good thing in the long run.

by Dan DeWalt

In a packed hearing room on Feb 19th, under a carved wooden sign reading “Live Free or Die”, the New Hampshire House committee of State-Federal Relations and Veterans’ Affairs heard testimony on Representative Betty Hall’s HR 24, which calls on the U.S. Congress to begin impeachment hearings for George W. Bush and Dick Cheney.

What was most notable about the four straight hours of testimony was not that opponents of the resolution could only muster two people willing to testify against it, both Republican stalwarts using selected excerpts from Jefferson’s parliamentary manual or from the bill itself, whose arguments were embarrassingly empty.

It was not that Kris Roberts, the committee chair, had taken this hearing seriously enough to have researched the law, history and nuances of the subject, and that he used this to inform the proceedings in a reasonably fair manner.

It was not the fact that after the hearing ended, several pro-impeachment witnesses were approached by committee members and thanked for their clarity and useful testimony.

It was not even the novelty of the interjections by one committee member that would periodically steer the conversation abruptly into Rockefeller/Trilateral Commission territory.

The most remarkable moment came late in the afternoon when Republican House member Steve Vaillancourt strode into the room to testify. After passing out copies of the second chapter of Patrick Buchanan’s “Day of Reckoning” as supporting evidence, Vaillancourt opened his remarks quoting “fools rush in where wise men fear to tread”, and it sounded like a set up to condemn a rush to impeach. But instead he said that Betty Hall is neither fool nor wise man, but is a model of courage and that her impeachment resolution should be supported.

And then the fun began.

Member Vaillancourt then gave a short history lesson, telling the committee that until Bush/Cheney, America had never engaged in an offensive war [sic.], and pointing out that the Truman, Eisenhower. Kennedy and Reagan “Doctrines” had all been based on defense and had not been offensive in nature. Warming to the subject, he delved into the ramifications of Bush/Cheney’s actions, saying that their reckless foreign policy has been anti-American, unconstitutional, and ruinously costly to the nation.

He was fairly thundering by the time that he pronounced that not only should Bush and Cheney be impeached, but also they should be tried as war criminals in a Nuremburg style trial for crimes against humanity. He flatly stated that the war in Iraq has provided grounds for war crimes charges against the President and Vice President. And there was not one word of protest from a single committee member. They may or may not support this resolution to impeach, but there seems to be no one left with a credible argument to defend Bush/Cheney.

Vaillancourt said that he spoke not as a Republican, a New Hampshire citizen or an American, but as a member of humanity. His remarks made a common sense plea for an honest appraisal of our current political situation, for the acknowledgement that we have a duty to act as a decent and responsible people, and that principle be the governing factor of our government’s actions. These are all values that should, and once did, cut across party lines. If the current political parties have forgotten this, and become so degraded as to allow the lawlessness and criminality of this administration to go unchecked, the people have not.

And at that hearing the people had their chance to speak. One member of the committee remarked that she had never before seen such a wide range of viewpoints as represented by the witnesses, to be so united on one issue.

After deliberation the next day, loyalty to party leadership proved a stronger pull than reasoned argument, for five committee members voted to recommend the bill, with eleven voting against. Now facing  an uphill battle to get it passed in a full House vote in March, Betty Hall was still encouraged by the committee hearing and vote. She has received much more support for this resolution than she did with a similar effort last year, and is already working to get grass roots supporters out between now and the vote to get their legislators’ attention.

If the grass roots continue to pour out as they did on Tuesday, and if there were a few more politicians like Steve Vaillancourt and Betty Hall, we might see things begin to change. It’s instructive to remember that some politicians who are now leading the charge for impeachment did not want to talk about it only a few short months ago. The spotlight is now on the New Hampshire House, the third largest deliberative body on the planet, and arguably one of the more democratic representative systems anywhere as well. These representatives may listen to an outsider’s viewpoint on what to do about the Constitution, but they will be influenced most by the neighbors whom they represent. The question is, is New Hampshire angry enough and organized enough to convince the legislature to call for impeachment? For those outside of New Hampshire the question is, how can we raise the temperature everywhere else, making it all the more plausible that the Granite State will reach the boiling point.

 by Dan DeWalt

          When Congress reconvened for the New Year, Rep. Robert Wexler made an impassioned speech on the floor of the House, saying we could no longer ignore the unconstitutional actions of Vice President Cheney. He also has asked fellow members to sign on to a letter that he is sending to Judiciary chairman John Conyers, asking that hearings begin.

I contacted Congressman Peter Welch’s office to find out if he had signed onto the letter. No one in his office knew if he had, but they agreed to call me back. The next day, it was the same story, except no more call back promises. In over a week of repeated calls, I have not found anyone in the Congressman’s office either able or willing to find out whether Welch has signed on or not. (Although they promised that they would send me a written answer as soon as they could get to it.) In the meantime, a quick call to Wexler’s office informed me that Welch had not yet signed the letter. Rather than use a second hand source, I wanted to give Welch’s office a chance to say whether he was at least considering signing. After all, Peter voted against tabling a debate on these very same impeachable charges on the floor of the House when introduced by Dennis Kucinich, saying that Dennis had the right to have the charges heard. He then joined the majority in voting the impeachment resolution to the Judiciary for consideration, so you would think that he would want the committee to investigate the charges.

But unless he stole into Wexler’s office and signed with invisible ink, it looks like Vermont’s sole Representative has decided to keep his position with the Bush/Cheney protection racket.

And what’s Bush doing with all the breathing room? Well in just the last few days he managed to issue a signing statement promising to break several parts of a law he had just signed, which, among other things, will protect Halliburton and others from investigations into fraud committed against our military. Not to mention the long-term treaty that he is finalizing with Iraq, assuring a permanent U.S. military presence there. It used to be that treaties had to be ratified by the U.S. Senate, but under the new Democratic doctrine of acquiescence, Bush has seen clear to drop the Senate’s role altogether, calling it a declaration of principle rather than a treaty, and claiming his right to put it into effect.

But the Democrats have made it clear that no crime or lie is great enough to sidetrack them from their holy grail of regaining the Presidency. The Constitution, the rule of law, our nation’s honor, the next twelve months worth of military and civilian casualties; all these are willingly sacrificed for the sake of electing more Democrats.

Only after repeated confrontations with hundreds of angry Vermonters, did Rep. Welch finally end his pattern of voting for war funding, voting against the last war appropriations bill. It will take at least as loud of an outcry to get him to care enough about the Constitution to take action to defend it. Do we care enough to put on the pressure?