Constant's pations

If it's more than 30 minutes old, it's not news. It's a blog.

Monday, March 13, 2006

Iran: Cheney pushed in 1970 for Iranian nuclear power

Bottom line: It is a false choice between Censure and Impeachment. Rather, the real choice is between impeachment and lawfully revoking the abused powers.

After you're doing reading this, you'll see what's being done to prevent an impeachment, and how this fits in with the UAE deal: To abuse power, and violate rights.

* * *

We've been here before.

Some background. In the 1970's Vice President Cheney, then on the White House staff, was part of an effort to bring nuclear power to Iran. [ Source: Full details ]

This seems rather odd in that in 2006, the same Iranian nuclear programs are prompting US war planners for a missile strike. The Guardian reports that the US is in secret talks with the Iranians.

Democracy Now interviewed a former UK Member of Parliament Tony Benn who in the 1970s was aware of the White House efforts to bring nuclear power to the Iran.

Benn stated that the US in the 1970s was putting pressure on the United Kingdom to bring nuclear power to Iran.
Benn: President Gerald Ford, with Cheney as one of his very junior officials, and I rather think Wolfowitz involved as well, was trying to get Iran to adopt nuclear power.Ref

Indeed, Iran is lawfully allowed to do what it is doing: Enrich Uranium. Although not a member of the non-proliferation treaty, Iran's activities are not unlawful. Rather, it is the Untied States' conduct that is unlawful.
Greg Melo: Iran can enrich uranium under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. I don't think there is any ambiguity about that. But the United States cannot make a new generation of nuclear weapons under the Non-Proliferation Treaty. [ Click ]

Several times the former member of parliament stated the US position in 2006 is completely hypocritical: Not only is the United States not in compliance with the non-proliferation treaty, but the US threatens to use force against Iran after previously putting pressure on other nations to bring us where we are today.

An attack on Iran would violate the laws of war, and be inconsitsent with 5100.77 SecDef guidance provided to US military personnel.

All US military personnel should reasonably know their conduct -- planning for, and engaging in combat operations related to Iran -- amounts to war crimes, subject to lawful sanctions under the UCMJ. [ War Crimes: Title 18 ] Highly credible British military officers have well documented similar American war crimes in Iraq. [ Ref ]

* * *

In other Iranian nuclear news, Senator Biden on meet the press made a slip on the National Intelligence Estimate. Biden confirmed the NIE discussed the Iranian nuclear program, and that the Iranians were very far off from developing nuclear fuel for commercial purposes. It appears the NIE puts the number at 10 years.

Biden's asserted there was time to deal with Iran, not rush into things, and we're far off from taking military action. Biden's position is the President needs to request of Congress permission to use force.

We concur with that requirement; and it is our view this request should be rejected.

* * *

The above needs to be contrasted with the Senator Feingold censure efforts. Senator Frist stated that because of the Iranian issue, it wouldn't be appropriate for the country to go through a Bush impeachment.
BBC: attacking the commander-in-chief simply did not make sense. He warned a censure resolution would send the wrong signal around the world. [Ref ]
This is another red herring. We cannot credibly ignore a long list of abuses which raise doubts about any claim that "another issue" commands our attention. The Frist statements should be seen for what they are: Using excuses and non-sense to avoid dealing with what should be dealt with: Abuse of power and violation of rights.

Guantanamo is another issue in the Iranian-Impeachment nexus. Detainees released from Guantanamo have confirmed the Seton Hall report stating that only 5% of the detainees at Guantanamo are linked to terrorism. There's no merit to any claim that we have "other issues" and "other threats" to deal with, and must avoid impeachment.

Notice Frist's language: He talks about "terrible signals" Ref an impeachment would send about our "commander in chief." This is an excuse to avoid reality: Abuse of power and violations of rights warranting impeachment.

It is incorrect and a false choice to ask whether impeachment or censure is better "for the country". The issue is the Constitution and the people -- what is best to protect rights and prevent abuse of power; the choice is between impeachment and lawfully revoking the abused Federal government powers.

America's public reputation will be bolstered if we assert the rule of law. Frist's assertions are absurd.

The Bush administration is using the "big scary story" of terrorism and the excuse not to face impeachment. On all counts the White House claims prove to be utter fabrications.

* * *

Iran, Guantanamo, and impeachment need to be looked at in terms of Habeas Corpus, and White House action to violate established law.

In the 1600s, Lord Clarendon in the UK banned Puritans to a deserted Island, prompting the UK to adopt the Habeas Corpus in 1679. [ Ref ] What Clarendon's example was for the US: [Click ]

Despite laws which prohibit this conduct, the Bush regime ignores the law, and Congress assents to these violations.

The Constitution exists to protect rights, and prevent abuses. This White House is no different than the pre-1700 misconduct in the UK: Use Non-sense is used to justify violating rights and abusing power.

This White House creates non-sense to justify ignoring the law, and Congress assents to that non-sense.

The way forward is to either have an impeachment and present facts; or lawfully revoke the powers of the Federal Government which they are abusing [Ref]. Here is the specific language of the proposed changes to the Constitution to protect our rights and prevent this abuse of power: [ Click ]

* * *

Adding additional mystery to the Congressional assent to the White House non-sense is legislation to ban all public writing about the NSA. [ Ref; Ref ]
Kate Martin, director of the Center for National Security Studies: "The bill would make it a crime to tell the American people that the president is breaking the law, and the bill could make it a crime for the newspapers to publish that fact." Ref News Technorati Blogger
Again, the issue is the same as the conduct that prompted the outrage against the United Kingdom: In order to continue abusing power and violate rights, the White House wants to ban publication of the misconduct.

This is at odds with our Constitution and the "values" America supposedly uses to "justify" invading other countries.

* * *

Private message traffic from the US Ambassador in Baghdad to Iranian officials is at odds with the public statements that Iran is not cooperating. Iran has agreed to meet the US in a third country.

There is no merit to the claims that the Iranians are not cooperating. Rather, it is the US Congress and Executive Branches which are engaging in sham public ruses over "foreign threats" as a distraction.

As with Iraq, there is no evidence behind the US claims about Iran, simply accusations [ Ref ] and propaganda [ Ref; More ]

Also as we saw with Rice's testimony over Iraq WMD -- which has been discredited -- Rice pointed to mushroom clouds. Frist is doing the same, but not with the goal of taking military action, but to dissuade Congress from acting on the NSA issues warranting impeachment.

* * *

The recurring pattern is noteworthy. The US makes up information to justify holding people, then unable to get information from the innocent they increase pressure and torture them.

The US approach is to cover things up, not take responsibility.

It appears the objective of the clampdown on NSA discussions is to hide the scope of the NSA monitoring of US officials who disagree with the President's unlawful conduct. The NSA monitoring programs are widespread, driven by paranoia, and collecting vast volumes of information totally unrelated to any reasonable concern.

Rather, the US is pumping out propaganda, then using that propaganda as the basis to mislead Congress, increase NSA monitoring, and get Congress not to look into the NSA program.

They're using circular reasoning: Both to justify the abuse; then cover it up; then to avoid consequences with a needed impeachment.

* * *

The states need to see the larger picture with Iran, Guantanamo, UAE and the NSA. The entire process is driven by paranoia. It remains to be understood what level of effort goes keeping the multiple unlawful NSA programs secret.

Based on the information from the Guantanamo detainees, and the non-sense over Iran the pattern is clear: Assert wrong doing elsewhere, then use those accusations as the basis to say to Congress, "We can't deal with the legal issues, we have other problems and priorities."

But the Constitution is clear: We can deal with both domestic legal issues and foreign policy. There is no requirement the United States do one and not the other.

The lesson of Iraq is clear: Failing to address legal issues based on facts at leads to policy bungles.

This administration creates non-sense overseas to avoid the needed accountability at home. Congress needs to be reminded of what Cheney was doing in the 1970s over Iran, and the fact that the public knows things do not add up.

We need Congress to order an investigation into the NSA unlawful activity. Until that happens we'll have more non-sense to avoid what needs the greatest attention: The US Constitution.

Senator Biden knows there's time over Iran. If the weather is favorable, Congress can read about it in the National Intelligence Estimate, unlike what happened before the unlawful invasion of Iraq in 2002-3.

The White House has exhausted it capital and remains in a no-win situation.

Until we have an impeachment -- and a trial to review facts -- the States have only one option: Lawfully revoke abused power as was done in 1679.

Lord Clarendon was impeached in 1667. [ Ref ]

* * *

Americans have to choose: Are you going to have an impeachment to tame this tyrant; or must the powers of Congress and the Executive be lawfully revoked with lawful changes to the Constitution?

This White House uses excuses to dissuade Congress from acting. Here's what needs to happen if there is no Congressional Action inter alia :

  • 1. The States need to force the issue with state proclamations calling for impeachment [ Archive and Status State Proclamations to impeach Bush, using House rule 603 ] ;

  • 2. The States also need to plan for a Constitutional Convention to lawfully revoke the powers which have been abused [ Archive of the Constitutional Convention agenda] ;

  • 3. The public needs to continue looking into the unlawful NSA programs, and writing about them [ NSA Archive ] ; and

  • 4. There needs to be jurisprudence on taking lawful pre-emptive action against the Federal Government over abuse of power and violations of rights. [ Details ]

    Until the White House is forced to assent to the rule of law and Congress asserts its power through impeachment, we can reasonably make the adverse inference that this White House does not want the public to know about or discuss the unlawful rendition-kidnapping of Americans accused based on false evidence gleaned from torture.

    The problem is the NSA programs are targeting Americans based on unreliable information gleaned from unlawful torture. [Domestic rendition archive]

    * * *

    Here is the above in one location: [ Click ]

    Discussion on the impeachment issues in light of Iran, abused powers, and Congressional excuses to do nothing: [ America Blog ]

    * * *

    Now, to go back to where we started: The UAE Port deal does not add up as a credible program. [ Details ]

    Rather, the information better supports the conclusion that it was a ruse designed to get everyone talking about non-Constitutional issues and focus on the "big scary stories." The UAE and Iranian issues are manufactured to dissuade Congress from lawfully impeaching the President.

    Will America wake up this time, or does it need another long string of abuses? We shall soon see what is lawfully required to awaken America from its hypnosis.

    America does not have to wait until the 2006 elections. The States can force the House to vote on impeachment; that will give voters time to review where Congress stands on the rule of law.

    Either way, the States need to plan for a Constitutional Convention to lawfully revoke the abused powers. Some of the abuses were remedied in the 1600s, but not all of them.

    Tell your friends to discuss this issue as you meet with your state level legislators and discuss state proclamations calling for impeachment.