State Proclamations For Impeachment Give Fair Notice To Congress: Change Can Be Lawfully Imposed

Ref Washington State Senator Eric Oemig continues his work to defend the Constitution.

The Washington State proclamation calling for Congress to investigate the President gives Members of Congress fair notice: You shall confront these issues; or you shall be transformed into something that is responsive. Ref Claims of a backlash are absurd. Ref

The voters in each state will have the chance to evaluate whether their leaders are or are not serious about asserting their oath. State level leaders who refuse to support fact finding may or may not be assured they will get voter support.

The way forward is for the American citizens to closely observe whether State leaders are or are not willing to support fact finding. State leaders who refuse to raise questions may be viewed as not fully supporting their oath, and voted out of office.

The proclamations force Congress to ask one question: Is the Congress going to examine evidence to ask whether the President can be charged with a crime; or must Congress be lawfully transformed into something that will conduct oversight and investigate. The preferred answer is Yes. The incorrect answer means foreign fighters have the power to compel Members of Congress to assent to the rule of law.

Washington is one state of fifty. There are other options. The citizens of the State of Washington will provide valuable lessons for the world: Is the American system of governance a viable one; or does it require a change. The world is taking notes. The American voters have information. The decision is up to We the People.

* * *



Convoluted arguments against investigations

This takes a look at various comments made.


* * *

There is no basis to avoid investigations. The illegal activity started prior to Sept 2001. The goal is to review the allegations to determine what is going on.

The President has recklessly ignored the things he said needed to be done. We need to find out why.

Investigations are broad. It is incorrect to suggest that the President's conduct is known, or that there are only a few reasons to review the matter. The list is long and exhaustive.

The GOP has incorrectly pretended that the list of reasons to investigate are finite and narrow.

The basis for the request to review a matter is not an assertion of fact, but a basis to request Congress to review the issues. It is not appropriate to argue the merits of those allegations as an excuse not to review the evidence.

The characterizations of the proclamation effort are misleading.

The Congress has not reviewed whether the President lied to get the Authorization to sue force; or to what extent the Office of Special Plans was complicit with war crimes planning.

Congress cannot lawfully intend to agree to support a fraud; the AUMF in no way explains or defends what the President was illegally doing before Sept 2001. It is incorrect to believe that the request for an investigation should proceed or stop on the basis of uncertainty.

The President has no power to block a review. The question before us wither the President has or has not violated the law. The President has no authority to assert that he has authority, without assenting to a review of his conduct.

There opposition fails to make the case that allegations are unreasonable, nor disconnected from any statute. This is a misreading of the proclamation.

Whether the US did or did not go to war for Iraq for lawful or unlawful reasons remains a question.

If America was serious about supporting its goal, then that planning would have been connected with real evidence. The allegations include claims that the President violated the Constitution and Geneva conventions for not planning, as required, the full security requirements of the Conventions.

Asserting that there was a "good reason" to go to war in no way satisfies the imminence requirement to expand combat operations. It is irrelevant what goals the US had when the action is linked with an illegal, aggressive war.

The President’s alleged illegal activities are broad. What did or didn't happen in Iraq is the subject for the Congress to examine: Will they or will they not review the evidence. Assertions that there were "good reasons" to violate the law are separate from whether the President should or should not be held to account for that illegal activity.

The US does not have the legal authority to remove heads of state on its own discretion. These alleged breaches of the Conventions permit other nations to commit like abuses against the United States.

US prisoner abuse in Iraq belie claims that the US was or was not hoping for justice in Iraq. The question before Congress is whether the United States government, not the Iraqi government will or will not meet its legal obligations.

The President’s alleged activity must be broadly defended, not narrowly defined, and then explained away with irrelevant details.

The error is for the President to use illegal methods, including grave breaches of Geneva, to undermine the Constitution.

* * *

It is irrelevant whether the President’s goals are or are not absurd. Desiring to achieve a goal does not make any and all methods permissible. The cost of warfare cannot be the destruction of our Constitution.

If the President was doing things correctly, then he should be willing to let the world openly see the evidence of what he has. This President hides, misplaces, and destroys evidence -- Hardly a sign he is doing the right thing. The combat results in Iraq and Afghanistan belie the assertion the prisoners have been abused for a good reason. It is illegal.

Our Constitution is not debatable. Unreasonable leaders cannot be bargained with. They must be forced to clash with the rule of law. This proclamation does that: Forces the Congress to decide whether to consider fact finding; carefully review of the evidence; and then face a simple question: Is there a reasonable basis to charge the President with a crime? That question will not get asked unless Congress is forced to face that issue.

* * *

Unreasonable leaders defy their oath, especially before their excuses. The President cannot explain why he relies on the AUMF as a defense, but it had not yet existed before Sept 2001 when the illegal activity started.

The claims about Korea, Iraq, and Iran have fallen away. This government has been complicit with illegal prisoner abuse. Addington was concerned about changing the US positions in Eastern Europe. The transfer of prisoners after Hamdan shows the President was not meeting his Geneva obligations. It is a secondary issue whether, despite transfer, the prisoners were still being treated poorly.

* * *

This President has used illegal detention policies to retaliate against US civilians for protecting unlawful warfare. The Federal Courts have concluded that the RNC detentions were not lawful; and the demonstrations against the policies could not be lawfully opposed. This President targeted DoJ OPR for attempting to do their job.

The Constitution has been the impermissible target of this President's abuse of power. This government has known that prisoners of war under our care were sent to nations which illegally abused prisoners. This Congress refuses to hold the President accountable. The States have the power to compel the Congress to on the record to record whether they do or do not refuse to do their jobs.

The US cannot claim it is a victim. IT wages an illegal war of aggression which violates the Geneva Conventions. This was a war of choice, but the choice was to expand illegal warfare, not end it.

* * *

This President is addicted to abuse of power. He has defied the law. He refuses to respond to inquiry. He is not cooperative with inquiry. This is a challenge Congress refuses to confront. This proclamation gives Members of Congress a chance to go on the record: Will they or will they not force the President to respond; and will the Congress investigate this activity.

* * *

America's enemies are lawfully emboldened when the clerk in the oval office violates the laws of war. They may legally reciprocate and retaliate for his illegal warfare. The President’s illegal conduct puts Americans in harms way. America's allies abandon us. And we have waning support for illegal warfare.

Presidents can be impeached for misadministration of finite resources only Congress has the power to raise and provide. This President refused to properly mange those finite resources.

* * *

The enemy is not the object of this review. The nature of combat has little to with whether Congress will or will not review these legal matters. Iraq is an excuse to avoid facing the important questions: Is there evidence to support charging the President with a crime.

Assertions that the illegal activity is justifiable in now way denies the illegality.

What did or didn't happen in Iraq has nothing to do with what the President was obligated to do before Sept 2001: Fully enforce the law, and comply with its requirements.

This President chose to block the DOJOPR, and gave permission to the FBI to lie to the FISA Court. The President has asserted powers not delegated; and prevented lawful authorities from reviewing his illegal conduct. Those are separate offenses under the Geneva conventions.

A list of enemies cannot be a smokescreen to Congressional responsibilities. The Republican party, despite Title 28 and Title 50 requirements and options, chose to ignore these allegations of war crimes.

Americans must meet its legal obligations. Combat must comply with the laws of war. American civilians’ dignities cannot be tampered. The Constitution must be preserved in its superior state.

Discussions about the Middle East are a diversion from the Oval Office and the illegal warfare this President and his joint staff have advanced.

It is meaningless to talk about abuse of the enemy, when American standards prohibit this abuse at all times. The actions of others do not justify perpetual attacks on the American Constitution or American civilian’s rights and dignities.

What may or may not have happened aboard in now way permits indignities upon American civilians, or a destruction of our Constitution.

* * *

The GOP has well focused on the diversion of Iraq as an excuse to explain away illegal conduct unrelated to Iraq.

What has happened in Iraq is secondary to the question the Congress is being asked: Was there or was there not evidence to charge the President with a crime.

The US did not invade Iraq until 2003. The question before us is outside and different: What did the President do before, during, and after the illegal invasion of Iraq?

What the US claims about Iraq must be standards this President assents: His international obligations under Geneva, the UN Charter, and US Constitution. The question this Congress is being asked: Is there evidence to charge the president with a crime. Congress is not being asked whether there are good or bad reasons to have waged illegal warfare.

* * *

It is serious business for the US to claim it has the right to impose justice abroad, while it refuses to assent to justice at home.

Americans have been wrongly abused on the basis of fabricated evidence, false charges, and inaction and failed oversight. The question before Congress: Will they review this information to determine whether there is or is not sufficient basis to charge the President with a crime?

* * *

Americans have been wrongly accused and abused by this President. The question for Congress: Is there sufficient evidence to charge the President with a crime. That question can only be answered if Congress dares to be confronted and forced to answer on the record: When will it investigate these matters?

The proclamation does not conclude the President has violated the law; nor does it have any legal authority to compel a removal. That decision is only for the Senate to review. How the GOP senators vote on evidence related to war crimes is material for the voters to consider: IS the Republican Party serious about confronting its complicity with war crimes?

Blocking an investigation is an important piece of evidence. The voters can make adverse inferences. If the Members of Congress assert that facts are bad, or that accountability will be a problem, the GOP cannot explain why it does not demand the very thing that will "obviously" undermine the DNC. The GOP assertions are perverse.

* * *

Alleged misconduct by foreign powers fails to address the proclamation’s purpose: What about this President’s actions using his single Executive Power: Is there or is there not going to be an investigation to see if there is evidence to charge the President with a crime?

* * *

Congress may have been resolved on fiction to act, but that deception if true forms the basis for lawful tribunals to adjudicate war crimes. The first step is to find out whether Congress wants to face the facts, and ask the questions.

The acts of leaders demand scrutiny. Illegal acts of one do not mean Americans must be forced to assent to illegalities. That is circular and impermissible.

* * *

If there is no problem, and the evidence does not support fling charges, then the GOP and DNC have nothing to fear. Responsible leaders will decide to not charge the President for things which there is no evidence.

However, if the opposite is true, but there is no inquiry, that would be irresponsible. It would be equally irresponsible to point to one set of misconduct abroad as an excuse not to hold others accountable for other misconduct at home.

To date, we don't know the facts. The way forward is to ask the question, gather information, and dare to honestly answer: Is there evidence to charge the President with a crime?

* * *

The history of America’s involvement overseas is interesting, but irrelevant to the simple comparison: [1] What is the law; and [2] Did the President violate the law.

Discussing events of Sept 2001 as a defense to war crimes is interesting, but fails to address the illegal activity alleged before Sept 2001.

It is disingenuous to discuss whether the US has or has not targeted a group, but ignore the evidence the US has been complicit with funding the same organization it supposedly fights. It is interesting that the President's defenders -- those hoping to block review -- rely on falsehoods; then pretend that irrelevant excuses abroad justify illegal activity at home. That is not a defense, but a smokescreen.

The fact that the best this President can offer as an excuse to avoid fact finding is frivolous arguments suggests the inquiry is appropriate, and will most likely find something more: Other illegal activity equally inexcusable.

The Republican’s duty is to face the facts, and confront the President -- if they fail, the GOP may suffer more defeats in 2008 and beyond.

* * *

The events abroad are curious, but do little to compare [1] the law with [2] the President’s conduct.

The President may have good reasons for his goals, but he must conduct his affairs consistent with the law.

* * *

Contrary to the assertions of the GOP, the President does not have the power to use any means to wage war. The means must be appropriate, necessary, and consistent with real constraints.

The President is alleged to have poorly managed his finite resources. This is, if proven true, a subsequent crime of misadministration.

We are not here to discuss the merits or problems with foreign policy, but to do the opposite: To examine whether the President is complying with the law or not; and whether there is or is not evidence to warrant charging the President with a crime.

What was or was not authorized in 1991 in no way trumped the FISA requirements of 1978. This President, in changing his position on FISA, admits that he accepts FISA of 1978 was the governing standard. What did or didn't happen in 1991 or 2001 is of little interest. We see no record or evidence that the FISA statute has been vacated, invalidated, or otherwise declared unconstitutional. Rather, the Attorney General secretly met to affirm its' validity, seeking changes to FISA. The President’s error was to pretend that he could violate FISA.

The question Members of Congress are being asked has nothing to do with FISA, but the simple question: Will they or will they not examine the issue. The GOP in the Senate has no power to block the House.

The question is whether the House will or will not fully assert its oath, and review this issue.

* * *

America's foreign affairs has little to do with the decision of this President to violate the law. The supposed excuses of Sept 2001 and 2003 do not address the illegal activity occurring prior to Sept 2001.

Congress is not being asked to explain this or justify the illegal activity, merely ask itself: Do we dare confront reality, and consider whether there is or is not sufficient evidence to charge this President with a crime.

Congress did not authorize the President to violate the Constitution. We the People ask that Congress review these matters and see if there is sufficient evidence to charge the President. If Members of Congress refuse to act; or despite the overwhelming evidence of war crimes, refuse to convict the President, the problem is for the American government.

We the People may find new leaders outside the DNC and GOP. If the US government, as did Yugoslavia, refuse to assent to eh rule of law, foreign fighter may lawfully enter the United States, and impose through force the legal systems required to compel assent to the rule of law.

The appropriate way forward is to compel Congress to answer the Question: Will they review the matters and consider the evidence; or will they, by default, impermissibly send a signal to the world combat forces that he only alternative to resole this recklessness is combat operations in the District of Columbia. The world military powers are prepared, armed, and able strike the American Capital. It would be preferable if Congress faced facts rather than the lawful attack and destruction of the Nation's capital.

* * *

The founders intended for We the People to assert power. We the People retain all powers not delegated. This government may not lawfully assign itself powers to ignore illegal conduct. This impermissibly asks that we assent to barbarism.

The Congress has a problem. The American legal community has been reckless in not asserting its oath. Members of Congress, when they vote to review or not review, will have to accept their decision will be linked with adverse inferences about whether members of Congress have or have not fully asserted their oath.

The war crimes issues will not stop with the President. This proclamation is the first step to remind Members of Congress that things are deadly serious: Either the US government shall review these matters; or the world community may conclude, as NATO did with Yugoslavia, that the only lawful option is to wage warfare to compel the American government do what the proclamation requests: Review facts.

* * *

Whether one state does or does not support this proclamation is of little interest. Free people around the globe will see whether American citizens will dare to rise to the occasion and challenge what is illegal; or whether they will refuse to assert lawful options.

Citizens of states who refuse to act are impermissibly assenting to violations of their states' guarantee to a republic. Our government riles on enforcement of the rule of law as the means to maintain is status as a republic.

No state has the power to permit any citizen to assent to any standard which is lesser than the Constitution.

* * *

Warfare can not be at the hands of a few who put themselves above the law. Rather, the Constitution governs all things unrelated or related to warfare. It is incorrect to construe the Congressional inquiry narrowly.

The review may examine anything. The question is whether the American people will accept the decision of Congress to do nothing, when they have the power and responsibly to do more.

Before we can talk about extending freedom, we must ensure our fundamental freedoms are preserved: The freedom to organize, conduct fact finding, and make informed judgments about our government.

The proclamation does one thing: Starts the reprocess to preserve freedom, and ensure Congress hears the message of We the People: We expect you to honor your oath, even when it is difficult.

* * *

If this inquiry is bad, surely the GOP would ask for more inquires to embarrass the DNC. The GOP is not calling for things that are genuinely bad for the DNC; they are avoiding what is accountability for the President and the US government -- the very things that are great about America's system of checks and balances.

America cannot credibly answer the call to arms when we irresponsibly ignore the needed leadership to implement those plans. The President must comply with the US Constitution, laws of war, and ensure his actions are lawful.

The President’s alleged illegal conduct is not narrowly confined to foreign affairs, but applies to domestic law, American citizens, and actions against Americans at home.

Warfare cannot be an excuse to support unconstitutional conduct. We do a disservice to the idea of freedom when a President is impermissibly violating the law, abusing power, and not held to account. The first step is to ask whether Congress is or is not serious about asserting its oath.

War is not an excuse nor the rallying cry to inspire a nation to give up its rights or start to the heavens blinded to illegal activity. What some may volunteer to support illegal activity, others are willing to volunteer to enforce the rule of law. Congress must decide whether it would like to resolve these issues of facts in the safe confines of the Congress with debate and civil examination; or whether they impermissibly, by their inaction, resign themselves to have the issue resolved in the forum this Government has proven incompetent: The battlefield.

* * *

The proclamation for impeachment is not a single act. There are fifty states. Each American citizen will be able to vote using the information they glean from the States. The leadership in the states who choose to asset their oath shall get rewarded; those leaders who refuse to act and assent to illegal activity shall be subject to open debate. We leave it to the citizens of the state to decide whether the leaders who refuses to assert their oath should be left in office, or replaced lawfully with people who have a marginal interest in fact finding, oversight, the rule of law, and the Constitution.

Congress is being given a chance to go on the record: Are they willing to assert their oath and face reality; or are they going to pretend that reality is too scary to confront. They have no choice.

Leaders face reality. War criminals hide evidence. Congress needs to accept it has a job to do. If it fails, foreign fighters have been delegated through the Geneva Conventions the power to wage lawful combat and lawfully destroy the American government, lay waste to the District of Columbia, and leave no doubt: The Power of we the People is fierce. We the People may lawfully delegate to foreign fighters the power to wage lawful combat against the US government when it refuses to protect the Constitution.

The question is whether Congress would like to pretend We the People do not have the power to bring the Congress to its knees: Either through the proclamation and a decision to find facts; or through the less desirable forum -- battle and open combat -- to compel the Congress to assent to We the People.

Ether way, Congress shall assent to We the People. The issue for Congress is whether it shall assent to a few words in the Constitution or a proclamation; or whether it shall be forced to assent after lawful destruction of the Nation's capital. We the People shall prevail and the Constitution shall be preserved. The question is whether Members of Congress would like to do voluntarily what they must do; or whether they shall be forced through lawful use of force to assent to foreign powers imposing justice in the wake of combat.

This Congress has impermissibly assented to war crimes. Foreign fighters may impose like abuses on the Nations leadership: Grave braches by foreign fighters against Members of Congress are permissible under the principle of retaliation. Where the US Congress has assented to prisoner abuse, foreign fighters may abuse Members of Congress if they are lawfully captured. There is nothing the Congress can do to stop what We the People have legally delegated to foreign fighters the power to do against Members of Congress individually: Reciprocal violations of the laws of war this Congress has illegally assented.

We the People cannot be stopped i protecting the Constitution. The issue for Members of Congress is to ask whether they are or are not serious in doing what they promised; or whether they shall be compelled through power delegated by We the People to assent to the rule of law through lawful use of deadly combat force.

Free people shall have the power to wage, through proxy, lawful warfare. The preferred forum is for Congress to assent to their oath, and review the issues. The question is whether Congress is or is not serious in doing what shall be done: Assent to the rule of law and protect the Constitution.

They way forward is not to block the inquiry, but to let Members of Congress choose whether they will or will not assert their oath. What happens next is outside the Control off Members of Congress. They may or may not be re-elected; they may or may not be respected at a war crimes tribunal; and they may or may not be invited to participate in the ongoing debates to restructure the American Government under a new, lawful Constitution.

Congress alone has the power to decide whether it would like to b part of the solution. Failing to act means the Congress shall be transformed, either though law, or though the lawful use of deadly combat forces. Congress has no real choice, but we the People are pretending that Congress gets to vote. They have only one option: To do their jobs, review facts, and ask a simple question: IS there or is there not sufficing evidence to charge this President with a crime? If they fail, the Congress may be deemed to be in illegal rebellion and insurrection, and it can be lawfully targeted for adjudication for violating its oath of office.

* * *

The proclamation in Washington is a chance for Congress to send a signal to the world that it has woken up and is willing to meet its international obligations. Congress should not delude itself to believe that the November 2006 election result was a mandate to assent to illegal warfare or lack of accountability. Fact finding means examining reality.

The Washington State proclamation -- calling for Congress to investigate the President for purposes of impeachment, and, if convicted, removed -- does one thing: Gives Congress fair notice in writing that We the People know there is an issue Congress needs to attend to. If Congress refuses, the future of the Congress is less certain, and it becomes the subject for We the People to lawfully transform into a new form. Congress alone has the power to decide whether they are going to be with the transformation; or whether they will attempt to block what is inevitable: The replacement of the Congress with a new system of oversight. Members of Congress have to decide whether they want to peacefully resolve these issues; or whether they require legal consequences; or whether the less desirable, but lawful options, are required to compel the Congress to assent to the rule of law -- Our Will as expressed in the Constitution: The Supreme Law of these United States of America.

* * *

Original


Statement in Opposition to SJM 8016,

Mr. Chairman and committee members
Thank you for allowing me the opportunity to express myself on this matter today.

In the days following September 11, 2001, the President of the United States made an address to the nation that spelled out a comprehensive list of tasks which had to be accomplished in order to ensure that even the thought of pursuing similar acts of terror either here in the continental US or anywhere in the known civilized world would be out of the question.

JSM 8016 alleges two notions for seeking a hearing.

It relies on a summary statement that intelligence was the “cornerstone” for the case to topple Saddam Hussein. Setting the table this way ignores completely the will and stated intent of the US Congress since 1991,.as well as the congressional Act authorizing use of force in Iraq passed in October of 1992 well before the case presented to the UN.

In making a case for this memorial, the Memorialists have ignored the constitutional authority of the Executive while seeking impeachment based on allegations of a breach of authority, unfounded in law.

I know why we went to war with Iraq, and why we continue operations to help the citizens of that country form a new and viable government, one dedicated to justice, determined to be free of the legacy of Saddam and stalwart against those who would impose similar or worse designs upon their citizens.

Terrorism cannot be defeated, it must be eradicated, and its proponents constrained in such a way as to make the cost of supporting terrorism more than the terrorist is willing or able to pay. The face of terror cannot be negotiated away, nor can it be reasoned with no matter how reasonable it may at times appear.

The Axis’ of Evil consists of nation states that use terror in ways to control their population, suppress ideas of individual’s not in concert with theirs and extinguish the disapproval of government imposed austerity by directing unrest and anger against an external target. We are and have been that target, and provide those states supporting Terror an excuse for their own internal failings. But such savage expression comes at a high price.

Those people who enforce the terrorist code of conduct grow addicted to a lawless immoral imperative and urged on by seeming unlimited power. That is at the heart of the terror wielding tyranny of extreme fascism. That is the mind of men like Saddam and others who have sold their souls for power, and given over their humanity to exercise that power. It is the cold bloodedness seen in the eyes of the likes of Bin Laden, Abu Mus’ab al-Zarqawi, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, and Assad. It is not the necessary outgrowth of a harsh environment or a cultural necessity. Neither is it required by religious zealotry. Such behavior is a choice, but as a person immerses himself in such brutality, there is less opportunity and ability to stop.

So the victims of rape and torture can attest while those swallowed by the chippers of Saddam and sons cannot. So the relatives of those hung from lampposts for failing to have a male relative escort them in public would explain if their voice had the means of finding your ears.

Whether or not to leave in power, to allow to gain in strength those who use terror as a casual means of diplomacy, has not been the question since the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998, and it is not been the issue since congress passed the Joint Resolution to Authorize the Use of United States Armed Forces Against Iraq in October of 1992.
Let me remind you of some of the most damaging of that act of Congressional Resolve?
Whereas Iraq persists in violating resolutions of the United Nations Security Council by continuing to engage in brutal repression of its civilian population thereby threatening international peace and security in the region, by refusing to release, repatriate, or account for non-Iraqi citizens wrongfully detained by Iraq, including an American serviceman, and by failing to return property wrongfully seized by Iraq from Kuwait;
Whereas the current Iraqi regime has demonstrated its capability and willingness to use weapons of mass destruction against other nations and its own people;
Whereas the current Iraqi regime has demonstrated its continuing hostility toward, and willingness to attack, the United States, including by attempting in 1993 to assassinate former President Bush and by firing on many thousands of occasions on United States and Coalition Armed Forces engaged in enforcing the resolutions of the United Nations Security Council;
Whereas members of al Qaeda, an organization bearing responsibility for attacks on the United States, its citizens, and interests, including the attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, are known to be in Iraq;
Whereas Iraq continues to aid and harbor other international terrorist organizations, including organizations that threaten the lives and safety of American citizens;
Whereas in December 1991, Congress expressed its sense that it "supports the use of all necessary means to achieve the goals of United Nations Security Council Resolution 687 as being consistent with the Authorization of Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution (Public Law 102-1)," that Iraq's repression of its civilian population violates United Nations Security Council Resolution 688 and "constitutes a continuing threat to the peace, security, and stability of the Persian Gulf region," and that Congress, "supports the use of all necessary means to achieve the goals of United Nations Security Council Resolution 688";

Free men, responding to the plea of others yearning for freedom is a call that many of the sons and daughters of this Evergreen state have not ignored. That the sons and daughters of this State of Washington alongside those of the rest of the nation have volunteered to return again and again in order to ensure the Iraqi people’s freedom is a fact that cannot be ignored. For in extending the freedom of others in this Global War on Terror, our own freedoms may endure.