Here in New York State, home of the country's most dysfunctional legislature, we have a very effective system of checks and balances -- better than the federal government.

Why?  Because the Attorney General and the Comptroller are elected, and are not beholden to the Governor or the Legislature.  We get the best people for the job and they act as stringent watchdogs (because that's how they get re-elected!).

The United States deserves the same system, even though it requires a Constitutional Amendment.

In a desperate attempt to get my Democratic Representative and Senators to get it, I wrote this short piece quoting the most crucial bits of Krugman's The Great Unraveling (which in turn quotes Kissinger) and sent it to them.

If your Congresspeople remain as resolutely clueless as mine, please feel free to copy and send the same letter, or any mash-up of it you like.

(Title EDITED)

John Yoo wrote an editorial in the fascist propaganda pages of the Wall Street Journal today, in which he signalled Bush's plans for defying the Constitution.

I won't quote it, because I'd have to read it again, and it's full of lies (like claiming that no crimes have been uncovered, ignoring the Hatch Act violations; and claiming that no malicious prosecutions by the DOJ against Democrats, or malicious shutdowns of prosecutions against Republicans, have been identified, when we've specifically identified several of earch).

The essential elements in Bush's plan are:

1. He will claim executive privilege over everything.

2. He will claim that Congress has no right to issue subpoenas regarding any of these matters.b

I've heard three good possibilities for dragging this gang of insane criminals away from their current positions of absolute dictatorial power.  I'm interested in Kossack's thoughts on the relative merits of the three.  I think the procress for the three of them all reinforce each other, myself.

All must be performed by Congress.

The current White House excuse for not obeying subpoenas is to claim that the subpoenas are not a proper exercise of Congress's constitutional powers.

While this claim is crap, there are precedents which could be misread by a compliant Bushco court as an excuse to agree with Cheney.

We want to rally behind the Democratic Congress.  We really, really want to.  But you need to give us something to rally behind.

It could be anything important.

• The restoration of habeas corpus -- the requirement that the government show a court some real evidence before locking you up forever.
• Closing the Guantanamo Bay gulag.
• Ending warantless spying on Americans.
• Getting out of Iraq.
• Guaranteeing hand-counted paper ballots for all elections.
• Stopping government-sponsored torture.
• Restoring a professional, nonpolitical, just Justice Department.
• Forcing the administration to testify to Congress about what they've been doing.
• Impeaching the criminal members of the administration who refuse to resign, like Gonzales for starters.
• Or a number of other possibilities.

And you don't even have to succeed -- we understand that the crime syndicate running the Republican Party will pull out all the stops to stop you.  You just have to choose a fight on one of the important Constitutional issues.

I understand, and agree with, the assessment that the Democratic leadership in the House, and a large number of the rank and file, are both unprincipled and politically stupid in backing the Capitulation Bill.  (In case anyone didn't know, it is politically stupid because voters like the appearance of standing up strong for principles, and this gives the appearance of weakness and unprincipledness.)

Let's not forget, however, that 141 House Democrats (and 10 Senate Democrats) voted against the bill.

Now is certainly not the time to give up on the Democratic Party (although the Senate is in much worse shape than the House).  We have a lot of good House members.

Introduce a strong bill providing lots of funds -- for withdrawing troops from Iraq.

No funds for occupation; lots of funds for withdrawing troops.  No funds for moving people into Iraq; any amount for moving them out.

Repeat "We're giving the troops lots of money to leave Iraq safely.  Bush won't let them take the money or leave.  Why does he insist on leaving them there to die?"

So I was made aware that MoveOn.oorg was polling online on whether people support the impeachment of Bush.

http://pol.moveon.org/...

It's worth answering; they could make a huge difference.

"If the people lead, eventually the leaders will follow."

I think I'm watching this happen.

I've complained about Hillary, and will probably continue to do so.  But she's getting better.  Her speeches in the last few months actually describe and attack Bush's top-to-bottom corruption of government directly, coming closer to stating openly that they are completely lawless (not quite there yet though).  She also declares that warrantless wiretapping is unacceptable, albeit with caveats which stick in my craw.  She's finally speaking more solidly in opposition to the Iraq war and any possible Iran war, despite residual hawkishness.  Now if she can just take on a strong position against torture...

Edwards is getting better, as we all know, having gone from an Iraq war vote to realizing that it was wrong.  His position that the GWOT is a fraud is a change and an improvement.  And I think it will push the other candidates that way too.  Now if he can take a stronger position on torture....

Obama is getting better too, from what I can tell; he seems to be dropping the irritating right-wing frames one by one from his speeches.  Now if he can become less of a cipher....

Chris Dodd has introduced S.576, which restores habeas corpus rights and removes the worst of the Military Commissions Act.

No cosponsorship or support yet from Clinton, Obama, or Biden, all of whom are in the Senate.

Kucinich, of course, has been a strong and consistent defender of habeas corpus.
(http://kucinich.us/node/3560)
Gravel came out clearly for prompt restoration of habeas corpus.  ( http://www.gravel2008.us/... )

Dennis Kucinich has introduced the first of what I am sure will be many impeachment resolutions, namely H.Res.333 ( http://thomas.loc.gov/... ) impeaching Cheney for the lies which got us into the Iraq war, and for sabre-rattling against Iran.

Regardless of your views on Kucinich or on the particular choice of charges (I think they are not the best choices), the next step for any impeachment resolution is the House Judiciary Committee.

This is more of a question and solicitation of comments than a diary.

(1) Assassinations create a groundswell of public support for the assassinated.  Look at Julius Caesar, a violent, anti-democratic dictator who was assassinated for the best of reasons.  Look at JFK: the Bay of Pigs and getting the US into the Vietnam War were all but forgotten.  
Assassinations make martyrs, worthy or unworthy.  Julius Caesar's reputation is far better than it should be for a man who committed mass murder routinely, and it is largely due to his assassination.

(2) Assassinations tend to create an opportunity for other would-be dictators to take over.  Julius Caesar's assassination didn't lead to the restoration of the Republic; it led to the Second Triumvirate and Emperor Augustus.  Modern African countries after decolonization provide hundreds of examples.  Assassinations encourage the collapse of democratic structures, even when they're intended to restore them.

(3) Assassinations, and even attempted assassinations, create yet another excuse for attacks on civil liberties.

George W. Bush.  Dick Cheney.  Every single political appointee in the administration, since they are all complicit in the crimes.  Every member of Congress who backed their illegal abuses of power.  The five criminal members of the Supreme Court who appointed Bush President.

They all deserve fair trials, of course, but apart from a few who may be not guilty by reason of insanity, it seems clear that almost all of them are guilty of supporting monstrous crimes against humanity: aggressive war, mass torture, mass kidnapping, mass murder, treason by attempting to overthrow the US constitution, and much more, and they all deserve death.  And we deserve to watch, so that we know they are dead.

It was suggested that I make this a diary.  I think we all agree that we need to restore habeas corpus rights as soon as possible.  This is about how to "sell" that.

My original comment:

Force Republicans to make uncomfortable votes to lock up and torture innocent people.

Actually, it might be worth phrasing the repeal very simply:  "Every person in US custody shall have the right for an impartial judge to review the evidence against him, and if it shows that he is innocent, he shall be released after not more than 30 days."

Make them vote for imprisoning innocent people.

Just for reference: I think all the other national races are pretty much settled and sealed (and yes, we WON) but we have a bunch which are not over yet.  Most of which can only make our victory sweeter.  :-)

Kos made a gross error by calling races in Ohio already. No significant numbers of Ohio votes have been reported because the *polls were open until 9:00 PM in some precincts in Cuyahoga County* thanks to a judge's order. http://www.dispatch.com/election/election.php?story=225026 Ohio precincts are not allowed to report any further results until the last polls close. Everyone who was waiting in line when the polls closed is entitled to vote. Apparently this means that people are still voting in Columbus and Cincinatti. And people who just got there five minutes ago are waiting to vote in Cleveland. I really hope that nobody in Cleveland, Cleveland Heights, or one of the other precincts, went home at 7:30 and didn't realize that they could *still vote*. If any people stayed home because they read that Brown and Strickland had "won" (with *1 precinct reporting* statewide, dammit).... aaaaargh, is all I can say.