ERD News 9.25 BLATANT REPUBLICAN VOTE THEFT-Premeditated

[autorank]

Blatant Voter Suppression by Republicans: The House Passed VoterID Bill calls for a passport

http://www.cbpp.org/9-22-06id.htm
Robert Greenstein, Leighton Ku, and Stacy Dean

"On September 20 the House passed a bill (H.R. 4844) that would, starting in 2010, effectively deny the vote to any U.S. citizen who cannot produce a passport or birth certificate (or proof of naturalization). Although the bill’s supporters present it as a measure intended to prevent non-citizens from voting, the bill’s main impact will be on U.S. citizens themselves. A national survey finds that approximately 11 million citizens currently lack the required documents. A substantial number could have difficulty obtaining or affording them."

The Republicans voted for this knowing all these people will probably lose their ability to vote. THAT MEANS THAT THEY ARE STEALING ALL THESE VOTES. PREMEDITATED THEFT OF A CITIZENS MOST BASIC RIGHTS.

Never forget the pursuit of Truth.
Only the deluded & complicit accept election results on blind faith.

Election Reform, Fraud, & Related News September 25, 2006

All members welcome and encouraged to participate.

Please post Election Reform, Fraud, & Related News on this thread.
Please

"Recommend"

for the Greatest Page (it's the link just below).

Check www.electionfraudnews.com every now and then.

[autorank]

1. Zogby - Voters Question Outcome of 2004 Pres. Election - Scoop/Collins

Autorank/”Scoop”: Zogby – Voters Question Outcome of ’04 Election.

ZOGBY POLL:
VOTERS QUESTION OUTCOME OF 2004 PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION

Only 45% of Voters “Very Confident”
Bush Won Election “fair and square”

Michael Collins
Part II of a II Part Series (Part I)
“Scoop” Independent News
Washington, DC
Monday, 25 September 2006, 1:25 pm

At their lowest points of popularity, do you recall anyone who claimed that Presidents’ Carter and Nixon stole their elections or that they didn't’t win fair and square? Did any analysts or activist groups clam massive election fraud in the elections that brought these ultimately very unpopular presidents to office?

How confident are you that George Bush really won the 2004 presidential election? If you are a typical American voter and you have doubts, how did those doubts arise? A mid August Zogby Poll of 1018 likely voters answered the first of these two very important questions (The author was a contributing sponsor for the survey.)

How confident are you that George W. Bush really won the 2004 presidential election?

Very confident that Bush won fair and square -- 45.2%
Somewhatconfident that Bush won fair and square -- 20.0
Not at all confident that he won fair and square -- 32.4
Other/not sure -- 2.4

This is a remarkable result. Nearly two years into the second term of his presidency, less than half of those polled think that the 2004 election victory was “fair and square.” 20% say they are “somewhat” confident, which is hardly an endorsement of legitimacy. Webster’s defines “somewhat” as follows: “…in some degree or measure: SLIGHTLY.“ This does not exactly qualify as an endorsement of a critical democratic process. The 32% who are “not at all confident” represent a huge portion of the population believing that Bush failed to win without cheating. Combining “not at all confident” with “somewhat” “slightly”, according to Webster’s, produces a category of 52% who “doubt” the legitimacy of the election. Altogether, these results are a clear vote of no confidence.


Combining “not confident at all” and “somewhat” (“in some degree measure: SLIGHTLY”) produces a category of “Doubts.” This gives a clear picture on legitimacy versus illegitimacy issue



Those who doubt: Not at all confident that he won fair and square - 32%

Fifty nine percent of Democrats, 5% of Republicans, and 34% of independents comprise the group with no confidence in a Bush win. Dividing the group by race shows that 54% of Asians and 71% percent of African Americans have serious doubts in the legitimacy of the election, along with 25% of whites and 37% of Latinos. Thus, a majority of Asian and African American voters lack confidence in the president’s legitimacy to rule while significant numbers of whites and Latinos do as well.

Groups thought to be in the hip pocket of the Republican administration show no confidence at a significant rate. NASCAR fans doubt the election results at a rate of 28% and born again Christians at 25%. Those in rural areas and the suburbs show some real doubt with rates of 28% and 29% respectively demonstrating a significant level of doubt. Members of the armed forces were right at the survey average with 32% questioning the legitimacy of the election.

The geographical distribution of no confidence was mildly surprising: East, 44%; South 30%; Central States/Great Lakes 24%; and West35%. Given the strength of the Republican Party in the South and relative strength of Democrats in the Central States/Great Lakes, this outcome stands out.

Those who without doubt: Very confident that Bush won fair and square - 45%”

Fifteen percent of Democrats, 80% of Republicans, and 39% of independents comprise the group that is very confident that Bush won fair and square. Dividing that group by race shows that 39% of Asians and 9% percent of African Americans are very confident in the legitimacy of the election, along with 51% of whites and 38% of Latinos. Central States/Great Lakes comprise 54% of this group with the South at 46%.. The West comprises 42% with the East accounting for just 32% of likely voters.

Whites, 51%, born again Christians, 58%, and people with household incomes over $100,000 are at the top of those very confident in a legitimate election. Only 54% of the rural population was very confident in a legitimate election. This may reflect the significant decrease in rural support for Bush in 2004 when compared to the 2000 election. All of these figures in the low fifties indicate that even among core constituencies, there are barely a majority of voters with a high degree of confidence that the election was legitimate.

Those in between: Somewhat confident that Bush won fair and square - 20%

Democrats and Independents, at 24% and 22% respectively, out number Republicans at 14%. Those who said that they were “somewhat confident” in the legitimacy of the election were evenly distributed around the country with only 3% separating the lowest reporting region, the South at 19%, and the West at 21%, which was the highest. Born again Christians come in at 15% percent, while non sectarians report at a rate of 19%.

The “in betweens” show less difference than the “very confident” and the “not confident at all” responders among the various subgroups polled.

Where they live: confidence by location

Those with “doubts are more likely to live in a large city. But nearly half in rural areas show “doubts.”


The Importance of this Survey

Why are these results important? The notion of legitimacy is central to political systems and central to the ability of an elected leader to rule effectively.(although a low level of legitimacy can allow a ruler to stay in power for a period). The vast majority of the public, regardless of political leanings, needs to confer legitimacy through a belief that those elected were elected fair and square. Significant numbers doubting basic legitimacy create major problems for those “elected” and for stability in the system. The result of only 45% trusting the system arises in a news environment in which the main stream media simply refuses to doubt the fairness or the 2004 election and studiously avoids any charges of outright election fraud and a corrupted result.

How the doubts arose will require more research. The response to other Zogby Poll questions in the same survey provides a major hint. 60% of American voters believe that tampering with only one machine can alter the outcome of an entire election. Nearly 80% oppose the use of secret, vendor-only computer code to run voting machines. Plus an amazing 92% of respondents said that they want the right to watch votes being counted and the right to make inquires of election officials regarding vote counting. They want that right because it belongs to them but also, I argue, because they doubt the process and the checks and balances. These doubts about the election occur at the same time there is doubt about the outcome and interact to reinforce each other.

Grave doubts exist about the 2004 presidential election in Ohio and elsewhere. Questions are asked primarily by mathematicians who cannot tolerate a seeming suspension of the lawsof mathematics for one day only, November 2, 2004, voting rights activists who witnessed voter suppression and election irregularities at an extraordinary rate, and ordinary citizens whose civic concern was awakened by the 2000 Supreme Court selection and the 2004 election that defied all logic.

Despite the productivity of election fraud researchers and voting rights advocates, very little attention has been given to questions of election fraud by the corporate media. The significant vote of no confidence expressed by a representative sample of 1018 likely voters was driven by several factors: from information gained through channels other than corporate media or due to a general distrust of the president based on his behavior and actions or a combination of these and other factors.

What does this mean? Some preliminary thoughts.

This survey elaborates another Zogby Poll conducted in Pennsylvania and sponsored by OpEdNews.Com. In that survey, 39% of Pennsylvania residents indicated that they thought that 2004 Presidential election was stolen. In the current survey, a middle category was created to capture those with doubts, only “somewhat confident” that Bush won fair and square. By creating that category in this national poll of likely voters, those who doubt legitimacy increased 13 percentage points to 52% while those likely to share the sentiment that 2004 was stolen, dropped from the Pennsylvania 39% to the national sample of 32%.

At this point, the Bush Presidency is an illegitimate one, lacking in the necessary consensus to rule with any degree of confidence by the people. We have entered the Potemkin Village of democracy where the façade of legitimacy is nothing more than a Hollywood back lot. This is the inescapable conclusion from this poll of likely voters.

Combining “not at all’ and “somewhat” responders, over half of American voters have doubts about the election, with a third of the total survey expressing serious doubts about the outcome of the election. Despite what the script writers at ABC and the other networks weave into the nightly network indoctrination, there is a vast distrust of this president and this administration; a distrust so profound that it includes a belief that the president wasn’t even re-elected in 2004.

Corporate Media: Asleep at the Switch

There won’t be much discussion of this Zogby poll by corporate media reporters and pundits. If it occurs, it might go something like this: “Most Americans confident in 2004 Election;” “Bush Still Solid with the People;” “Core Groups Support Outcome of 2004 Election.” Of course, none of those headlines will appear. For one or a multitude of reasons, the American corporate media has studiously ignored any controversy concerning election 2004. To discuss questions of legitimacy in public would entail raising the question of a stolen election. It won’t happen but it should. .

If we assume that this data is actually discussed by the corporate media, a dismissal strategy is available. The headlines would read: “Doubt in Legitimacy of 2004 Presidential Election Based on Attitude toward Bush Performance” or, for certain news organizations, “Complainers Doubt 2004 Outcome.” Those who think the country is headed in the right direction comprise 79% of those who are very confident in 2004 results. They comprise only 8% of the “not confident at all” group. Those who think the country is headed in the wrong direction represent 26% of the very confident responders and 47% of the not confident at all group.

Of course, President Carter’s popularity dropped below 30%, a majority of Americans were positive we were headed in the wrong direction. You will be very hard pressed to find one single voice rose to challenge Carter’s popular vote victory, even though his victory margin was narrow. The hypothesized right-wrong explanation of this exceptionally low level of confidence in the system is not a particularly good argument but it will not be needed.

There is a uniform failure to address the legitimacy of the 2004 election. It is not the fault of the public. From these results, it is easy to imagine a robust dialogue followed closely by an intense public debate on the real questions that lead those who do to doubt the legitimacy of the 2004 presidential election. With such a debate, the numbers “not at all confident” would rise even higher. What a shame it would be if the information managers win yet again.

*** # # # # ***

Copyright. Permission to reproduce in whole or part with attribution to the author, Michael Collins, a link to “Scoop,” and attribution of polling results to Zogby International.

Michael Collins is a writer who focuses on clean elections and voting rights. He is the publisher of the web site, www.ElectionFraudNews.com. His articles in “Scoop” Independent News can be found here.

[e-mail]

***APPENDIX***

The Zogby poll was conducted from August 11 through 15, 2006. 1018 adult voters were interviewed by phone. The sample of people interviewed reflects the demographic and regional diversity of the United States. Due to the size, it has a 3.1 % (+/-) margin of error. 95% of Zogby’s political polls have come within a 1% margin of accuracy in predicting election outcome. The survey was commissioned and sponsored by election rights and business law attorney Paul Lehto of Everett, Washington. This author, Michael Collins, was a contributing sponsor along with Democracy for New Hampshire.

ENDS

[autorank]

2. Nation: The Next Election – Hacked? !!! RFK Jr.

Hey, look!!! They’re Networked….Maryland machines

Chris Gardner/Associated Press

Will The Next Election Be Hacked?
Fresh disasters at the polls -- and new evidence from an industry insider -- prove that electronic voting machines can't be trusted

ROBERT F. KENNEDY JR.
http://tinyurl.com/qbstp

THANKS RFK Jr. You're an example to us all

The debacle of the 2000 presidential election made it all too apparent to most Americans that our electoral system is broken. And private-sector entrepreneurs were quick to offer a fix: Touch-screen voting machines, promised the industry and its lobbyists, would make voting as easy and reliable as withdrawing cash from an ATM. Congress, always ready with funds for needy industries, swiftly authorized $3.9 billion to upgrade the nation's election systems - with much of the money devoted to installing electronic voting machines in each of America's 180,000 precincts. But as midterm elections approach this November, electronic voting machines are making things worse instead of better. Studies have demonstrated that hackers can easily rig the technology to fix an election - and across the country this year, faulty equipment and lax security have repeatedly undermined election primaries. In Tarrant County, Texas, electronic machines counted some ballots as many as six times, recording 100,000 more votes than were actually cast. In San Diego, poll workers took machines home for unsupervised "sleepovers" before the vote, leaving the equipment vulnerable to tampering. And in Ohio - where, as I recently reported in "Was the 2004 Election Stolen?" , dirty tricks may have cost John Kerry the presidency - a government report uncovered large and unexplained discrepancies in vote totals recorded by machines in Cuyahoga County.

Even worse, many electronic machines don't produce a paper record that can be recounted when equipment malfunctions - an omission that practically invites malicious tampering. "Every board of election has staff members with the technological ability to fix an election," Ion Sancho, an election supervisor in Leon County, Florida, told me. "Even one corrupt staffer can throw an election. Without paper records, it could happen under my nose and there is no way I'd ever find out about it. With a few key people in the right places, it would be possible to throw a presidential election."

[autorank]

3. MI: Democrats Convene – Strategize Black Voter Mobilization

This comes under the category of GREAT NEWS. Just remember, election fraud is almost always a RACE CRIME - Ohio, 2004; New Mexico, 2004; Florida 2000; and all those years of black and other minority Americans losing 1-2% of the presidential votes to "spoiled ballots," the precedessor to our more multifaceted election fraud of the new melinium.

09.21.06 http://www.blackamericaweb.com/resource.aspx?id=15560
Democrats Convening This Weekend to Strategize Black Voter Mobilization

http://tinyurl.com/mocp4

By: Michael H. Cottman, BlackAmericaWeb.com

Less than two months before the November mid-term elections that could determine whether Democrats regain control of the House of Representatives, Democrats will hold a crucial African-American summit in Detroit this week to begin mobilizing millions of black voters.

Black members of the Democratic National Committee will convene at the Marriott at the Renaissance Center in Detroit Friday through Sunday to "advance the Democratic vision for a new direction for America" and begin their national get-out-the-vote campaign.

Ron Walters, a political science professor at the University of Maryland, told BlackAmericaWeb.com the black electorate could play a significant role in November by helping to elect a number of black candidates nationwide. But black voter turnout, he said, will be critical.

"We are excited that the DNC's Black Caucus is bringing the summit to Detroit," DNC Chairman Howard Dean and DNC Black Caucus Chair Virgie Rollins said in a joint statement.

[autorank]

4. MO: Eliminates Straight Ticket Voting

Now why would Missouri do this? I'll tell you one reason. This guy looks like he might lose, that would be Jim "No" Talent, R, MO, US Senate. They can't stand the truth. Nobody likes them, they probably lose most of the elections. They have to cheat.

09.24.06 NewsLeader.Com (AP)
Straight-ticket voting eliminated in new election law

Kelly Wiese
The Associated Press

Snip

A judge recently declared the photo ID requirement an unconstitutional infringement on the right to vote, though an appeal is expected. But his ruling only outlawed the ID requirement portion of a much broader bill, and the other changes in election law remain in effect.

Chief among them is the elimination of straight-ticket voting, an option that allows voters to choose all candidates of one political party in every race on the ballot with a single mark.

Democrats decried the change. Secretary of State Robin Carnahan called it an inconvenience to voters that could mean longer lines at the polls. The Republican-led legislature added that to the bill to punish Senate Democrats who tried to block the ID requirement from coming to a vote this spring.

For the 2004 elections, roughly two-thirds of Missouri's local election authorities provided information to the secretary of state's office showing that 594,262 people cast straight Democratic ballots and 497,805 cast straight Republican ballots. The data indicates at least 39 percent of votes cast two years ago statewide came from straight-party ballots.

Marvin Overby, a professor of political science at the University of Missouri-Columbia, said removing straight-ticket voting could mean fewer votes are cast in lower-ticket races, with people being bored or uninformed as they go beyond top races such as president, Senate or governor and not completing a full ballot.

[autorank]

5. Mexico: American Activists Go to Mexico.

The Mexican democracy movement has it down...class discrimination, crushing small business, slave wages...it's all about megastores that ruin communities and, apparently, entire nations.

09.24.06
Activists travel to Mexico for 'massive' political rally

By Stephen Wall, Staff Writer
http://www.dailybulletin.com/news/ci_4387965

After spending six days in Mexico, a group of area activists came home convinced of a new dawn in the land of their ancestors.

Members of the Riverside-based National Alliance for Human Rights were among the more than 1 million Mexicans who packed Mexico City's central square last week to participate in a massive political movement for change.

"It was fabulous," Alliance member Maria Anna Gonzales said. "It was a true sign of people working towards democracy and reform of a system that is anything but democratic and fair. I was impressed because these people are truly carrying about a peaceful revolution."

A dozen members of the group witnessed the birth of a parallel government led by leftist presidential candidate Andres Manuel Lopez Obrador, who narrowly lost the July 2 election to Felipe Calderon.

[autorank]

6. GA: New Voter Disenfranchisement Efforts,

Atlanta Journal Constitution 09.24.6
Voter ID rule makes it easier to steal election

Jay Bookman,
Sunday, September 24, 2006

Georgia Republicans have their story about the voter ID bill, and they're sticking to it.
http://tinyurl.com/jurkn

Despite significant evidence to the contrary, they continue to claim that their intentions in drafting and passing House Bill 244 last year were pure, that their sole goal was to protect the integrity of the ballot box.

Snip

Unfortunately, if you look at the contents of HB 244, you discover that in their drive to protect our precious right to vote, Richardson and his colleagues somehow managed to ignore the most serious threats to voting security under Georgia law. In fact, in some ways they made it even easier, not harder, to steal an election. Shoot, they even made it legal for a dead person to vote in Georgia.

"People who look carefully at this thing, there's very little 'there' there -- very little fraud," said Thomas Patterson, an expert on elections at Harvard's Shorenstein Center. "If you are an illegal immigrant, the last thing you want to do is show up at a polling place. ... We have enough trouble getting people to vote when they're eligible. The idea that people are going to stick their necks out and get (a) penalty stretches the imagination."

Patterson notes that the voting and registration rules that apply in much of this country are already more stringent than those in most Western European democracies. In much of Western Europe, for example, the postal service simply notifies voter registration officials when a citizen moves, and his voting precinct is automatically changed. "Here, the onus is on the citizen. You kind of sense that the ballot box belongs to registration officials instead of the citizens," he said. Voter ID rule makes it easier to steal election

[autorank]

7. Nation: NYT Describes Freaked Out Election Officials – What, Humility, nah

"some electoins officials" are worried. Well don't listen to citizens who have warned you of this all along. Just wait around until you think you'll get in major trouble, then speak up. Don't do anything different than your normla course of business. You don't want to get too involved.

09.24.06
Officials wary of voting machines

IAN URBINA
New York Times News Service
http://tinyurl.com/en4dy

WASHINGTON - A growing number of state and local officials are getting cold feet about electronic voting technology, and many are making last-minute efforts to limit or reverse the rollout of new machines in the November elections.

Less than two months before voters head to the polls, Gov. Robert L. Ehrlich Jr. of Maryland this week became the most recent official to raise concerns publicly. Ehrlich, a Republican, said he lacked confidence in the state's new $106 million electronic voting system and suggested a return to paper ballots.

Dozens of states have adopted electronic voting technology to comply with federal legislation in 2002 intended to phase out old-fashioned lever and punch-card machines after the "hanging chads" confusion of the 2000 presidential election.

But some election officials and voting experts say they fear that the new technology may have only swapped old problems for newer, more complicated ones. Their concerns became more urgent after widespread problems with the new technology were reported this year in primaries in Ohio, Arkansas, Illinois, Maryland and elsewhere.

[autorank]

8. Week in Review

Election stories of significance...but first, Bill Clinton really kicked some news reader ass on Sunday didn't he. Don't provoke really big guys with a 160 plus IQ if you're any Fox news reader.

[autorank]

9. Nation: Voter ID Bill IS A Voter Suppression Bill – RACIST in the extreme

Anyone who voted for the House Resolutoin recentlyi passed is anti democracy and attempting to remove the voting rights of minorities and the poor.

The ID requirements are well known to restrict access to certain classes of individuals.

WE MUST ACT AS A PARTY TO STOP THIS!!!

Here are the top level results.

http://www.cbpp.org/9-22-06id.htm

New Rules Would Effectively Require All Voters to Present Passport or Birth Certificate

Under current rules, U.S. citizens who are registered voters can demonstrate their identity by producing one of several kinds of documents, including a photo ID, a current utility bill, or a current bank statement. (Non-citizens are not permitted to vote in federal elections.) The new House bill, in contrast, would require all U.S. citizens who have completed the voter registration process to present a photo ID in order to vote in federal elections in 2008. Then, starting in the 2010 elections, all voters would be required to present a photo ID that proves the voter is a U.S. citizen. Persons who vote by mail would have to mail in a copy of the required documentation along with their completed ballot.

A U.S. passport would satisfy both the 2008 and 2010 requirements, but as explained below, large numbers of U.S. citizens do not have a current passport. The kinds of driver’s licenses (or other state identification documents) currently issued by states would satisfy the 2008 requirement but not the 2010 one, since states do not currently require proof of citizenship in order to obtain a license and do not denote citizenship on the license.

Under a 2005 federal law commonly known as the Real ID Act, starting in 2008 states must require citizens applying for driver’s licenses to prove their citizenship, so the driver’s licenses issued in coming years should meet the 2010 requirement.<1> However, an applicant will need to produce a passport or birth certificate (or proof of naturalized citizenship) to obtain such a driver’s license. The House bill would allow states to issue voter photo-ID cards to persons without driver’s licenses, but these voter ID cards likewise would require a passport or birth certificate. (While low-income citizens could supposedly obtain these voter ID cards without charge, they would still have to pay for the passport or birth certificate they would need to obtain the voter ID card.) Thus, the House bill would effectively require all voters to present a passport or birth certificate in order to vote.

Survey Shows 11 Million U.S. Citizens Lack Access to Passport or Birth Certificate

In January 2006, the Opinion Research Corporation conducted a nationally representative telephone survey of 2,026 adults, commissioned by the Center, to determine how many U.S.-born adult citizens do not have a passport or birth certificate readily available.<2> (The Center commissioned the poll in response to a proposal, since enacted as part of the Deficit Reduction Act of 2005, to require U.S. citizens applying for Medicaid or renewing their Medicaid coverage to document their citizenship.) Key findings based on the poll include:

[autorank]

10. Nation: More Voter Suppression – Study of State Wide Databases. -VITAL

This is the Republican voter suppression "kill shot" for 2006 and maybe of all time.

Remember Katherine Harris and her little "purge" of felons. Knockedk 50,000 black floridians off the rolls, Floridians who had nothing to prevent them from voting. It was just an error. But guess what, the records that DBT/Choicepoint coded had a FIELD FOR RACE so it was no accident...give me a break Katherine...

Anyway, this is what they've done. The Help America (not) Vote Act of 2002 provides money for centralized voter registration databases IN ALL THE STATES. There are 50 Katherine Harris' out ther purging the rolls.

Now, don't you feel better.

Get this around.

http://www.acm.org/usacm/VRD/

Executive Summary

The voter registration process may seem simple to most voters. They give their names, addresses, birth date, and in some cases party affiliations to election officials with the expectation that they will be able to vote on Election Day. In reality, election officials must oversee a complex system managing this process. They must ensure that the voters' information is accurately recorded and maintained, that the system is transparent while voter information is kept private and secure from unauthorized access, and that poll workers can access this information on Election Day to determine whether or not any given voter is eligible. A well-managed voter registration system is vital for ensuring public confidence in elections.

State and local governments have managed voter registration using different approaches among different jurisdictions. In 2002, Congress sought to make these disparate efforts more uniform by passing the Help America Vote Act, which required that each state have a computerized statewide voter registration database. In implementing this mandate, state and local governments still have differing approaches, but it is clear that information technology underpins each of their efforts. While technology will help election officials manage this complex system, it also creates new risks that must be addressed.

This study focuses on five areas that election officials should address when creating statewide voter registration databases (VRDs): accuracy, privacy, usability, security, and reliability. Each chapter contains detailed discussions and recommendations. The following are some of the overarching goals for VRDs and selected recommendations for achieving them.

[autorank]

11. Did somebody say Impeachment. Sen. Robert Byrd 12/19/2005

Nation: “No President is Above the Law” Sen.Robert Byrd, Ded. 19, 2005

This was just a month before the great speech by Al Gore at Constitution Hall in DC, January 16, 2006 http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/HL0601/S00122.htm &
http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/HL0601/S00121.htm

http://byrd.senate.gov/speeches/2005_december/law_for_all.html

December 19, 2005

No President Is Above the Law

U.S. Senator Robert C. Byrd


Senator Byrd on Monday expressed his strong concerns about possible violations of the Constitution in the Bush Administration's admitted practice of spying on American citizens.

Americans have been stunned at the recent news of the abuses of power by an overzealous President. It has become apparent that this Administration has engaged in a consistent and unrelenting pattern of abuse against our Country’s law-abiding citizens, and against our Constitution.

We have been stunned to hear reports about the Pentagon gathering information and creating databases to spy on ordinary Americans whose only sin is choose to exercise their First Amendment right to peaceably assemble. Those Americans who choose to question the Administration’s flawed policy in Iraq are labeled by this Administration as “domestic terrorists.”

We now know that the F.B.I.’s use of National Security Letters on American citizens has increased one hundred fold, requiring tens of thousands of individuals to turn over personal information and records. These letters are issued without prior judicial review, and provide no real means for an individual to challenge a permanent gag order.

Through news reports, we have been shocked to learn of the CIA’s practice of rendition, and the so-called “black sites,” secret locations in foreign countries, where abuse and interrogation have been exported, to escape the reach of U.S. laws protecting against human rights abuses.

We know that Vice President Dick Cheney has asked for exemptions for the CIA from the language contained in the McCain torture amendment banning cruel, inhumane, and degrading treatment. Thank God his pleas have been rejected by this Congress.

Now comes the stomach-churning revelation through an executive order, that President Bush has circumvented both the Congress and the courts. He has usurped the Third Branch of government – the branch charged with protecting the civil liberties of our people – by directing the National Security Agency to intercept and eavesdrop on the phone conversations and e-mails of American citizens without a warrant, which is a clear violation of the Fourth Amendment. He has stiff-armed the People’s Branch of government. He has rationalized the use of domestic, civilian surveillance with a flimsy claim that he has such authority because we are at war. The executive order, which has been acknowledged by the President, is an end-run around the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, which makes it unlawful for any official to monitor the communications of an individual on American soil without the approval of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court.

What is the President thinking? Congress has provided for the very situations which the President is blatantly exploiting. The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, housed in the Department of Justice, reviews requests for warrants for domestic surveillance. The Court can review these requests expeditiously and in times of great emergency. In extreme cases, where time is of the essence and national security is at stake, surveillance can be conducted before the warrant is even applied for.

This secret court was established so that sensitive surveillance could be conducted, and information could be gathered without compromising the security of the investigation. The purpose of the FISA Court is to balance the government’s role in fighting the war on terror with the Fourth Amendment rights afforded to each and every American.

The American public is given vague and empty assurances by the President that amount to little more than “trust me.” But, we are a nation of laws and not of men. Where is the source of that authority he claims? I defy the Administration to show me where in the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, or the U.S. Constitution, they are allowed to steal into the lives of innocent America citizens and spy.

When asked yesterday what the source of this authority was, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice had no answer. Secretary Rice seemed to insinuate that eavesdropping on Americans was acceptable because FISA was an outdated law, and could not address the needs of the government in combating the new war on terror. This is a patent falsehood. The USA Patriot Act expanded FISA significantly, equipping the government with the tools it needed to fight terrorism. Further amendments to FISA were granted under the Intelligence Authorization Act of 2002 and the Homeland Security Act of 2002. In fact, in its final report, the 9/11 Commission noted that the removal of the pre-9/11 “wall” between intelligence officials and law enforcement was significant in that it “opened up new opportunities for cooperative action.”

The President claims that these powers are within his role as Commander in Chief. Make no mistake, the powers granted to the Commander in Chief are specifically those as head of the Armed Forces. These warrantless searches are conducted not against a foreign power, but against unsuspecting and unknowing American citizens. They are conducted against individuals living on American soil, not in Iraq or Afghanistan. There is nothing within the powers granted in the Commander in Chief clause that grants the President the ability to conduct clandestine surveillance of American civilians. We must not allow such groundless, foolish claims to stand.

The President claims a boundless authority through the resolution that authorized the war on those who perpetrated the September 11th attacks. But that resolution does not give the President unchecked power to spy on our own people. That resolution does not give the Administration the power to create covert prisons for secret prisoners. That resolution does not authorize the torture of prisoners to extract information from them. That resolution does not authorize running black-hole secret prisons in foreign countries to get around U.S. law. That resolution does not give the President the powers reserved only for kings and potentates.

I continue to be shocked and astounded by the breadth with which the Administration undermines the constitutional protections afforded to the people, and the arrogance with which it rebukes the powers held by the Legislative and Judicial Branches. The President has cast off federal law, enacted by Congress, often bearing his own signature, as mere formality. He has rebuffed the rule of law, and he has trivialized and trampled upon the prohibitions against unreasonable search and seizures guaranteed to Americans by the United States Constitution.

We are supposed to accept these dirty little secrets. We are told that it is irresponsible to draw attention to President Bush’s gross abuse of power and Constitutional violations. But what is truly irresponsible is to neglect to uphold the rule of law. We listened to the President speak last night on the potential for democracy in Iraq. He claims to want to instill in the Iraqi people a tangible freedom and a working democracy, at the same time he violates our own U.S. laws and checks and balances? President Bush called the recent Iraqi election “a landmark day in the history of liberty.” I dare say in this country we may have reached our own sort of landmark. Never have the promises and protections of Liberty seemed so illusory. Never have the freedoms we cherish seemed so imperiled.

These renegade assaults on the Constitution and our system of laws strike at the very core of our values, and foster a sense of mistrust and apprehension about the reach of government.

I am reminded of Thomas Paine’s famous words, “These are the times that try men’s souls.”

These astounding revelations about the bending and contorting of the Constitution to justify a grasping, irresponsible Administration under the banner of “national security” are an outrage. Congress can no longer sit on the sidelines. It is time to ask hard questions of the Attorney General, the Secretary of State, the Secretary of Defense, and the Director of the CIA. The White House should not be allowed to exempt itself from answering the same questions simply because it might assert some kind of “executive privilege” in order to avoid further embarrassment.

###

[we can do it]

12. Glad to Recommend

[autorank]

13. Glad you did...graias!!!

[OneBlueSky]

14. I've voted in every election since 1964, and I have neither . . .

a passport nor a birth certificate . . . will I be able to vote? . . .

[WillYourVoteBCounted]

15. HR 4844 is the War on Voters

This is the only way left for GOP to do it, because we the people
have been working our butts off at every level.

It won't be any use to get people to the polls if they don't
have "permission" to vote.

Also, I read an account over at the www.AARP.org message board that
one senior used their passport as ID at the poll, and the poll
worker said the photo was too fuzzy, tried to turn the voter away!


So, a passport is no guarantee, if the poll worker or "challenger"
decides its not good.

[diva77]

16. not that it's any consolation whatsoever, but...

If you're not on the reg. rolls, are you still able to fill out a provisional ballot? in states with no paper, how does one cast a provisional ballot?