This resolution was introduced by Congressman Dennis Kucinich on April 24, 2007.
On CNN's The Situation Room, Kucinich stated, "I'm not promoting [the resolution]... Members of Congress will have to search their own conscience, take counsel with their constituents, and make the decision independently."

In an interview with The Raw Story on the day of H.Res. 333's introduction, Pelosi is reported to have said that impeachment proceedings against President George W. Bush would be a distraction from passing Democratic policies. No statement specifically addressing the impeachment of Vice President Cheney is quoted.

During the campaign for the 2006 midterm election, when asked in a 60 Minutes interview about the possibility of multiple investigations and an impeachment of President George W. Bush, Pelosi said, "No, impeachment is off the table." When asked, "And that's a pledge?" Speaker Pelosi said:

Well, it's a pledge in the – yes, I mean, it's a pledge. Of course it is. It is a waste of time. Wouldn't they just love it, if we came in and our record as Democrats coming forth in 12 years, is to talk about George Bush and Dick Cheney? This election is about them. This is a referendum on them. Making them lame ducks is good enough for me.

As we all see, Bush, and Cheney are not lame ducks, they own the supreme court, they violate any law they choose without answering to anyone, they thumb their noses at congress in total defiance, lame ducks indeed!

The resolution has been referred to the Subcommittee on the Constitution, Civil Rights, and Civil Liberties, chaired by Congressman Jerrold Nadler.

Neither the subcommittee nor the full Judiciary Committee, chaired by Congressman John Conyers, has yet scheduled a hearing on the resolution. Absent a positive referral from the Judiciary Committee, the only way the resolution could reach the floor of the House is with the approval of the Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi.

Ms Pelosi will visit Rhode Island on Saturday for a Democratic fundraising event.As far as I'm concerned she can attend A skirt raising event and sell some ass for funds, after all she sold her soul to this evil administration, and soldout the American people, why not that too?

But then she could be booted out of congress for such a heinous thing as A sexual act, she needs to stick to petty crimes such as, destroying the constitution,manufacturing intelligence, invading soveriegn nations, and murdering 3642 U.S. Military personell!

Just one short year ago I held A lot of respect and admiration for this woman, I thought that when she became speaker of the house we might see some changes in the way our government was operating, brother was I wrong...

Harold

BTW:When asked for a show of hands by those in favor of Kucinich's plan to impeach the Vice President, none of the other Democratic presidential candidates indicated support.

The House Judiciary Committee voted to cite White House Chief of Staff Josh Bolten and President Bush's former legal counsel, Harriet Miers, for contempt of Congress.

WHAT'S NEXT: The House can now vote on whether to approve the contempt citation. It takes only one chamber of Congress to approve a contempt of Congress citation.

If approved by the Democratic-controlled House, Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., then can turn the matter over to the U.S. attorney for the District of Columbia, Jeff Taylor, for prosecution.

LOOKING AHEAD: Taylor, who was appointed by Bush, is supposed to "bring the matter before the grand jury for its action," according to the law.

But the Bush administration, which controls the Justice Department, has made clear it would not let a contempt citation be prosecuted because the information and documents sought are protected by executive privilege.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Everything those criminal, executive's do is privilaged, or did we all forget that this administration and their apointee's are above the law? This is a Fucking joke!

By KATHERINE SHRADER, Associated Press Writer
Sat Jul 21, 1:27 AM ET


President Bush breathed new life into the CIA's terror interrogation program Friday in an executive order that would allow harsh questioning of suspects, limited in public only by a vaguely worded ban on cruel and inhuman treatment.

The order bars some practices such as sexual abuse, part of an effort to quell international criticism of some of the CIA's most sensitive and debated work. It does not say what practices would be allowed.

The executive order is the White House's first public effort to reach into the CIA's five-year-old terror detention program, which has been in limbo since a Supreme Court decision last year called its legal foundation into question.

Officials would not provide any details on specific interrogation techniques that the CIA may use under the new order. In the past, its methods are believed to have included sleep deprivation and disorientation, exposing prisoners to uncomfortable cold or heat for long periods, stress positions and — most controversially — the simulated drowning technique known as waterboarding.

The Bush administration has portrayed the interrogation operation as one of its most successful tools in the war on terror, while opponents have said the agency's techniques have left a black mark on the United States' reputation around the world.

Bush's order requires that CIA detainees "receive the basic necessities of life, including adequate food and water, shelter from the elements, necessary clothing, protection from extremes of heat and cold, and essential medical care."

A senior intelligence official would not comment directly when asked if waterboarding would be allowed under the new order and under related — but classified — legal documents drafted by the Justice Department.

However, the official said, "It would be wrong to assume the program of the past transfers to the future."

A second senior administration official acknowledged sleep is not among the basic necessities outlined in the order.

Both officials spoke on condition of anonymity to discuss the order more freely.

Skeptical human rights groups did not embrace Bush's effort.

Tom Malinowski, Washington director for Human Rights Watch, said the broad outlines in the public order don't matter. The key is in the still-classified guidance distributed to CIA officers.

As a result, the executive order requires the public to trust the president to provide adequate protection to detainees. "Given the experience of the last few years, they have to be naive if they think that is going to reassure too many people," he said.

The order specifically refers to captured al-Qaida suspects who may have information on attack plans or the whereabouts of the group's senior leaders. White House press secretary Tony Snow said the CIA's program has saved lives and must continue on a sound legal footing.

"The president has insisted on clear legal standards so that CIA officers involved in this essential work are not placed in jeopardy for doing their job — and keeping America safe from attacks," he said.

The five-page order reiterated many protections already granted under U.S. and international law. It said that any conditions of confinement and interrogation cannot include:

• Torture or other acts of violence serious enough to be considered comparable to murder, torture, mutilation or cruel or inhuman treatment.

• Willful or outrageous acts of personal abuse done to humiliate or degrade someone in a way so serious that any reasonable person would "deem the acts to be beyond the bounds of human decency." That includes sexually indecent acts.

• Acts intended to denigrate the religion of an individual.

The order does not permit detainees to contact family members or have access to the International Committee of the Red Cross.

In a decision last year aimed at the military's tribunal system, the Supreme Court required the U.S. government to apply Geneva Convention protections to the conflict with al-Qaida, shaking the legal footing of the CIA's program.

Last fall, Congress instructed the White House to draft an executive order as part of the Military Commissions Act, which outlined the rules for trying terrorism suspects. The bill barred torture, rape and other war crimes that clearly would have violated the Geneva Conventions, but allowed Bush to determine — through executive order — whether less harsh interrogation methods can be used.

The administration and the CIA have maintained that the agency's program has been lawful all along.

In a message to CIA employees on Friday, Director Michael Hayden tried to stress the importance and narrow scope of the program. He noted that fewer than half of the less than 100 detainees have experienced the agency's "enhanced interrogation measures."

"Simply put, the information developed by our program has been irreplaceable," he said. "If the CIA, with all its expertise in counterterrorism, had not stepped forward to hold and interrogate people like (senior al-Qaida operatives) Abu Zubaydah and Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, the American people would be right to ask why."

For decades, the United States had two paths for questioning suspects: the U.S. justice system and the military's Army Field Manual.

However, after the 9/11 attacks, the Bush administration decided more needed to be done. With Zubaydah's capture in 2002, the CIA program was quietly created.

Since then, 97 terror suspects are believed to have been held by the agency at locations around the world, often referred to as "black sites."

The program sparked international controversy as details slowly emerged, with human rights groups saying the agency's work was a violation of international law, including the Third Geneva Convention's Common Article 3 protections, which set a baseline standard for the treatment of prisoners of war.

In September, Bush announced the U.S. had transferred the last 14 high-value CIA detainees to the military's detention facility at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, where they would stand trial. The CIA has held one detainee since then — an Iraqi who the U.S. considered one of al-Qaida's most senior operatives. He was also eventually transferred to Guantanamo.

___

Associated Press writers Deb Riechmann and Lara Jakes Jordan contributed to this report

By MATT APUZZO, Associated Press Writer
7 minutes ago

Former CIA operative Valerie Plame lost a lawsuit Thursday that demanded money from Bush administration officials whom she blamed for leaking her agency identity.

Plame, the wife of former Ambassador Joseph Wilson, had accused Vice President Dick Cheney and others of conspiring to disclose her identity in 2003. Plame said that violated her privacy rights and was illegal retribution for her husband's criticism of the administration.

U.S. District Judge John D. Bates dismissed the case on jurisdictional grounds and said he would not express an opinion on the constitutional arguments.

Bates dismissed the case against all defendants: Cheney, White House political adviser Karl Rove, former White House aide I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby and former Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage.

Plame's lawyers said from the beginning the suit would be a difficult case to make. Public officials normally are immune from such suits filed in connection with their jobs.

Plame's identity was revealed in a syndicated newspaper column in 2003, shortly after Wilson began criticizing the administration's march to war in Iraq.

Armitage and Rove were the sources for that article, which touched off a lengthy leak investigation. Nobody was charged with leaking but Libby was convicted of lying and obstruction the investigation. Bush commuted Libby's 2 1/2-year prison term before the former aide served any time.

"This just dragged on the character assassination that had gone on for years," said Alex Bourelly, one of Libby's lawyers. "To have the case dismissed is a big relief."

Plame and Wilson pledged to appeal.

"This case is not just about what top government officials did to Valerie and me." Wilson said in a statement. "We brought this suit because we strongly believe that politicizing intelligence ultimately serves only to undermine the security of our nation."

Though Bates said the case raised "important questions relating to the propriety of actions undertaken by our highest government officials," he said there was no legal basis for the suit.

Lawyers have said courts traditionally are reluctant to wade into these types of cases, particularly when Congress has established other resolutions.

In this case, Bates said, Congress passed the Privacy Act to cover many of Plame's claims. Courts have held that the Privacy Act cannot be used to hold government officials personally liable for damages in court.

Bates also sided with administration officials who said they were acting within their job duties. Plame had argued that what they did was illegal and outside the scope of their government jobs.

"The alleged means by which defendants chose to rebut Mr. Wilson's comments and attack his credibility may have been highly unsavory," Bates wrote.

"But there can be no serious dispute that the act of rebutting public criticism, such as that levied by Mr. Wilson against the Bush administration's handling of prewar foreign intelligence, by speaking with members of the press is within the scope of defendants' duties as high-level Executive Branch officials," Bates said.

Rove's lawyer, Robert Luskin, said Rove was pleased to have the case behind him.

"The risk of being liable for personal damages is not something anybody takes lightly," Luskin said.

Bates, a former Whitewater prosecutor, was appointed to the bench in 2001 by Bush.
_____________________________________________________________________

Does anyone smell something that has an odor of another one of Bush's sewer rats? give me A break....Harold

There was A post that was done by Blaast tonight that everyone should read, and heed!

It is titled....Please Read, Please Read ....go to....http://ilikemustard.blogstream.com/