Here is the text of the letter sent by Vermont legislators to our Congressional delegation supporting impeachment:

Dear Members of the Vermont Delegation:

As you know, many of our fellow Vermonters are speaking out over their
deep concerns regarding many actions of President Bush-actions which
they believe violate our laws, our constitution, and our international
treaty obligations.  These concerns of average Vermonters are being
voiced through resolutions adopted at town meetings, resolutions voted
at county and state committee meetings, in public petitions, and in an
ever-increasing number of letters seen in our newspapers. 

Based upon the public information already available to them, many
Vermonters whom we serve have indicated that they would respond
affirmatively to each of the following questions:

Has George Bush violated the law and Constitution by ordering American
citizens to be held indefinitely without access to counsel and without
being charged, or afforded any opportunity to challenge such detention
before a civil judge, based solely on his discretionary and unilateral
designation of them as “enemy combatants”?

Has George Bush violated the law and Constitution by ordering and
continuing to order the interception and recording of telephone calls by
the National Security Agency without obtaining statutorily required
court orders?

Has George Bush violated international treaties and the United Nations
Charter by invading Iraq and by obtaining authorization from the United
States Congress for that invasion based upon intentionally false
information and the intentional withholding of accurate information and
by then intentionally concealing those actions?

Has George Bush violated the law and Constitution by ordering the
continued detention of persons being held, even after their release has
been ordered by a court?

These questions raise, both individually and in their totality, issues
of the gravest national importance.  Fundamental standards of due
process require that such allegations not simply be accepted as true;
however, they also cannot and should not be ignored.

Indeed, we believe that openly obtaining objective answers to these
questions is increasingly critical to sustaining public faith in our
constitutional system of government and in its requirement for
accountability by every President.  Obviously, if any or all of these
alleged acts is substantiated through a fair investigation and hearings,
it then could either require censure or setting in motion the
constitutional process for possible removal from office.

We realize the serious practical difficulties of initiating even an
initial investigation of these issues at present, much less in actually
moving forward should they be substantiated.  However, speaking as
individual Members of the Vermont House of Representatives and the State
Senate, we ask that you take all possible steps which you believe can
lead to the initiation of such an investigation and then promptly
conduct all further proceedings which are warranted by its results.

We believe that Vermonters, our nation and our constitutional
principles deserve no less.
###

Thanks to Rep. Dick Marek, who wrote the letter and sent me the copy.

It’s pretty obvious that one minority group that is an “acceptable” target for hate is sex offenders. The latest from Bill O’Reilly is certainly an example of this phenomenon.

Another, of course, is the murders of two sex offenders in Maine.

We now learn that the suspected killer, while searching for victims, searched the Vermont registry.

Given the fact that everyone is entitled to protection from criminal assault, and that one of the things we know for sure is that isolation makes offenders more likely to reoffend, shouldn’t we be reconsidering whether painting targets on released sex offenders is good public policy?

Ed Shamy has a great column in this morning’s Free Press, although in my humble opinion he doesn’t go far enough.

It’s all about the story that two Vermont border guards are charged with making false reports when they caught a marijuana smuggler and decided to “turn” him, let him go, and prepared false documents to substantiate their story. They’re now facing federal charges, and the theory of the feds seems to be that it’s okay when the feds decide to make up the same kind of lie, but not okay when the lowly border guards do it on their own.

Today’s column amply examines the pattern of lies, falsification of documents, and phony press reports that, in the view of the prosecution, were legitimate police tactics in an earlier case, but which the prosecution is condemning in the case at bar. Shamy makes great points, especially when we get to lies that made their way into the local papers. Whenever the government breaks the law or lies to the public we can assume they think it’s for a good reason, but the Bush administration has shown us where the pattern of lies and deceiption leads.

What’s missing in the press so far, though, is a real examination of the root causes of this situation. It’s time for us all to recognize that it is the failed policy of drug prohibition that has given rise to widespread police corruption, millions of people, mostly minorities, in prison, and the devastation of communities across the country.

( – promoted by Jack McCullough)

We may not get a vote in the Legislature on impeachment, but they are no longer silent. According to this story seventy Vermont legislators have signed a letter demanding the impeachment of George W. Bush. So far the letter has been signed by 57 House members and 13 Senators.

Guess what: no Republicans!

If you’ve ever worked on a campaign you know the stress of running on a budget, and wondering from week to week whether you’ll have the money to do your next piece of literature, or order your yard signs, or place that important ad the week before Election Day.
The big guys are no different, it’s just a matter of scale. Fortunately, though, their resources are also different. For instance, when Richie Tarrant needed a slug of cash he had to go, hat in hand, to his biggest backer. One can only imagine the sweaty palms, the pounding heart, the stammer, the dry mouth as he threw himself on the one man he has turned to time and time again when things lookd tough. Would he come through again, or would this be the limit? Only one man would know the answer, and that man was . . .

Richard Tarrant.

( – promoted by Jack McCullough)

I wouldn’t ordinarily post about a book before I’m done reading it, but this is so timely I just have to.

The book is Articles of Impeachment Against George W. Bush and it’s put out by the Center for Constitutional Rights. The book is a closely reasoned exposition of the compelling grounds for impeachment, including illegal electronic surveillance in violation of FISA and the Constitution; his illegal war in Iraq; arbitrary detentions of citizens and non-citizens; and arrogating excessive power to the executive branch in contravention of the doctrine of separation of powers.

The Democratic State Committee is meeting this Saturday to discuss whether to call on the Legislature to support an impeachment resolution. Maybe it would be a good idea for some of the delegates to familiarize themselves with this book to be prepared to make the sound legal arguments that compel impeachment.

I know that the central issue here is not legal but political. Nevertheless, when the legal and moral issues are as compelling as they are, I think they must take precedence over political considerations.

I also don’t think this idea is bad politics. The current slogan for the Democratic Party nationally is Together, America Can Do Better. Taking a stand on the impeachment resolution proves that the Democrats offer an alternative.

SOPRANOS SPOILER ALERT:

Do you watch the Sopranos? This season the first three episodes revolved around Tony’s medical problem, with him spending time in a coma after being shot by his Uncle Junior. Two weeks ago one of the subplots had Paulie and Vito robbing some drug dealers of a million dollars, then deciding how much of Tony’s share they should kick up to Carmela, what with Tony being in the coma, maybe he won’t be around to reward them for their loyalty in giving him his share. Then, all of a sudden he comes out of the coma and they have to scramble to give Carmela the money before he realizes that they haven’t paid up. Of course, she’s smart enough to know this smells and that they’ve been holding out on him. Obviously they waited too long, and I suspect it will cost them in future episodes.

What does this have to do with Vermont?

Last week Philip Baruth was talking about the trouble Martha Rainville was having deciding whether to give Tom Delay his $2000 back. The story was that she was going to decide by the middle of this month, when her next campaign finance report is due.
Too bad for her she waited so long. Now, with Delay’s announcement that he is not only not going to run for reelection, but that he’s quitting his job so he can be more effective working outside of the House (the big house, I think he means), what can she do? She either keeps the money she got from an obvious crook, or gives it back so he can use it on his defense. And either way, even if she does get elected he’s not going to be around to reward her loyalty.
Maybe a decision based on principle would have worked better for her.

( – promoted by Jack McCullough)

Crossposted from Rational Resistance because we’ve had a big issue with Part D here in Vermont.

Remember when people were hassling the Bush administration about how complicated Part D is, and how especially difficult it is for old people, who are the primary beneficiaries of Medicare, to understand?
Not so, said the administration mouthpieces. Especially Mike Leavitt, Secretary of Health and Human Services. He was able to help his aged parents figure it out and sign up for the plan that was right for them, and pretty much anyone else can do the same.

Well, here’s what the Salt Lake Tribune is reporting:

Not even the senior parents of Washington’s top health official are immune from headaches caused by the new Medicare drug plan.
Dixie and Anne Leavitt – parents of Health and Human Services Secretary Mike Leavitt – recently were forced to change Medicare plans after learning that the one they chose imperiled their retiree medical coverage.
The elder Leavitts joined the program last fall with some fanfare and help from their son. Anne Leavitt, 73, was quoted in The Salt Lake Tribune touting the online enrollment as “smooth,” and a guaranteed money-saver.
Neither she nor Dixie, 76 – who made his fortune in the insurance business – could be reached for comment on Thursday. But they reportedly suffered no real lapse in coverage. Secretary Leavitt’s office confirmed that the couple signed up for another Medicare plan through their insurer, Utah’s Public Employee Health Plan.

So let’s see: you “made your fortune” in the insurance business, your son runs the program, and you still can’t figure it out.

I hate to argue with the President, but maybe there is a problem there after all.

At its monthly meeting last night the Washington County Democratic Committee voted to support the Rutland resolution calling for the impeachment of President Bush. Sentiment at the meeting was unanimous that Bush has committed impeachable offenses, with discussion focussing on whether the impeachment effort, which has no chance of succeeding in the Republican-dominated Congress, would either divert the Party from more important work or give the Republicans ammunition to attack Democrats with in November’s elections. After a respectful discussion the pro-impeachment side prevailed.

By my count there are now ten county committees supporting the resolution, with most of the remaining county committees scheduled to discuss it before the special State Committee meeting set for April 8. It is still unclear whether the Legislature will have time to act on the resolution (or, for that matter, whether any legislator will introduce it) before adjournment.

It was probably a week or more ago that I wrote Senator Leahy urging him to sign on as a sponsor of Russ Feingold’s http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/D?c109:1:./temp/~c109452ftJ::? censure resolution. I’ve really gotten impatient that we’ve heard nothing from him.

Then, today I got an email from Senator Leahy  setting forth his statement. Here’s the text:

Thank you for contacting me about Senator Russell Feingold’s censure resolution.  I appreciate hearing from you.

On Monday, March 13, 2006, Senator Feingold of Wisconsin introduced S. Res. 398 to censure George W. Bush. The resolution would condemn the unlawful authorization of wiretaps of Americans without obtaining court orders as required by the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978.  Senator Feingold says he intended his resolution to prompt congressional investigations into the President’s actions on these issues, but Republican leaders have been reluctant to allow an investigation to proceed.

I agree that Senator Feingold’s resolution raises legitimate issues about the President’s claims on the legality of his domestic spying program.  I have urged Senator Arlen Specter, Chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, to hold hearings on the resolution and continue to investigate the facts surrounding the President’s domestic spying program. So far, the Bush Administration has failed to provide satisfactory legal reasoning for the authorization of this program.

I introduced S. Res. 350 on January 20, 2006 to express the sense of the Senate that the Authorization for the Use of Military Force, which passed before the invasion of Afghanistan , did not authorize warrantless eavesdropping on American citizens, as the President asserts.  Both S. Res. 350 and S. Res. 398 have been referred to the Judiciary Committee, and I will push for full congressional investigations and oversight of the issues that both resolutions address.  My resolution and statement are available on my website at http://www.leahy.senate.gov/press/200601/012006.html

Conducting oversight of the Department of Justice is one of the responsibilities of the Senate Judiciary Committee.  Whether serving as Chairman or Ranking Member of the committee, I have taken this responsibility very seriously.  Congressional oversight plays a vital role in our constitutional system of checks and balances and the seriousness of the matters that our nation is presently facing has made oversight more critical than ever. 

I think it’s great that he’s pursuing this, and that he’s introduced the “sense of the Senate” resolution he mentions on illegal spying.

But still. Really, how much investigation is needed to figure out that Bush has violated the law multiple times? We already know everything we need to know. Or at least, we already know everything we need to know to say that he has to sponsor the resolution, not just call for hearings and a full investigation.

Caution is not always a virtue.