[before] the next 9/11

For starters, let's acknowledge the fact that currently there are laws that were signed by Bush that will give him dictatorial powers in the event of the next terrorist attack or essentially any emergency in which he decides to claim this power. That is undebatable. It is a fact. Here is an analysis, as well as here (excerpt below) and you can read here for the official script.

The directive loosely defines "catastrophic emergency" as "any incident, regardless of location, that results in extraordinary levels of mass casualties, damage, or disruption severely affecting the U.S. population, infrastructure, environment, economy, or government functions."

the president determines a catastrophic emergency has occurred, the president can take over all government functions and direct all private sector activities to ensure we will emerge from the emergency with an "enduring constitutional government."

Translated into layman's terms, when the president determines a national emergency has occurred, the president can declare to the office of the presidency powers usually assumed by dictators to direct any and all government and business activities until the emergency is declared over.

Pacific views has a very troubling article to say the least... here is a snippet.

Here in Oregon, some people were sufficiently worried about the executive order that they asked US representative Peter DeFazio to look into whether anything sinister was lurking in order's classified portions, which describe in detail how the executive branch would run the government after a major disaster. DeFazio asked the White House to have those classified portions delivered for viewing in a special secured room at the Capitol building — a request that he's definitely entitled to make as a member of the House's Homeland Security Committee. After initially giving the nod to DeFazio's request, something — no one knows what — changed at the White House, and permission to see the classified documents was withdrawn.

A good case could be made that the White House's refusal of DeFazio's request is just another example of the Dubya/Cheney regime's penchant for secrecy. Or maybe it's just another case of the prez giving Congress the finger. But maybe the reason that the White House doesn't want these documents to be seen by anyone outside the prez's immediate circle is that there is something sinister hidden in Dubya's executive order.

For an excellent concise version of this post read Deborah's post here, who writes, read this

We must impeach the President and Vice President of the United States, and we must begin proceedings to do so immediately, not just for the purpose of exacting a punitive remedy, but also toward enacting a vitally important preventive measure--one that may be the only available means by which to protect the country from the impending imposition of martial law at home as well as the declaration of war against Iran and possibly other countries in the Middle East.

Now stay with me here...

Former Reagan official Paul Craig Roberts makes a pretty compelling case on why he thinks Impeachment is urgently needed before the next 9/11. It goes as follows:
From Raw Story article

Republicans are on the verge of being decimated in 2008 for the 'stay the course' policy and for backing Bush.

Democrats don't want to rock the boat because they know this and are just waiting until the next elections when they will clean up.

As Roberts says, "the problem with this reasoning is that it assumes that Cheney and Rove and the Republicans are ignorant of these facts, or it assumes that they are content for the Republican Party to be destroyed after Bush has his fling.'

He believes that 'something is in the works' that will rally the country around the flag again and reinforce the whole "war on terror" nationalistic fervor, once again pushing people to the Republicans.

Not convinced that Our Country is capable of such a heinous act? Think again, all great nations have a history of 'false-flag' events to satisfy an agenda. As ABC reported in 2001,

In the early 1960s, America's top military leaders reportedly drafted plans to kill innocent people and commit acts of terrorism in U.S. cities to create public support for a war against Cuba.

Code named Operation Northwoods, the plans reportedly included the possible assassination of Cuban émigrés, sinking boats of Cuban refugees on the high seas, hijacking planes, blowing up a U.S. ship, and even orchestrating violent terrorism in U.S. cities.

The plans were developed as ways to trick the American public and the international community into supporting a war to oust Cuba's then new leader, communist Fidel Castro.

America's top military brass even contemplated causing U.S. military casualties, writing: "We could blow up a U.S. ship in Guantanamo Bay and blame Cuba," and, "casualty lists in U.S. newspapers would cause a helpful wave of national indignation."

Just look at what Chertoff said about 'gut feelings,'

And Dennis Milligan, chairman of the Arkansas Republican Party sounding thrilled about the next 9/11

“At the end of the day, I believe fully the president is doing the right thing, and I think all we need is some attacks on American soil like we had on [Sept. 11, 2001], and the naysayers will come around very quickly to appreciate not only the commitment for President Bush, but the sacrifice that has been made by men and women to protect this country,” Milligan said.

And especially Santorum in a radio interview,

RS: "between now and November, a lot of things are going to happen, and I believe that by this time next year, the American public’s going to have a very different view of this war, and it will be because, I think, of some unfortunate events,"

HH: I hope you’re right.

I mean what the fuck is that? Who the hell says that kind of thing, "between now and November."

It all makes sense when you listen to his interview, which I pasted below. You really owe it to yourself to listen to it if you click nothing else on this page!

Paul Craig Roberts interview on Air America

Then there's the Halliburton/KBR Detention centers described here by the NYT, and here by truthout.

More here on the logic of impeachment by the same lawyer who wrote the articles against Clinton.

Heres the latest at Huff Post.

This is my prior post on Martial Law and what could be coming,

These people are going to detonate a nuclear device inside the United States ... and we're going to have no one to blame but ourselves." -- Michael Scheuer, former head of the C.I.A.'s bin Laden unit, to MSNBC's Keith Olbermann, February 19, 2007

Once you have digested that little bundle of joy, try to tackle this, seemingly pulled out of 1984 , describing a prelude for a police state.

Bush is now free to declare martial law in response to a natural disaster, a pandemic or a terrorist attack. The congress is powerless to stop him.

Also, Bush recently signed the Military Commissions Act of 2006, which allows the president to arbitrarily declare citizens and non citizens “enemy combatants” and imprison them indefinitely without charge. The new law gives Bush the authority to disregard the Geneva Conventions and the 8th amendment’s ban on “cruel and unusual” punishment and apply “harsh interrogation” which may include torture. The act effectively repeals habeas corpus, the cornerstone of American jurisprudence and the Bill of Rights.

The Military Commissions Act cannot coexist with the US Constitution; the two are mutually exclusive.

Don't think it could happend here? Maybe, maybe not, but this fellow seems to think it could.

Gen. Tommy Franks says that if the United States is hit with a weapon of mass destruction that inflicts large casualties, the Constitution will likely be discarded in favor of a military form of government.

The NYT documents how he has already implented the legal justification for such changes, as I noted in my previous post.

A disturbing recent phenomenon in Washington is that laws that strike to the heart of American democracy have been passed in the dead of night. So it was with a provision quietly tucked into the enormous defense budget bill at the Bush administration’s behest that makes it easier for a president to override local control of law enforcement and declare martial law

Paul Slansky shows why the alarm bells are ringing like the summer of 2001 and asks where the hell everyone's outrage is.

Remember how you watched Richard Clarke testifying before Congress in 2004 and wished his warnings had been taken seriously in 2001? Well, it's déjà vu all over again. The people who know what's going on - the experts who have no hidden agendas beyond sounding alarms and getting the truth out - are frightened. And if they're frightened, so should we be.

We have been warned. Al Qaeda is still "determined to strike in U.S." Michael Scheuer is the new Richard Clarke, and he says they're going to set off a nuke here. And if we know it, Bush and Cheney know it, every congressman and senator knows it, and everyone in the media knows it. And yet it's not a big story. Hello? Government people? Media people? I live in L.A. and I'm terrified. You live in New York and Washington, the two likeliest targets. Why aren't you shrieking in the streets?

It's time for citizen action the likes of which this country has never seen. Don't just contact your congressman, contact every congressman, and every senator. Barrage the radio talk show hosts and the reporters and pundits who are failing to bring this subject to the center of the national debate. Demand that hearings be held at which Michael Scheuer and others like him are given a public forum to tell us what they know, what they fear, and what our "leaders" should be and aren't doing to protect us.

Furthermore, former CIA analyst Bruce Reidel warns,

The biggest danger is that al Qaeda will deliberately provoke a war with a "false-flag" operation, say, a terrorist attack carried out in a way that would make it appear as though it were Iran's doing. The United States should be extremely wary of such deception.

And it should not consider a military operation against Iran, as doing so would only strengthen al Qaeda's hand -- much as the U.S. invasion and occupation of Iraq have.

Call Nancy Pelosi and tell her to IMPEACH NOW at (202) 225-0100.