If two or more persons conspire either to commit any offense against the United States, or to defraud the United States, or any agency thereof in any manner or for any purpose, and one or more of such persons do any act to effect the object of the conspiracy, each shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than five years, or both. (18USC371) U.S. Code as of: 01/19/04
If those who continued the warrantless surveillance program did so knowing that the highest and final level of legal authority in the executive branch refused to “attest to it’s legality,” this was “an offense against the United States…” and an “…agency thereof” (DOJ). The several responsible were fully oriented and aware of their decisions.
Earlier this year, Cong. Maurice Hinchey (D-NY) and Cong. Henry Waxman (D-CA) pressed the Department of Justice to explain the approval, process for this warrantless surveillance program. Their letter mentions that DOJ staffers investigating this concern were denied security clearances effectively ending the investigation for a period in January 2006. Cong. Hinchey notes that Attorney General Gonzales said that president Bush had personally denied the clearances.
What does the White House have to hide regarding the approval process?
Why did Gonzales and Card see to “take advantage of a very sick man” in order to get the approval denied by Comey, the acting U.S. Attorney General?
Why was the law implemented without DOJ clearance?
Does the attempt to have an ailing and reportedly disoriented Ashcroft sign the agreement represent a Conspiracy to commit offense or to defraud United States (Title 371)?
Does the implementation of a surveillance law represent a Conspiracy to commit offense or to defraud United States (Title 371)?
Why did the President personally deny clearances to DOJ staff investigating the DOJ approval of the warrantless surveillance program?
How many citizens had their rights violated by these programs?
How much longer will we be subject to an administration with the very loosest appreciation for the rule of law and the traditions established over centuries to protect the rights of individuals and the collective body of citizens?
It’s time for a much more aggressive stance on this issue and the larger allegations of illegal and unethical behavior. The gravity of these charges, the history of broken promises and deceptions, and the daily deterioration of our constitutional rights all argue that the appropriate forum is impeachment hearings.
Once Congress acts on impeachment, it may be sufficiently emboldened to restore habeas corpus, a most precious right that the 109th Congress and this administration remove just seven months ago.
END
Please feel free to reprint and report this article in part or its entirety provided that there is a link to the original article in “Scoop” and attribution of authorship.
(Note: You can view every article as one long page if you sign up as an Advocate Member, or higher).
