Randy Shannon – 8/22/06

This page was last updated on August 22, 2006.

Many reason [sic] to impeach Bush; Randy Shannon; Beaver County Times; August 22, 2006.

Earlier this year Mr. Shannon penned a letter to the editor entitled “The Times is a tool of the GOP,” and he was serious.

For background info about Mr. Shannon, see my notes on his speech of October 16, 2004, in front of the Beaver County Courthouse.

Below is a detailed critique of the subject letter.

“Bush should be impeached for flagrantly violating the following U.S. laws and statutes:

“Committing a fraud against the United States (18 USC 371); making false statements against the United States (18 USC 1001); war powers resolution (Public Law 92-148); misuse of government funds (31 USC 1301); anti-torture statute (18 USC 2340); detainment of material witnesses (18 USC 3144); obstructing Congress (18 USC 1505); whistleblower protection (5 USC 2302); retaliating against witnesses (18 USC 1513); revealing classified information (Executive Order 12958); prohibitions on leaking information (18 USC 641); Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (50 USC1801); National Security Act of 1947 (50 USC Chapter 15); Communications Act of 1934 (47 USC 222); Stored Communications Act of 1986 (18 USC 2702).

“Additionally he has violated international laws ratified by the United States: The Geneva Convention, The Hague Convention, and the U.N. Convention against Torture and Cruel, Inhuman, and Degrading Treatment.”

[RWC] It appears Mr. Shannon cut-and-pasted this from a source that took it from a piece of Democrat collateral commissioned by Rep. John Conyers (D-MI). As a result of copying a copy, the above has some errors. For example, “making false statements against the United States” should read “making false statements to Congress.” The list also omitted some of Conyers’ charges.

“He is also impeachable for command responsibility for ordering illegal acts committed by subordinates in the military.”

[RWC] If you’re familiar with Mr. Shannon’s letters and rantings in front of the Beaver County Courthouse, you know he considers it an impeachable offense if you are not a full-blown Marxist.

You also noticed Mr. Shannon didn’t tell us the exact actions that allegedly support the above charges. Folks like Mr. Shannon tend to be fond of the drive-by accusation.

“In a ruling on Thursday against Bush, federal Judge Anna Diggs Taylor wrote: ‘We must first note that the Office of the Chief Executive has itself been created, with its powers, by the Constitution. There are no hereditary Kings in America and no power not created by the Constitution. So all ‘inherent power’ must derive from that Constitution. The (Bush) Government appears to argue here that because the President is designated Commander in Chief, he has been granted the inherent power to violate not only the laws of Congress but the First and Fourth Amendments of the Constitution itself.’”

[RWC] Mr. Shannon really seems to have a problem with accurate quotes. Here is the correct quote directly from the ruling.

“The Government appears to argue here that, pursuant to the penumbra of Constitutional language in Article II, and particularly because the President is designated Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy, he has been granted the inherent power to violate not only the laws of the Congress but the First and Fourth Amendments of the Constitution, itself.

“We must first note that the Office of the Chief Executive has itself been created, with its powers, by the Constitution. There are no hereditary Kings in America and no powers not created by the Constitution. So all “inherent powers” must derive from that Constitution.”

If you think the above sounds more like political rhetoric than a reasoned opinion, you are not alone. Even the liberal Washington Post agrees despite the fact it “harbor[s] grave doubt both that Congress authorized warrantless surveillance as part of the war and that Mr. Bush has the constitutional power to act.” Despite that, here are some excerpts from a Post editorial concerning the ruling.

“Unfortunately, the decision yesterday by a federal district court in Detroit, striking down the NSA’s program, is neither careful nor scholarly, and it is hard-hitting only in the sense that a bludgeon is hard-hitting. The angry rhetoric of U.S. District Judge Anna Diggs Taylor will no doubt grab headlines. But as a piece of judicial work -- that is, as a guide to what the law requires and how it either restrains or permits the NSA’s program -- her opinion will not be helpful.

“The judge may well be correct in her bottom line that the program exceeds presidential authority, even during wartime. … But her opinion, which as the first court venture into this territory will garner much attention, is unhelpful either in evaluating or in ensuring the program’s legality. Fortunately, as this case moves forward on appeal and as other cases progress in other courts, it won’t be the last word.”

Mr. Shannon failed to tell us who the plaintiffs are in this case. Here’s why. They are the ACLU, the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), Greenpeace, the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers, an academic, and a journalist. You know, the usual suspects.

Mr. Shannon also failed to tell us about Judge Taylor. Then-President Jimmy Carter appointed Judge Taylor in 1979. Several years ago, Judge Taylor tried to take an “affirmative action” case away from the judge to which it was assigned by a blind draw because she suspected there was a chance the assigned judge would rule against the “affirmative action.” Judge Taylor stopped the effort when the trial judge went public about her actions.

“The real threat to America is dictatorship. The Republican majority in Congress is part of the criminal enterprise and refuses to exercise its responsibilities as a check on the executive power.”

[RWC] Don’t you love it? Islamofascists aren’t a “real threat,” President Bush and the “Republican majority in Congress” are.

We should remember the following. Despite all the partisan carping about the various terrorist surveillance programs, no Democrats in Congress have proposed that we stop them. That means Democrats simply want to bash President Bush for doing what they know is right.

“Keep America safe. Vote out Melissa Hart in November.”

[RWC] Since Mr. Shannon didn’t tell us to vote him out, should we assume he supports Sen. Santorum for reelection? <g>

Since he wrote, “Keep America safe,” apparently Mr. Shannon believes we are already safe. Mr. Shannon needs to improve his proofreading.

Since Mr. Shannon wants us to believe he’s concerned about keeping American safe, why didn’t he explain how Judge Taylor’s ruling accomplishes that goal?