I can see it now -
bush rides in to town with his motorcade. An arrest warrent is served. bush resists arrest. Brattleboro law enforcement draw tasers to attempt to get the situation under control. The situation quickly develops into a gun battle as Secret Service agents exchange shots with the law enforcement officers. The media reports it as an 'assassination attempt'. A few months later the word starts to get out. Witnesses either 'disappear' or are painted as a bunch of crazies by the media. Either way, some innocent people will be hurt and bush will make a clean getaway.

Among Vermonters one can also find a growing number of secessionists.

Proud traditions in Vermont.

Is it something in the water? Could they bottle it?

Why is this stuff only happening in Vermont?

Someones got to start! I'll see if we can't do something in my town.

militantliberal, that's a very good question. What is it about Vermont that makes it such a progressive state, and how can we transfer that progressiveness to other states?

Go Vermont Go!

No wonder your state has a license plate that says "LIVE FREE OR DIE"

MILITANTLIBERAL

if you search the c.d. archives, you'll find these 'battleboroese' have been discussing this for some time. and i believe one of their residents has just marched to washington (see c.d. article: mr. smith goes to washington) yes, these 'battleboreoese' are a force to be reckoned with. however, they have blown their cover by announcing the fact that they might arrest certain persons should those persons darken their doorstep. the sentiment is sound, but now of course, bush and cheney will obviously give brattleboro a very wide berth...............

If they do in fact issue a warrant in VT. could the state
demand extradition? I sure hope so

FINALLY! I found ONE town in Amerika worth moving to!

I believe "LIVE FREE OR DIE" is on NH plates, not on Vermont's.
Why is that only happening in Vermont? Good question. Not sure, but one factor could
be taken into account. Many New Yorkers moved there in the past 25 years, most of them progressive and educated. I'm not saying that the locals are not great, though.

Phil

I believe it says "The Granite State"

In my F'ed Up neighborhood, at first I was the 'crazy dog lady', then I chased a 6'3', 210 lb. 'neighbor down the street because he asked if i could drive slower down the street, after all he said I have 5 young children. after I lost my mind and told him it wasn't my fault they did not know how to use proper Birth Control, and I drive the residential speed which is 25 mph in PA, I threatened him if he EVER came near my property again, and if he ever ran over one of my 7 dogs, I have an acre, what I would do to him, I am now just the 'crazy lady', ergo I am going to start a petition, I hope they open the door, they are a bit fearful of me now.
I need to move back in town, I miss Philly, but friggin' bush screwed up the housing market badly and I will never get what I should for my house, I hate here, need the city like now.

If the congressmen betray the constitution and don't do it, then it up to us "we the people" to do it. It is our duty.

It is "live free or die". We Vermonters are in "The Green Mountain State". Not so dramatic but if we can just get the progressive party and the Democrats to agree on ONE candidate for Governor we'd have a good shot at replacing our Bush wannabee governor, Jim Douglas. Either that or get around to Instant Runoff Voting.

Forget Canada, I'm moving to Vermont! Too many Republicans in Florida.

After this pair of homocidal looting liars is it any wonder that Brahma is closing His eyes on America?

Move Over Berkeley, CA.

Not Constitutional for the residents of a town to use the "accoutrements of state" to personal ends, but it is Constitutional for a President to use those "accoutrements of state" available to him to wage war for the purpose of transferring Iraqian oil into the hands of his cronies. The Bush family has been doing this for generations and generations. Same song, different verse.

'Granite State' and 'Live Free or Die' are the nickname and license plate motto for New Hampshire - which is stil a wannabe. Vermont is the Green Mountain State, doing rather than saying...

My question is how do WE THE PEOPLE proceed with our impeachment proceedings, since the congress is inept and spineless. All we're doing is spinning our wheels and repeating the same thing. We need an independent citizen's committee to impeach these two. How do we get it started?

It is symbolic, but if more towns across the US were to do that then Bush would have to watch where he steps.

If we could keep Bush from leaving his ranch in Texas ...

Our state motto is "Freedom and Unity" reflecting Vermonters' understanding that we all benefit when we stick together and support each other in exercising our rights.

We live in what's known as the State of Jefferson, in north California and south Oregon
As far as I'm concerned, the Bush regime are outlaws on a scale of influence that can only be considered extinctionistic.

No honor without impeachment
No justice without prosecution.

Let's serve a Writ of Mandamus on Congressional leaders to impeach and arrest the criminal element in the government, which is nearly all of it.

peterrb2: Yes, we absolutely do need to set up a peoples' impeachment tribunal. I'm not sure it would be legal to do so within the borders of the country--the fascists would probably try to send their goons to shut it down. But we could conduct it in another country--maybe Venezuela. Canada would be a good location, but the current administration there is cooperating with the fascists here unfortunately.

As an impeachment supporter from the town of Brattleboro, this resolution is not well thought out. I know Kurt Daims and he's not well informed on the issues.

You cannot indict somebody by referendum. You indict somebody by presenting the case to a Grand Jury. The Grand Jury hears testimony, including that a crime (defined by statute) was committed in the Grand Jury's territorial jurisdiction, and the Grand Jury votes an indictment. When an indictment is reported out by the Grand Jury, an arrest warrant is issued.

Then there are two more problems. First, there's no crime as defined by statute. "Crimes against our constitution" is not a crime. The Declaration of Independence is not a statute. Second, it's a stretch to figure out how the crime may have been committed within the territorial jurisdiction of Vermont.

This resolution/selectboard order is dangerous because the town will lose either way. As you say, if it fails, it will send a signal that the town and impeachment movement is not, in fact, unified.

On the other hand, it's so absurd that if it passes, it will detract from any serious discussion or effort to hold the Bush administration accountable for their criminal behavior. It will open the town and the state to ridicule.

Pass or fail, it fractures the movement. Impeachment advocates will look foolish. Brattleboro will look foolish. And in most people's eyes, all of Vermont will look foolish right along with Brattleboro. I cannot think of a more ill-advised, and damaging stunt. If Kurt's goal was to end the discussion, I think he wins. It will indeed be the "final" chance to weigh in on Bush/Cheney.

My advice is while this is a feel good resolution to some, especially to those who hate Bush & Cheney.... take a step back, breathe, and look at details before jumping on board.

It's the frikkiin maple syrup puts some balls on ya and puts a little lead in your pencil! Yup!

What a fabulous gesture this little Vt. community is making. Legalities aside, if the resolution passes it will inspire others in a host of different ways. Wouldn't it be too delicious if there were thousand of towns and villages with similar statements of intent. It would be enough to give our fuck-faced vice president the heart attack he so richly deserves.

It seems that "ctrenta" is grinding some kind of personal axe here, and i wonder what sort of "impeachment supporter from the town of Brattleboro" he actually is, or if he "knows" Daims.
Daims can't be so ignorant of the issues if he was able to work to draft this resolution, get 500 of his fellow townspeople to sign on, and have the Select Board approve it.
The resolution is symbolic as much as anything else, and is probably meant to open up people's minds to the idea that there might be more ways than one to get at this beast. And it seems especially meant to get more towns on board.
The enthusiastic support elicited here shows that it is working.
I hope other towns and cities will get similar initiatives going. I'm going to try it going in my town.
And let's not let ctrenta throw water on that momentum, trying to slow it down.

Go, Vermont!!! You rock!

I think ctrenta may be a staff worker in Pelosi's office, maybe her adviser.

At this point I would be willing to bet that we could get the people of Crawford Texas to indict Bush and issue an arrest warrant.

Thank you, Rouser, that is exactly what I meant, to get people to open their minds.

I like to note that the symbolic value accrues practical value: even if there were no chance of enforcement, the Indictment stokes the Impeachment fire and hurts Bush. And if it catches on because of its symbolic appeal, fine! Publication is intended and explicit in the measure, although this less sensational part is overlooked by many people. The actual article reads:

########
Shall the Selectboard instruct the Town Attorney to draft indictments against
President Bush and Vice President Cheney for crimes against our Constitution,
and publish said indictments for consideration by other authorities, and shall it be
the law of the Town of Brattleboro that the Brattleboro Police, pursuant to the
above-mentioned indictments, arrest and detain George Bush and Richard
Cheney in Brattleboro if they are not duly impeached, and prosecute or extradite
them to other authorities that may reasonably contend to prosecute them?
########

Eventually a large powerful jurisdiction can indict and demand extradition. Friendly objections of technicality are short-sighted. The law grants leeway during absolute necessity, for example, a good Samaritan would not be charged for stealing emergency first aid supplies. We hope to publish a brief at the right moment. One lawyer holds that the Indictment is more vialble by political justification more than legal justification. Thomas Jefferson might have written:
************
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all people are created equal, that they are endowed by their creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, — that to secure these rights, governments are instituted among people, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — that whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right of the people to amend it. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shown that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by changing the governments to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations evinces a design to reduce us under absolute despotism, and in Congress our repeated petitions are answered only by high-minded resignation, it is our right, it is our duty, to rescue such government, and to provide new methods for the prosecution of such despotism.
We, therefore, the residents of Brattleboro, Vermont, in the United States of America, appealing to the people of the world for the decency of our intentions, do, in the name, and by authority of the good people of these states, solemnly publish and declare, that we share, and of right ought to share a Universal Jurisdiction, that this jurisdiction obtains when governments breach their highest duties, that under this jurisdiction we can arrest and prosecute George Bush and Richard Cheney, that we are absolved from all liability to the federal and state governments for the declaration and use of this jurisdiction, and that we have full power to issue indictments, conduct trials, incarcerate offenders, and to do all other acts which Independent jurisdictions may of right do. And for the support of this declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor.
***********

Obviously, I don't need to convince you and the other contributors of the symbolic value of this measure. Please consider its practical potential, also, because its actual implementation in any city or town depends less on technicalities and more on collective will. We know too well there are shadowy areas in the Law. A changeable situation, an unforeseeable event, may prove this unusual tool useful.

I also would dispute Vermont's reputation for being so far ahead. It seems that way because our town charters allow for easier citizen legislation. I think people in many other states are just as progressive, and they are all around you. You have the power.
(Kurt)

D n G, I think the "Lone Star Iconoclast", Bush's home town paper, would probably back the effort, as they endorsed Kerry in the 2004 election.

Way to go Vermont.

Kurt says:

> to get people to open their minds.

So people who intelligently disagree don't have open minds>

Kurt also says:

> even if there were no chance of enforcement, the Indictment stokes the Impeachment fire and hurts Bush. And if it catches on because of its symbolic appeal, fine!

That's a leap of faith argument to assume it will stoke the impeachment fire.

I know his intentions are sincere. In my mind I just don't think this is smart activism. You're implying because people aren't aware of this issue and the more we discuss it, the more people will support it. Well that's also assuming people aren't bright. I'm sure that people can read between the lines and know this sounds extreme and wingnutty.

I don't see why we can't get more towns in Vermont to pass more impeachment resolutions or better yet, pass resolutions calling for the Wexler hearings to commence. That makes more sense to me. But to ask town officials to act beyond the law is not intelligent and makes the impeachment movement look bad. No town attorney anywhere in America can do that no matter how much discussion you can generate! Besides, the public is smart and can pick up on extremism and to say that X signed the petition does not mean that "the people of Brattleboro spoke!" That's broad-based generalizations. That's not something activists should make when trying to convince the greater public.

Let's hear it from the choir..."Hallelujah!"

Let's hear it from the heathens..."Hell yeah!"

Any way you slice it that's a big..."Right on!"

So Jefferson says it's our right & duty to change an egregious system? Here's one way to do it:

Want to eliminate election fraud? Try this…

"A Better Election System" By Paul Magill Smith 3-8-2K6

"To begin with, in the United States there must be a powerful demolition of the old political order: We need elections where all votes are cast and counted. The campaign against voter repression is the essential civil rights struggle of our time, even though most progressives don't seem to realize it yet. Prevailing will require fundamental reform such as the introduction of nationwide vote-by-mail (the Oregon system). Without that, and also many relentless prosecutions, nothing else will be achieved".—JAMES K. GALBRAITH March 30, 2006 "Taming Global Capitalism Anew"—(April 17, 2006 issue of The Nation Magazine)
James K. Galbraith, chair of the board of Economists for Peace and Security, teaches at the University of Texas and is senior scholar with the Levy Economics Institute

The latest round of corruption in our government stems from the biggest executive crime of all. In collusion with the Supreme Court our glorious president/dictator/tyrant "stole" the election of 2000, with another criminal (Tom DeLay) "stole" a majority in the house through re-districting, and with corporate henchmen in Diebold & Company "stole" another presidency in 2004. Whether you agree with the presidential election results or not there were statistical anomolies, and thousands of citizen complaints that should have required greater scrutiny & inquiry.

Since the 2000 presidential election our national coffers have been looted to the tune of trillions of dollars, and with almost three more years to go in this theocratic oligarchy there is still much more damage to come. Our financial ruin, through an unsustainable balance of trade deficit, massive fiscal deficits, and a consolidation of wealth in the hands of a few individuals & corporations, bodes ill for generations of Americans to come—IF there are generations to come after the effects of global warming, a state of perpetual global war, and depleted uranium have their way with us.
A bleak picture-yes-but there is cause for hope. Going under the assumption most Americans have a streak of common sense, and an inbred respect for 'the rule of law', the first step toward retrieving our now stolen democracy is restoring honesty to our electoral process. Accountability, verifiability, and transparency are not luxuries; they are necessities if democracy in America (the world) is to be viable.

With these considerations in mind I propose an entirely new election system for this country. It uses, for the most part, existing equipment & technology already in place throughout the entire country, and would only require the development of some software. Election expenses would be reduced, election theft would become a thing of the past, and national referendums on key issues would become a possibility. The 'will of the people' would become king, instead of the preferences of King George/Dick/Karl/Donald/ etc.

So here is the idea. Currently in the US there are 368,000 ATM machines. They are easy to use (even from a car), provide a paper trail, accessible by use of a card with security features, and very accurately keep track of billions of transactions every month (a 1% accuracy error, which is acceptable for most elections, would land bankers out of their jobs & very likely jailed).

OK, so the first part deals with voting at ATM's, except when they are being used for elections they would become AVM's (Automatic Voting Machines).
The issue of verifiability would be very simple also. Since each registered voter would receive their own magnetic credit-card type, individually numbered card (requiring a personalized identification number-PIN-to make it work), each voter would have a specific number, and security that they were the only one who had the secret code to access the AVM.

Following an election their unique number, along with the way their vote was recorded would be published in the local paper & on the internet at a specific site. Since all the voter numbers could be placed in numerical order it would be easy to scan down the list to your number and verify your vote was cast for the person you wanted it to be.
If it was an election with candidates in a number of positions your vote would read as a multi-character number. An example would be 1324113 in which you voted for 7 different people for as many electable posts. The AVM would have given you a hard copy receipt to be used to verify against the posted list.

ATM's are already linked to central computers, so collection of the total votes from all the machines should present very little problem. Election officials would be necessary at these institutions to verify all the votes were retrieved, but the elimination of officials at each precinct polling place would eliminate much of the costs of holding elections as with our current system. As a further dis-incentive to election fraud, caused by computer tampering, if a certain percentage or number of voters provide their AVM receipt to election officials, and their vote code doesn't match that of the central computers, the election results are AUTOMATICALLY declared void, resulting in a new election.

Since I have only begun thinking & writing about this new system I am sure there are many details to be considered and worked out. The bottom line is the current election system is broken, with millions of Americans lacking confidence in the extant election process & results.

As the world's oldest democracy, holding our 'system' up as a model for budding or want-to-be democracies around the globe, it behooves us to make sure our own system is the best we can possibly make it, and the one others will wish to emulate. "Do as I say" is not good enough. If America is to 'talk the talk' we must 'walk the walk' also.
Paul Magill Smith
Richmond, VA

Ddesweezy, if you impeached the head honcho, and his pitbull, would you have to have immediate elections, or create some state of emergency, where both the powers formed a coalition. I know that given the Democrats performance of late (thinking of Nancy Pelosi and other spineless people), this may scare people, but you would have to start somewhere.
Almost forgot - well done Vermont!!

impeach Richard DeGray and Stephen Steidle

Great idea. More states may follow Vermont. Let's not left them off the hook. There should be consequences for their very very bad actions.

ctrenta:
Daims quoted me when he said it will help people to open their minds to new ways to get at this beast, and then you take that quote to say that we implied that "people who intelligently disagree don't have open minds". I never implied anything of the sort, and i doubt if Daims did either. Thank you for the fabrication, as well as the continued charge against Daims that he, besides being not well-informed, is now also "wingnutty'.

Try to be a bit more open to the possibility that there are more ways than one to approach this massive problem which we've had for the last 7 years, and that this one is as valid as the next. It will at least keep the dialogue ramped up to the next critical level - discussing criminal charges - which is important.
Your continued personal attacks, and fabrications, makes me again wonder what your personal agenda is here.

Rouser, Daims expects the same thing that you just said. I personally don't expect much meaningful discussion over something that no town attorney no matter what town he/she represents would ever act beyond the law to do something so absurd and risk their license to practice law. For something so ill-thought out, that would be really embarassing.

ctrenta, we think a lot alike. ;-)
Cheers!

"I don't see why we can't get more towns in Vermont to pass more impeachment resolutions or better yet, pass resolutions calling for the Wexler hearings to commence. That makes more sense to me. But to ask town officials to act beyond the law is not intelligent and makes the impeachment movement look bad. No town attorney anywhere in America can do that no matter how much discussion you can generate! Besides, the public is smart and can pick up on extremism and to say that X signed the petition does not mean that "the people of Brattleboro spoke!" That's broad-based generalizations. That's not something activists should make when trying to convince the greater public."

Strongly disagree here. A variety of approaches from a number of sources is what makes movements work, not a singular approach that can be overridden with a single vote or a stroke of a pen.

We can agree that the country is in grave danger form Bush. Progressive judges and attorneys would be glad to try a federal case in a state or municipal court for the sake of national security, although it may not be the regular venue. The actual implementation of the indictment in any city or town depends less on technicalities and more on collective will, and I find very few of us are worried about trampling on Bush's civil rights. Are you?

I just got a call from Susan Smallheer, who wrote the header story. She says the RNC called her to ask for equal time. They are scared of this.

Vermont is also know for Ethan Allen and the Green Mountain Boys. Often maligned and joked about, Vermonters have stood for independence, freedom and democracy since well before our nation was founded. Vermonters have always answered the call.

Look at who are representatives are now: Leahy, Sanders and Welch, all great men in their own time, all Vermonters, and they all stand with the people on the side of what it is right and just.

Here is some of our history:

The original Green Mountain Boys were a paramilitary infantry organized in Southwestern Vermont in the decade prior to the American Revolutionary War. They comprised settlers and land speculators who held New Hampshire titles to lands between the Connecticut River and Lake Champlain, what is now modern Vermont. New York was given control of the area by a decision of the British crown and refused to respect the New Hampshire Grants and town charters. Although a few towns with New York land titles, notably Brattleboro on the Connecticut River, supported the government in Albany, the vast majority of the settlers in the sparsely populated frontier region rejected the authority of New York.

With several hundred members, the Green Mountain Boys effectively controlled the area where New Hampshire grants had been issued. They were led by Ethan Allen, his brother Ira Allen, and their cousins Seth Warner and Remember Baker. They were based at the Catamount Tavern in Bennington, only a short distance from the New York seat of government in Albany. By the 1770s, the Green Mountain Boys had become an armed military force and de facto government that prevented the Albany government from exercising its authority in the northeast portion of the Province of New York. New York authorities had standing warrants for the arrests of the leaders of the rebellious Vermonters, but were unable to exercise them. New York surveyors and other officials attempting to exercise their authority were prevented from doing so and in some cases were severely beaten.

When the American Revolutionary War started in 1775, Ethan Allen and a force of his guerrillas, along with Massachusetts Colonel Benedict Arnold, marched up to Lake Champlain and captured the important military posts at Fort Ticonderoga, Fort Crown Point, Fort Ann, and the town of St. John (Battle of Fort St. Jean) in Québec. The Green Mountain Boys later formed the basis of the Vermont militia which selected Seth Warner as its leader. Some of the Green Mountain Boys preferred to stick with Ethan Allen and were captured along with Allen in August 1775 in a bungled attack on the city of Montreal. A member of this unit was Congressman Matthew Lyon.

Vermont eventually declared itself an independent nation in January 1777, and organized a government based in Windsor. The army of the Vermont Republic was based upon the Green Mountain Boys. Although Vermont initially supported the American Revolutionary War and sent troops to fight John Burgoyne's British invasion from Canada at Hubbardton and Bennington in 1777, Vermont eventually adopted a more neutral stance and became a haven for deserters from both the British and colonial armies. George Washington, who had more than sufficient difficulties with the British, brushed off Congressional demands that he subdue Vermont. The Vermont Army version of the Green Mountain Boys faded away after Vermont joined the United States as the 14th U.S. state in 1791. They returned for the War of 1812, the Civil War, and later more formally as the Vermont National Guard.

thanks to wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Green_Mountain_Boys

DON'T TREAD ON ME!!!

Look, I like Sanders and Welch quite a bit, and I think they represent us Vermonters well, but they are flatlanders, not Vermonters. Leahy is the only Vermonter in the trio.

> A variety of approaches from a number of sources is what makes movements work, not a singular approach that can be overridden with a single vote or a stroke of a pen.

Ah, restive.... While it's true that representatives can vote down impeachment resolutions, show me one town attorney where the action you're proposing is legal. Just because voters want to pass it "symbolically" with the hope it will generate discussion is really naive IMO. Know matter how much discussion you can generate (and it will mostly be in towns that already agree with Brattleboro), you HAVE to prove that the action you want to discuss has some legal bearings to it. Otherwise why would you discuss it? There's also a reason why we have laws in place. One of the them is to prevent a tyranny of the majority. If it weren't for the SCOTUS protecting the rights of minorities, a women's right to choose, and many more rulings that protected the rights of the minority, I don't even want to imagine what kind of society we'd have. The kicker about this resolution that the selectboard passed means that Bible thumpers will have to have their day too. The next thing you know they'll want to have a resolution calling for the arrest and detaining of Planned Parenthood professionals who perform abortions. That SB will have to grant them they're right to put on the ballot and if they don't, then that makes them look hypocritical.

As for Daims' idea that the GOP is scared because they heard from Susan Smallher... that's VERY delusional. Just because they're inquiring about it doesn't mean they're running scared. I'd like to see you prove otherwise. People can pick up on that leap of faith argument. Engaged citizens are NOT that stupid.

Clarification: Daims said "She says the RNC called her to ask for equal time." Just because they want to sound off doesn't mean they're running scared. If I want to respond to something I disagree with, does that make me scared? Not necessarily. It most likely means they're willing to respond to the idea.

Yeah! The GOP is REALLY scared about a non-binding resolution. Believe me, the GOP has much much bigger fish to fry. Anyone with an astute knowledge of national politics can tell you that this is the last thing they can worry about. They get this kinda stuff every day of the year. I'd be worried more about the bomb threats from left and right kooks that the White House and other state offices across America get every single day!

Anybody claiming that the present administration, led by Bush and Cheney has not caused irreparable harm to our country and the world just isn't paying attention or is complicit.
We can't rely on the spineless Democrats who continue to ignore the situation. If our country is to halt its descent, we. the people have to act.
We have to hope this grassroots effort will awaken others to perform similar actions and at least prevent the evil cabal from further destructive actions.

> If our country is to halt its descent, we. the people have to act.

At least those who are initiating these "citizen actions" should have a good understanding of what our rights and limitations are as citizens. That's my idea of an informed citizen. They should also have an understanding of what's legal and what's doable. Let me go back to the original question: Why have a discussion on jailing Bush & Cheney when NO town attorney has NO legal authority to commit such an act? Daims and co. refuse to answer that.

Australian ballots are also not a means to generate discussion. That's an opinion poll. Daims says this isn't about "actually" arresting Bush and Cheney but generating a discussion. Why not just post it on a blog? Post it on Daily Kos and I guarantee you'll generate a HUGE discussion outside of Vermont. The other thing is if 5-10% actually vote on it and pass it, that's not a clear mandate. I can't tell you how many times people claim "the people have spoken" when things like this occur. That's dishonest and misleading especially when so little people weigh in. This HAS to stop. You can't say that makes your campaign look bad!