It was revealed last week that firefighters are being trained
 to not only keep an eye out for illegal materials in the course
 of their duties, but even to report back any expression of
discontent with the government.

A year ago, Homeland Security gave security clearances to
 nine New York City fire chiefs and began sharing intelligence
 with them.

Even before that, fire department personnel were being taught
"to identify material or behavior that may indicate "terrorist activities"
and were also "told to be alert for a person who is hostile, uncooperative
or expressing hate or discontent with the United States."


Unlike law enforcement officials, firemen can go onto private property
without a warrant, not only while fighting fires but also for inspections
. "It's the evolution of the fire service," said a Phoenix, AZ fire chief of
his information-sharing arrangement with law enforcement.


Keith Olbermann raised the alarm about the program on his show Wednesday,
 noting that "if the information-sharing program works in New York, the
department says it will extend it to other major metropolitan areas, unless
we stop them."


He then asked Mike German, a former FBI agent who is now with the ACLU,
"This program seems to be turning [firefighters], essentially, into legally protected
domestic spies, does it not?"

"That's the entire intent," German replied, noting the serious legal issues involved.
"There is actually still a fourth amendment," he pointed out, "and what makes a
firefighter's search reasonable is that it's done to prevent a fire. If now firefighters
are going in with this secondary purpose, that end run around the fourth amendment
 won't work, and it's likely that they will find themselves in legal trouble."

Olbermann, however, was most strongly concerned about the implications for
civil liberties. "Is what disturbs you and the ACLU the same thing that just jumped
off the page for me?" he asked. "That one phrase, 'look for people who are expressing
hatred of or discontent with the United States?' Discontent?"

German agreed that there are serious first amendment issues raised by the focus
of the program on constitutionally-protected literature, such as books that might
 be considered "terrorist propaganda."


Olbermann asked in conclusion whether firefighters could be used under this program
 to plant evidence. German agreed that the way it is defined "really plays to people's
prejudices and gives them the opportunity to do damage to someone."


This video is from MSNBC's Countdown, broadcast on November 28, 2007.

Why should we have impeachment?

The framers of the constitution of the constitution knew that someday there was going to be
 a Richard Nixon who was president of the United States and someday there was going to
be a George Bush who was going to be president of the United States, and they gave us
the power of impeachment to revoke them.

They put in the impeachment clause because they said that we know that there will be presidents
 who will commit grave and dangerous offenses that would subvert the constitution.


 They knew that subverting that constitution was the greatest danger that could
befall our country. So all of us here have to be soldiers in that cause.

For example
The act that constituted the basis for the Nixon impeachment started with the illegal bombing
 of Cambodia. Why? Because it was illegal and it was secret, and when the press began to
 find out about it,

 Richard Nixon said, "That can't happen. I don't want the American people to know about this.
 I don't want the congress to know. So we're going to wiretap... illegally." And that then led to
 all the rest of the illegalities, because he thought, as president, he could do whatever he wanted,
 and started out the course of keeping that war going and depriving the American people of the
 truth. Not too different from today.

 President Nixon fired the special prosecutor who was trying to get information about him and
the American people said, "that's it. Enough is enough.
We can't have a president who is above the law.
We can't have a president stop investigations.
We are the United States of America. congress, you have to act."
And they forced the congress to act.

The American people get it now on the war in Iraq
and they get it on the culture of corruption
 and arrogance in Washington. We're going to have
 to change. and if you think this change
should not include impeachment, you're wrong.



The constitution doesn't require the minimum. It requires the maximum.
We can't have a president of the United States who puts himself above
 the rule of law if we want to continue with this republic.


It's not about revenge. The effort against Richard Nixon was not about revenge
 Far from it. It is because this man is shredding the constitution.
It's a matter of setting the right standards and holding those accountable who lied
 and deceived the American people and who want to shred the constitution still.

Why did the president drive us into war on the basis of deception?
And how did he do it and document what he knew and when he knew it.
That's critical, because no American should have
to give one drop of blood for a lie, ever.

What exactly did the president know about the
torture and the mistreatment of detainees?
What was he told and when was he told it?
Why didn't he ever follow the law and bring to
 punishment and bring to accountability, those,
even up to the top, who ordered or engaged in torture?


Today, to assure the framers of the constitution,
for all who fought in our wars
and the prior generations who brought us to where we are today,
that we are going to hold up our end of the bargain and
 preserve the constitution for future generations


That's it. No ifs ands or buts.