Advanced Search
San?? jevo
San?? jevo
Soldiers (Arab - Israel border)
Landscapes, aerials
Israel, Dead Sea
Israel, Dead Sea ON PREVIEW CASSETTE # 211876
Israel - farm and irrigation
Harbor, boats, military, building materials
airport, misc. activities
Israel, airport, misc. activities
1950s - Israel - River Jordan
VS of the River Jordan.
1940s - Palestine - Palestinian Town
Wide view of Palestinian town. VS of Palestinian town.
Jade statue, mountain brook, coastal areas, temple, farm, Christian church
City scape, factory, street scenes, architecture
Beaches, city scape, street scenes, military, construction
Desalination Plant
Desalination plant ?
Desalination plant ?
Landscapes, street scenes, military, factory,sheep herder
Mountain (Mt. Ascension)
Impeachment Hearings: House Judiciary Committee, July 30, 1974
[00.13.07] The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman has expired. I recognize the gentleman from Wisconsin, Mr. Kastenmeier, for 6 Minutes and 15 seconds. Mr. KASTENMEIER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, I will not take all of that time, and will yield some of my time to the proposer of the article, the gentleman from Michigan subsequently. I think it is unfortunate that we are in the position of technically reviewing the war in Southeast, Asia. This is really not the point of this article.. But, very candidly. this article will not succeed, it will not, be adopted either by this committee or the Congress Nonetheless. I support, it. I think the essence of the article is as fundamental as the three we have already adopted if not more, so. I appreciate the comments of my colleagues, particularly the gentlemen from California, Mr. Edwards and Mr. Waldie to the effect that the genesis of concealment and deception did not originate -with Mr. Nixon. There, may have been culpability in the past, by Presidents Kennedy and Johnson. However, they are no longer President and, in fact, have long since gone to their graves. The question is really a constitutional one. If, in fact, the President did issue false and misleading statements, engage in deception and concealment concerning a matter of such great importance to the country as the conduct of war in which thousands and thousands of Americans were killed, irrespective of how Americans now view that war, and then, in fact, he has committed an offense for which he is accountable. I would only say that going back to the earliest times, one James Iredell, one of the Framers of the Constitution, stated the proposition that the President, and I paraphrase, must certainly be punishable for giving false information to the Senate. He is to regulate all intercourse with foreign powers, and it is his duty to impart to the every material intelligence he, receives. If it should appear that he has not given them full information, but has concealed important intelligence - which he ought to have communicated, and by that means induced them to enter into measures injurious to their country in which they would not have consented to had the true state of thing's been disclosed to them. in this case I ask whether an impeachment for a misdemeanor would lie. And so we have come to modern times and the situation that confronts us at this moment. In terms of what the Constitution requires, in terms of accountability of the President, we must adopt article No. IV. Mr. McCLORY. Would the gentleman yield for one question? Mr. KASTENMEIER. I yield to the gentleman from Illinois. Mr. McCLORY. A great, deal of information we received was classified but is it not a fact that information regarding the bombing was revealed to selected members of the Senate? That is my recollection of the information we have received. Mr. KASTENMEIER. The gentleman is correct, and some of the colloquy between the gentlewoman from New York and the gentleman from Virginia affirms that. However, I think history will record that those several selected individuals were people fully committed to a course, of action involving war and did not necessarily represent the people in the sense that the Congress as a whole, if imparted this knowledge, represents the people, and I would suggest that imparting that knowledge to a few select individuals, -whose views conformed with that of the administration, did not constitute imparting full information to the country and did, III fact, constitute further concealment thereof. I yield to the gentleman from Michigan. Mr. CONYERS. I thank the gentleman from Wisconsin for yielding, and I would pose this question to my colleagues because I appreciate ,the seriousness of the considerations before us. In a way this article cuts differently from any of the others, and I would be the, first to concede that were the President not being considered for impeachment on other grounds, it would be extremely difficult to have this consideration before us. But, history has brought them together, ladies and gentlemen. The coincidental meeting of this consideration of war powers has arrived at the same time that the revelations of Watergate and make this vote inescapable upon us. And I would only urge every ,member that if he or she feels that the record that we build should not include and recommend this article of impeachment, legitimately, not to add onto a bill of impeachment unnecessarily, but responsibly to preserve and reclaim the probably most important single power that the Constitution vests in this Congress, and I urge your support of this article. Mr. KASTENMEIER. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time. [00.19.25]
Highway & tunnel construction
Painting
"Bulldozer or ?"
Construction - foundation
Impeachment Hearings: House Judiciary Committee, July 30, 1974
[00.24.52] The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Massachusetts, Father Drinan, is recognized for 6 minutes and 15 seconds. Mr. DRINAN. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Let's see first -what this document or article does not do. This document takes no position whatsoever on the merits of the, -war in Indochina. We are not asking hawks and doves to vote along that line today. This resolution makes provision for those who feel as others do who have spoken here. If they feel that the bombing in Cambodia save American lives, they can continue -with that conviction and still vote for this resolution today. This resolution relates in its essence to secrecy, secrecy in the executive branch of government. General Wheeler testified on July 30, 1973, that the President personally ordered him not to disclose the bombing of, Cambodia and I quote General Wheeler: "To any member of Congress." This article is very marrow. This article means that we don't want a president authorizing or ratifying- the concealment in the Congress of the. facts about it certain situation concerning which the Congress must act. The Founding, Fathers I think we should note made a provision in Article I that the Congress itself must publish a journal except in a narrow exception the journal could be secret if the Congress decided. There is no provision for secrecy in the executive branch of government whatsoever in the Constitution. The. whole, history of secrecy in government was the very thing that the Framers of our Constitution wanted to undo. Secrecy means that we in the, Congress don't get the essential information that we need in order to legislate. In the area Of war. Madison said that the war-declaring power in Congress must include everything necessary to make that power effective. The administration deceived the Congress over 4 years for this reason, that there is absolutely no request from March 1969 to August 1973 by the administration for appropriations for the war in Cambodia; $145 million was spent. Is that wrong? Can you say that this is all one, war? NO communication to the Congress Even if, and this is, in dispute, somewhere it was told on a secret basis to four or five, people in the Congress, that we have something going in Cambodia. The members of this very House were deceived because, as Senator Symington said" "We authorized $140 million not for war in Cambodia but for war in Vietnam.- At least now the Congress has a right to know. And here are some of the questions that the Pentagon refused to testify to at the hearings a year ago in the Senate. Who authorized the falsifications of documents? What reason is there now long after the war has ended for the continuation of the secrecy in this matter? Falsification of military documents appears to be it clear violation of article 107 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice. Melvin Laird himself in 1973--was Secretary of Defense in 1970 when these things occurred, and in 1973 he denied knowledge of it. Furthermore, why did the military feel that they could not trust their own highly classified reporting system? All B-52 strikes are carefully coordinated with special photo-intelligence and this was done outside of that ordinary system for one reason, that the Congress has not been told. To repeat, I think this is a very- narrow article. It does not really involve what Prince Sihanouk thought whether be acquiesced or did not. It does not involve our assessment of the Indochina war. All it says is that secrecy in Government without justification or excuse can in this instance be an impeachable offense. Even the acquiescence of the Congress in some Of the things that you have heard today is immaterial. The President himself told General Wheeler not once but, as General Wheeler said, Six times that no one shall ever hear of this bombing in Cambodia. Mr. Jerry Friedheim the spokesman for the Pentagon, said these sad words. He spoke of the falsification of documents. he spoke of the erroneous information that, he transmitted to the Congress And he said just a year ago, "I knew at the time it was wrong and I'm sorry." Did the, President ever reprimand any of those who deceived the Congress? No; he ratified their conduct. And those who Vote against this article will be saying, in effect, that the President, our next President can deceive the Congress, can have secrecy in the executive branch, can try to Justify it by saying that we didn't want to embarrass Some foreign prince, but that goes to the very heart of what the separation of powers is all about.
Oil Plant Blast. Louisiana Refinery Swept By Fire.
Oil Plant Blast. Louisiana Refinery Swept By Fire. A huge oil refinery near Lake Charles, Louisiana, is rocked by explosions and fire. Three men are killed, three more missing. Damage in the millions but firefighters prevented a catastrophe. LS Oil Refinery on fire at night. MS flames and smoke. MS workers walking past chain link fence, fire ranges in the background. MS fire during the day. Various LS of fire at plant during the day.