Bush Personally Intervened To Arrange Ashcroft Hospital Visit And Kneecap Comey
Bush Personally Intervened To Arrange Ashcroft Hospital Visit And Kneecap Comey
During his testimony yesterday, former Deputy Attorney General James Comey noted that John Ashcroft’s wife “had banned all visitors and all phone calls” to the hospital due to Ashcroft’s poor condition. So how were Alberto Gonzales and Andrew Card able to make it into Ashcroft’s room to pressure him to overrule Comey and reauthorize the warrantless spying program?
Comey explained yesterday:
COMEY: Mrs. Ashcroft reported that a call had come through, and that as a result of that call Mr. Card and Mr. Gonzales were on their way to the hospital to see Mr. Ashcroft.
SCHUMER: Do you have any idea who that call was from?
COMEY: I have some recollection that the call was from the president himself.
Comey’s statements show that President Bush was directly involved in the effort to override the administration’s own lawyers and reauthorize the warrantless spying program despite an “extensive review” by the Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel stating “that the program did not comply with the law.”
This hardly comes as a surprise. As Newsweek reported in January 2006, Bush was “miffed” at Comey for not being a “team player” on the spying issue.
On one day in the spring of 2004, White House chief of staff Andy Card and the then White House Counsel Alberto Gonzales made a bedside visit to John Ashcroft, attorney general at the time, who was stricken with a rare and painful pancreatic disease, to try–without success–to get him to reverse his deputy, Acting Attorney General James Comey, who was balking at the warrantless eavesdropping. Miffed that Comey, a straitlaced, by-the-book former U.S. attorney from New York, was not a “team player” on this and other issues, President George W. Bush dubbed him with a derisive nickname, “Cuomo,” after Mario Cuomo, the New York governor who vacillated over running for president in the 1980s.
Comey explained yesterday that, even after Ashcroft rebuked Gonzales and Card, Bush pushed forward and reauthorized the spying program without the Justice Department’s approval. Only later, facing a threat of mass resignations, did Bush crack and allow the changes in the program sought by the Justice Department lawyers.
UPDATE: Josh Marshall and Marty Lederman have more. Also, Comey’s testimony is the subject of today’s Progress Report.
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog Roll
Smoking gun, so Bush must resign immediately or be impeached.
May 16th, 2007 at 11:42 amCan we impeach this mo-RON now?
May 16th, 2007 at 11:43 amAll Presidential calls are placed by an organization called WHCA (White House Communications Agency). If Bush made this call, it was logged and is part of the official record.
Keep this in mind if the President’s involvement (or his denial of it) becomes a bigger issue here.
[CREW currently has a FOIA in to WHCA for communications that may have come from Karl Rove.]
May 16th, 2007 at 11:44 amSCUMS
May 16th, 2007 at 11:45 amI wonder if they knew they had the authority under FISA to spy and get the warrant later…surely they didn’t need to bother Ashcroft.
I sure hope they weren’t letting terrorists slip throught the net for fear they might break the law! ; )
lol!!!
May 16th, 2007 at 11:47 amboys will be boys.
May 16th, 2007 at 11:47 amThank you for highlighting this important story! The MSM keeps making GWB out to be some sort of hero in this scenario, interceding between the feuding DAG and Gonzales and Card. That is NOT what Comey said in his testimony and it is amazing to me that the MSM will go to such lengths to present this administration in a positive light.
CNN online did not even pick up the story for hours after Comey’s testimony and when they did, ran a lede that said “Aide: Sick Ashcroft pressed to approve domestic spying.” At the time in question, Comey was not an “aide,” but the acting Attorney General. Just one more way the MSM subtly minimizes the corruption of the current administation. Make everyone look like a low-level player and it diminishes their testimony.
This testimony came in the context of possibly illegal behavior on the part of the DOJ in the firing of the US attorneys. From that standpoint, it deserved a great deal of thoughtful, well-researched attention from the MSM and got almost none.
May 16th, 2007 at 11:49 amso….. Is what Bush did by calling illegal?
May 16th, 2007 at 11:51 amit’s the nature of the politicians. shouldn’t trust em. ever.
May 16th, 2007 at 11:51 amPTF,
Given this administrations near pathologic need for secrecy I’m sure an alternate phone was used. This administration is more paranoid than the Nixon administration, and that’s saying something.
May 16th, 2007 at 11:51 amWhy would he even care to get a signature? Doesn’t he just do what he wants anyway. What’s with the attempted appearance of propriety?
May 16th, 2007 at 11:52 amThank you President Bush for defending our nation.
May 16th, 2007 at 11:54 amActually, here is what Comey said:
COMEY: I have some recollection that the call was from the president himself, but I don’t know that for sure. It came from the White House.
Nice selective (and dishonest) editing of a quote, TP.
May 16th, 2007 at 11:54 amHere’s what conservative commentator Eric Margolis said about Clinton in 1998: “America’s head of state is a position demanding dignity, gravitas, and a flawless reputation. The position demands a higher standard of deportment than that of ordinary politicians. Making repeated, bare-faced lies to the public is alone grounds for impeachment.”
May 16th, 2007 at 11:57 amBack under the bed, Patrick-getting-dumber-by-the-minute.
May 16th, 2007 at 11:58 amYet another smoking gun.
There must be a big pile of smoking revolvers in a corner somewhere.
But watch, Chimpy won’t get impeached. Gonzales will stay where he is, Wolfy will stay where he is or get a golden parachute into a nice job, and nothing will change.
We now live in a fascist police state and the people have lost control of our govenment. Welcome to the New World Order.
May 16th, 2007 at 11:59 amWithout laws nor government leaders who abide by them we have no nation worthy of protection.
May 16th, 2007 at 12:00 pmActually, here is what Comey said:
COMEY: I have some recollection that the call was from the president himself, but I don’t know that for sure. It came from the White House.
Nice selective (and dishonest) editing of a quote, TP.
Comment by Exley
Fair enough point Exley, but the main idea presented here was that the caller (whomever it was) was significant and important enough for Mrs Ashcroft to allow the visit By Card and Gonzalez – after she has refused visitors on behalf of her ailing husband. The name of the individual caller is less important than the impact of the call itself.
May 16th, 2007 at 12:00 pmHere is more of Comey’s testimony:
“COMEY: We had the briefing. And as I was leaving, the president asked to speak to me, took me in his study and we had a one-on-one meeting for about 15 minutes — again, which I will not go into the substance of. It was a very full exchange. And at the end of that meeting, at my urging, he met with Director Mueller, who was waiting for me downstairs.
He met with Director Mueller again privately, just the two of them. And then after those two sessions, we had his direction to do the right thing, to do what we…
SCHUMER: Had the president’s direction to do the right thing?
COMEY: Right.
We had the president’s direction to do what we believed, what the Justice Department believed was necessary to put this matter on a footing where we could certify to its legality.
And so we then set out to do that. And we did that.”
So, in other words, it was Bush and Ashcroft who emerge as the heroes of this story.
May 16th, 2007 at 12:01 pmRocks911,
Considering Ashcroft had a do-not-call order on his phone and every call the President makes is *mandated* by the Presidential Records Act to be logged, use of an alternate phone would be consistent with their penchant for secrecy, but highly, highly impractical.
Highly impractical doesn’t mean impossible, but think of the ramifications if the President was operating his own “outside e-mails” and “RNC-provided BlackBerries and phones.” That would be ballsy even for these guys.
WHCA had to place this call. Question would be if the record still exists, or if it was wiped.
May 16th, 2007 at 12:01 pmPatrick1,
“Thank you President Bush for defending our nation.”
I think you meant “Thank you President Bush for tossing aside my civil liberties so grotesquely in an effort insure you had access to everyone’s personal information. That way you can use it against your political enemies in an attempt to institute one party rule. God Bless You!!”
May 16th, 2007 at 12:01 pmExley,
The “I don’t know for sure” part is implied.
Every person in this administration qualifies their statements with caveats.
“I don’t remember”
May 16th, 2007 at 12:04 pm“I’m not sure that I recall that”
“If I remember correctly”
“But I don’t know that for sure”
etc. etc.
Thank you President Bush for defending our nation.
Comment by Patrick1
And Thank You, Parick1, for shi**ting on our Constitution.
May 16th, 2007 at 12:04 pmTrolls, like the village idiots in Medieval England, are best left ignored.
May 16th, 2007 at 12:05 pmI agree with your main point, but omitting the equivocation in James Comey’s full response is misleading. His full response was:
Comey: I have some recollection that the call was from the president himself. But I don’t know that for sure. It came from the White House. And it came through and the call was taken in the hospital.
Your point is strong enough that you don’t need to overstate it by omitting this equivocation.
May 16th, 2007 at 12:05 pm#18, Tom, To an extent, I agree with you. The whole episode sounds quite sordid and unprofessional. But, the fact is, TP selectively edited Comey’s testimony to leave an impression that is not accurate. TP criticizes politicos, journalists, and other when it believes they have not been completely honest. But TP comes off as hypocritical when they turn around and do things like inaccurately and disingenuously cite an edited quote.
May 16th, 2007 at 12:07 pmOh look….yet more grounds for impeachment.
Our government is the laughing stock of the rest of the world.
May 16th, 2007 at 12:08 pmExley, there was nothing dishonest about this subject at all. Read your own post again.
Actually, here is what Comey said:
COMEY: I have some recollection that the call was from the president himself, but I don’t know that for sure. It came from the White House.
Nice selective (and dishonest) editing of a quote, TP.
Keep in mind Mrs. Ashcroft said no calls and no visitors for the Attorney General. Do you honestly think that she would bend because of a low level whitehouse hack calls? Mr. Comey also states (as you show in your post) that the call came from the White House.
From the White House to the Attorney General and then Gonzo and Card show up. Who would have the authority to send the Personal counsel to the President and to overstep the wishes of his wife? The head chef from the white house? No, it only came from a higher authority than the Attorney General.
PTF pointed out the CREW’s FOIA request for the call log and this would quickly clear it up.
The only dishonesty is when you feign being open minded.
May 16th, 2007 at 12:10 pmboys will be boys.
And WAR CRIMINAL TRAITORS will be WAR CRIMINAL TRAITORS…
May 16th, 2007 at 12:10 pmHere’s conservative commentator Charles Krauthammer comparing Clinton to OJ Simpson: “He’ll try to stay in office no matter how many party elders beg him to leave. He’ll be a dead man walking, an object of ridicule, an Oval Office O.J., denying what everyone knows he did.”
May 16th, 2007 at 12:11 pmExactly what right have you lost?
May 16th, 2007 at 12:14 pmHiB,
That’s a lot of assumptions in your posting. It’s an interesting theory, but that’s all it is — a theory. The fact is that the thread’s headline dishonestly characterizes Comey’s testimony on the issue of who made the call as being far more definitive than it was.
May 16th, 2007 at 12:18 pmGosh, Comey said the call may have come from the President, but he wasn’t sure. TP evidently leaves out the part about not being sure. To Exley, who’s political friends spent 8 years calling Clinton a rapist, this is unacceptable dishonesty.
Exley, you are so full of crap.
May 16th, 2007 at 12:20 pmPatrick1,
Oh I don’t know. Freedom to check out whatever book I want without government butting in. The freedom to have conversation on the phone without the government butting in.
For a party that claims that it wants government out of people lives, I guess I find myself shocked that you would think it ok eavesdrop on American citizens without proper oversight of the judiciary in that program. THat’s all I’m asking for. OVERSIGHT!! Seperation of powers.
May 16th, 2007 at 12:20 pmBut TP comes off as hypocritical when they turn around and do things like inaccurately and disingenuously cite an edited quote.
Comment by Exley
I agree that if blogs – especially significant ones such as TP – start to mirror the MSM’s pechant for ‘blurring’ the actual words or quotes then the downward slide begins…
May 16th, 2007 at 12:22 pmSeems that Bush will go to any length — including invading a family’s personal privacy — to circumvent and violate the U.S. Constitution. Republicans should be ashamed.
May 16th, 2007 at 12:23 pmExley,
Again, there are no definitive statements from this administration, that’s understood. The posting was just shorthand for all the coveats we know are there.
May 16th, 2007 at 12:24 pmTHat’s all I’m asking for. OVERSIGHT!! Seperation of powers.
Comment by Crump’s Brother
Frankly, our good friend Patrick1 longs for a king to worship. We have talked about this before. He simply wants somebody else running and directing his life – from birth to death. No decisions to make, no freedoms to enjoy, no elements on which this country was founded, no need to have your own say, because government will do it all for you. It sorta sounds socialist, no?
May 16th, 2007 at 12:26 pmhellinabucket: The call could have come from Andrew Card. It would make sense for him to call before going over. Someone should ask Mrs. Ashcroft. Where is the mainstream press on this?
May 16th, 2007 at 12:26 pmSo who DID make the call from the White House?
Chimpy? Cheney? Karla Rove?
It had to be somebody at the very top.
And I wouldn’t call Chimpy a hero on this. Ashcroft was against the illegal wiretaps but Chimpy always supported them.
May 16th, 2007 at 12:26 pmExactly what right have you lost? Comment by Patrick1
The rights to privacy and to not be subject to unreasonable search and seizure. Cite: The United States Constitution.
May 16th, 2007 at 12:27 pmComey explained yesterday that, even after Ashcroft rebuked Gonzales and Card, Bush pushed forward and reauthorized the spying program without the Justice Department’s approval.
So Chimpy wasn’t a hero after all. Looks like another Repuke LIE.
May 16th, 2007 at 12:28 pmYou can check out any book you want without the government butting in. You can’t make as large a contribution as you want to a candidate but that is another story.
I ask again, what right have you lost?
May 16th, 2007 at 12:28 pmWhen one American loses their rights, then every American loses them.
The US illegally detained Jose Padilla for years without habeus corpus or due process of law. He was drugged, tortured and abused.
Padilla has finally gotten his day in court and the judge has already said the government’s case against him is weak.
I don’t care if Padilla was a terrorist. He is an American citizen and entitled to due process of law.
Repuke fascists like Patrick1nut don’t get it. They’re too stupid.
May 16th, 2007 at 12:30 pmYou haven’t lost the right to privacy or to be subject to unreasonable search and seizure. You have lost the right to plot with people to commit mass murder.
May 16th, 2007 at 12:30 pm“You can check out any book you want without the government butting in.”
Wrong, dumbass. The Patriot Act allows the Feds to spy on libraries and demand your library records. And the librarian is under a gag order not to tell anybody the Feds are getting your library records – without a warrant.
Repuke trolls are lying sacks of crap and Patrick1nut proves it once again.
May 16th, 2007 at 12:32 pm#44. That reply is too stupid to warrant an answer. I suggest you educate yourself.
Have a lovely day.
May 16th, 2007 at 12:33 pmWHEN BUSH STEPS DOWN, I HOPE HE IS DENIED A PRESIDENTIAL PENSION!
May 16th, 2007 at 12:33 pm“You haven’t lost the right to privacy or to be subject to unreasonable search and seizure.”
Another Repuke LIE.
The War on Drugs severely curtailed your right to privacy and unreasonable search and seizure. The Patriot Act curtailed it further.
Chimpy and his goons have been doing illegal warrantless wiretaps of Americans for years. Chimpy’s goons also spy on peace groups which are not violating the law. This kind of spying is illegal without probable cause, but Chimpy’s goons do it anyway.
Once again, the Repuke troll is a lying sack of crap.
May 16th, 2007 at 12:34 pmYou haven’t lost the right to privacy or to be subject to unreasonable search and seizure.
Yup, we HAVE. Patriot Act and Military Commissions Act
You have lost the right to plot with people to commit mass murder.
May 16th, 2007 at 12:36 pmWe NEVER had such a “right”. Only MURDEROUS WAR CRIMINALS like TRAITOR Bush feel that they have such a “right”.
#44,
You’re psychotic. I am unaware of any psychiatric institutions that allow for the patients to use the internet so I am assuming that you are “unsupervised”. I strongly urge you to seek serious help immediately before you harm yourself or, more importantly, others.
May 16th, 2007 at 12:36 pmPatrick1 why did they stop looking for Osama and Zawahiri? Can you help me understand?
May 16th, 2007 at 12:37 pm#44 Wow, Patrick, this line of argumentation is stupid even by your already low standards. But I suppose you don’t have any material left to work with here, do you?
You disgust me Patrick. Really, I mean that.
May 16th, 2007 at 12:38 pmWE MUST SEE TO IT THAT BUSH IS DENIED A PRESIDENTIAL PENSION! PLEASE!
May 16th, 2007 at 12:38 pmAt this point, I am not sure Bush will make it through his entire presidency. With new allegations surfacing every day of his chicanery, and corruption, I feel that eventually a tipping point will occur. A point that not even the republicans in congress or in the senate can ignore.
May 16th, 2007 at 12:41 pmI ask again, what right have you lost?
Comment by Patrick1
Please Patrick, you are really starting to make yourself appear foolish – again. We all get your point – we get it. We just don’t agree with the way you want this country to operate. You don’t mind your leaders breaking the law, while raiding our treasury. You don’t mind that your leaders consider themselves ‘untouchable’. You don’t mind your leaders ruining the global status and reputation of our great country. Well, we mind that they are doing it. Actually a very solid majority in this country also mind what is happening. Upon every sunrise, your little world becomes even smaller.
May 16th, 2007 at 12:42 pmPatrick1,
“The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized. ”
So when the government tracks my motions and taps my phone without probable cause to do so, government has infringed on my right to secure in my person, houses, papers, and effects.
May 16th, 2007 at 12:43 pmBush and Ashcroft are the heroes? HAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
May 16th, 2007 at 12:43 pmPhew, good one, Exley. The Chimp wanted the wiretaps, but 15 minutes alone with Comey — without Gonzo or Cheney — was enought to flip W. He’s as spineless as he is stupid.
As for Ashcroft, his illegal campaign contributions, permanent jailing of illegal immigrants for “security reasons”, assistance to the coverup of 9/11, and presiding over the abrogation of U.S. and international law over the use of torture, kidnapping, etc. etc. suggest that Ashcroft was more worried about getting jailed than doing the right thing. That’s Republican heroism.
Heh. You still don’t get it. The permanent one party rule is already here.
If the President say’s it’s ok, it’s ok.
May 16th, 2007 at 12:44 pmImpeachment needs to be back on the table. Right now.
May 16th, 2007 at 12:46 pmYo, Patrick1, under the Military Commissions Act, W. can jail you, an American citizen, permanently and without charge. Chimpy can Gitmo-ize you and there’s nothing anyone could do about it. That’s Republican respect for the law.
May 16th, 2007 at 12:47 pm#48: If you join something as stupid as a peace group, it’s your damned fault if you get wiretapped. When you deal with idiots, you get treated like an idiot. When you deal with potentially dangerous people, you get treated as one. It’s well known that the islamists are infiltrating peace groups, universities and other soft-on-terror target groups. If you’re not plotting to bomb someone, you’ve got nothing to fear.
May 16th, 2007 at 12:48 pm#60 Incorrect. The Military Commissions Act does not apply to U.S. citizens.
May 16th, 2007 at 12:49 pmComey revelations on the surveillance issues have major implications for the veracity of counsel’s public statements outside court on many issues. These raise issues whether formerly assigned DOJ and White House counsel have publicly made misrepresentations, or have committed fraud upon the FISA and Judge Vaughn Walker in re AT&T litigation.
1. AT&T Litigation
Once Comey asserted that there had been internal deliberations which concluded the surveillance was not lawful, but the surveillance continued, this raises questions about the apparent inconsistency between [a] original White House/DoJ Staff counsel comments; [b] their conduct, and decision to remain associated with he activity; and [c] a decision not to ensure that there were reports to DOJ OPR on issues of steps to implement illegal NSLs required to support the warrantless [Comey-characterized as illegal] activity.
These are issues of mens rea for White House counsel in re issues of rendition, NSA surveillance, and the current AT&T defence. The revelations that the program was not legal appears to fatally undermine the AT&T public statements in court before Judge Walker. Former White House counsel apparently associated with the original discussions is not — apparently — arguing that the program was legal, despite the apparent Comey statements that the program was not legal.
2. Judicial Procedure Implications
How can anyone have a fair trial when the known data intercepts were not lawful; and how can any lawyer argue that they were fully supporting the administration of justice when the data interceptions were not lawful?
Once the White House counsel and DOJ Attorneys supposedly said the surveillance was illegal — but the President overrode them — why did the attorneys not resign? I’m having trouble with this clause: “engage in conduct that is prejudicial to the administration of justice”. Once the program was not legal — regardless the President’s decision — then the lawyers would have known that the evidence gleaned from this interception was not admissible; but they should have known that the data was being used to target, render, and mistreat prisoners.
3. White House Counsel Credibility
Once the White House and DOJ Counsel supposedly were told/overruled, they would have known that they would have been asked-directed to defend this program that they had previously said was illegal. How could counsel — that had firmly stated it was not legal — expect to go before any court to credibly assert a point, authority, case law, or any legal principle that they apparently knew was not valid?
4. Credibility of Formerly Assigned White House counsel statements
Comey’s statements also fatally undermine formerly Assigned White House and DOJ Legal Counsel positions on Rendition, FISA violations, and NSA domestic surveillance. Formerly assigned counsel appears to have knowingly made public statements not consistent with internal deliberations, which Comey has now fatally disclosed. Under the rules of evidence in re privilege, the President’s internal deliberations are protected only when they are not disclosed. Comey’s disclosures show the President [a] was aware of the legal concerns supposedly by counsel; and [b] that the President took action based on these legal memorandum; but [c] despite the promise to correct the problems, White House counsel should have known that the actual program as implemented did not meet the FISA requirements and [d] the president’s planned review — outside FISA — did not meet the legal requirements under the statute.
These Comey revelations raise major questions about the veracity of court statements filed by formerly assigned White House counsel in re the AT&T litigation; and the motivation of formerly assigned DoJ Staff counsel to assert that an issue was privileged/secret, yet Comey has disclosed information showing the details of the very deliberations that were supposedly confidential. In short, the Comey revelations fatally disclose details of White House counsel conversations, legal memorandum, and other things that some formerly assigned White House counsel may wish the public believe cannot be discussed, disclosed.
Fatal to the White House counsel and DoJ Staff counsel position is the assertion that Rendition, FISA violations, and other alleged illegal activity cannot be discussed on the basis of privilege or secrecy; yet ORCON specifically prevents classification of this illegal activity. Formerly assigned White House counsel’s problem is two fold: They’ve asserted that issues of rendition, FISA violations, and illegal surveillance are classified — yet it appears the classification is not linked with a desire to protect secrecy, but with a desire to hide evidence that the legal counsel knew the program — as implemented — did not meet the legal requirements under FISA. Formerly assigned White House counsel and DOJS staff counsel cannot explain why — despite their apparent internal concerns that the program was not legal — that they continued, and have continued, to assert that the program is classified: It cannot be lawfully classified, hidden, or cloaked if it is illegal.
It appears all counsel linked with the White House and DOJ — on issues of rendition [use of NSA data to support kidnapping] and the FISA violations themselves — knew, or should have known that the legal arguments internally were not consistent with the public statements that the activity was not or was not legal.
It’s one thing for counsel to have asserted that the program was not legal, but be overruled. However, the other side of the coin: What do the lawyers have to say for the continued association with the program; what were they going to do once they were asked to defend the program in court; and how can they — despite the known rendition program — argue that they had no idea of the legal implications, yet they supposedly said the program was not legal?
May 16th, 2007 at 12:52 pmExley there was some uncerainty about to whom the MCA applies.
May 16th, 2007 at 12:53 pmBut do YOU care to explain why they stopped looking for Osama and Zawahiri?
#
It’s well known that the islamists are infiltrating peace groups, universities and other soft-on-terror target groups. If you’re not plotting to bomb someone, you’ve got nothing to fear.
Comment by BottomBoy — May 16, 2007 @ 12:48 pm
Sweet Jesus that was good for a laugh.
May 16th, 2007 at 12:53 pmIf the President say’s it’s ok, it’s ok.
Maybe to azzhole-licking Nazis like YOU it’s “OK”.
It’s NOT OK for REAL Americans.
See YOU in hell bottomboy (Gannon calls ME that), cause I’LL be THERE,
Mr. Bush
May 16th, 2007 at 12:54 pmMURDEROUS WAR CRIMINAL
COWARDLY TRAITOR TO THE USA (TM–BushCrimeCo, Inc)
BottomBoy,
Nixon all over again, and we know what a lunatic he was.
Nixon had John Lennon and his peace marches infiltrated, investigated and railroaded and in the end we discovered that the lunatic was Nixon not Lennon.
You have a pretty pathetic view of freedom in this country.
May 16th, 2007 at 12:55 pmNTB does Andrew Card outrank The Attorney General?
Exley, there is no theory. It’s protocol. There is ranking. a superior will not take direction from a subordinate unless that subordinate’s direct orders come from a higher authority.
No speculation there at all. As I also pointed out, the FOIA would easily clear this up. What are the odds of Executive Privledge being used to obstruct this.
May 16th, 2007 at 12:55 pmExley,
You are wrong,
`(1) UNLAWFUL ENEMY COMBATANT- (A) The term `unlawful enemy combatant’ means– a person who, before, on, or after the date of the enactment of the Military Commissions Act of 2006, has been determined to be an unlawful enemy combatant by a Combatant Status Review Tribunal or another competent tribunal established under the authority of the President or the Secretary of Defense.
There is no exception for American citizens
May 16th, 2007 at 12:55 pm#62. You are wrong, Exley. It applies to whomever Bush says it applies. At least that is what Bush and his inner circle believe.
May 16th, 2007 at 12:57 pmIt’s well known that the islamists are infiltrating peace groups, universities and other soft-on-terror target groups. If you’re not plotting to bomb someone, you’ve got nothing to fear.
Comment by BottomBoy
So according to BottomBoy, it is WELL KNOWN. Do you hear that folks? It is WELL KNOWN – from all the research BottomBoy did. I guess when it is acceptable in your circle of friends and associates to not require a shred of evidence, you can simply shout from the rooftops – BUT DON’T YOU SEE, IT IS WELL KNOWN. I guess that settles it then, huh?
May 16th, 2007 at 12:59 pm#64, Jeff, There is no uncertainty as to whom the MCA applies. It applies to “alien unlawful enemy combatants.” See Section 948c of the MCA. It expressly does not apply to U.S. citizens. See Section 948a of the MCA (Definition of “alien”).
As for the search for Bin Laden and Zawahiri, while I don’t believe they have “stopped” looking for them, I do agree in wishing we were making a stronger effort to find, capture or kill them.
May 16th, 2007 at 1:02 pm1. Maybe certain people here today would be satisfied if the headline read, “Bush may have personally intervened…”
2. Bush doesn’t give a damn about protecting us against terrorists and the time involved with tracking them down. This analysis proves it:
Bush has said that the electronic monitoring was limited to people with “known al Qaeda ties and/or affiliates.” Any domestic calls, the president said, would go through the secretive FISA court.
He has also said:
“We know that a two-minute phone conversation between somebody linked to al Qaeda here and an operative overseas could lead directly to the loss of thousands of lives,” Bush said. “To save American lives, we must be able to act fast and to detect these conversations so we can prevent new attacks.”
Hmmm. So if we have one terrorist operative in Los Angeles calling another one in Dallas to give the go-ahead for an attack…I believe this qualifies as a domestic call since it originates and ends in the U.S….Bush runs to the FISA court to get a warrant. He’s not concerned about acting fast and preventing attacks in this situation.
But he is when the conversation involves an international aspect.
Explain it to us, Patrick.
3. Patrick, the warrantless wiretapping program has been described, as above by Bush, and by Dan Bartlett and other administration officials, as a “targeted program.” You know…”known or suspected terrorists” and the like. I’d be careful if I were you when it came to trusting strangers with access to your personal phone calls. They can be trusted, you say? B.S. (Next time you write a check and give it to a stranger, or give a waiter your credit card to pay for a meal, or give your credit card number or checking account and routing number to someone, think about how much you really trust them. Because just like these people, the folks who make up our government, including NSA employees, are complete strangers).
As well, we all recall the NSA’s attempt at collecting the phone records of tens of millions of Americans, which would equate to trillions of phone calls, all in the name of “protecting us from a terror attack.” If this spy program is truly “targeted” then they don’t need to look at the records of tens of millions of Americans. Besides, Qwest asked for a warrant and the government just turned and walked away. So much for the NSA being interested in protecting us.
May 16th, 2007 at 1:03 pm#60 Incorrect. The Military Commissions Act does not apply to U.S. citizens.
Comment by Exley
Hmmm. I’m not sure about that Ex. This administration feels they can do pretty much anything they wish. That includes removing patriotic citizens from a public event (denver 3), knowing which meds we are taking, books we check out, phone calls we make/receive, travel plans, etc…Seems to me they act on their beliefs, then let everybody else explain to them why it was wrong in the first place. If W wants you behind bars – you will be put behind bars, regardless of your nationality or the evidence against you.
May 16th, 2007 at 1:05 pmWrong again, Exley.
“The text of the (Military Commission Act of 2006) states that its “Purpose” is to “establish procedures governing the use of military commissions to try alien unlawful enemy combatants engaged in hostilities against the United States for violations of the law of war and other offenses triable by military commission.”
While the most controversial provisions in the law refer to alien unlawful enemy combatants, earlier provisions (section 948a) refer to unlawful enemy combantants, not excluding U.S. citizens. Therefore, there is some controversy over whether this law affects the rights of habeas corpus for United States citizens.”
So, how does current U.S. law define “unlawful enemy combatant”?
“As of October 17, 2006, When President Bush signed the Military Commissions Act of 2006 into law, Title 10 of the U.S. Code was amended to include a definition of “unlawful enemy combatants” as follows:
“The term `unlawful enemy combatant’ means–
`(i) a person who has engaged in hostilities or who has purposefully and materially supported hostilities against the United States or its co-belligerents who is not a lawful enemy combatant (including a person who is part of the Taliban, al Qaeda, or associated forces); or
`(ii) a person who, before, on, or after the date of the enactment of the Military Commissions Act of 2006, has been determined to be an unlawful enemy combatant by a Combatant Status Review Tribunal or another competent tribunal established under the authority of the President or the Secretary of Defense.”
It doesn’t say “a person, except a U.S. citizen…”. And who determines whether a person is an unlawful enemy combatant? That would be W.
Once again, Exley, you’re wrong, wrong, wrong.
May 16th, 2007 at 1:06 pmWhat the hell is wrong with you libs? If you aren’t doing anything wrong you have nothing to hide!
I don’t mind if the government sees what books I check out, or who I talk to on the phone, or records my conversations, I have nothing to hide!
When the set up checkpoints on the highways, I may be inconvenienced, but I sure don’t have Osama in my trunk, or a bomb in the side panel, so if they need to take the side panel off to make sure.
And when they need to search my house, I have nothing to hide.
And when they have to strip search me and do a cavoty search on my little daughter, she has nothing to hide either.
Come on libs, what are a few civil liberties when lives are at stake? If we can save one American life by being inconvenienced it’s worth it.
Right ButtBoy???
You slimey puke trolls can all go f*ck yourselves.
May 16th, 2007 at 1:08 pmi know noone is surprised by this. folks this is a complete utter f. joke. and what makes this is worse is the fact they are all protected by the f. zionists running and owning this country. ain’t shit going to happen but a smack on the asss, and they enjoy that literrally.
May 16th, 2007 at 1:08 pmExley,
how do you explain Padilla, he is US citizen who has been held for what 4 years, and they are just now starting a trial. I don’t know that you are on 100% sure footing on this one.
May 16th, 2007 at 1:09 pmAs we learned on Tuesday, when it comes to pressuring the gravely ill, Gonzales and Gingrich share the same bedside manners. During his testimony Tuesday before the Senate Judiciary Committee, former Deputy Attorney General James Comey detailed then White House Counsel Gonzales’ hospital visit to browbeat the bedridden AG John Ashcroft.
In Newt’s case, though, the stricken person was his wife…
For the details, see:
May 16th, 2007 at 1:15 pm“The Bedside Manners of Alberto Gonzales and Newt Gingrich.”
Patrick,
I also remind you that not too long ago the Supreme Court authorized authorities to bust down your door and invade your home without first announcing their arrival or checking to see if someone was home. Let that happen to you at 3 am when you are sound asleep, or maybe having sex with your significant other, or just lying around in your Spiderman Underoos watching reruns of American Idol, and then come back here and tell us that you fully support their decision to ignore your privacy.
And before you spout off that the authorities must have a warrant, it doesn’t matter. They can bust the door down and then show the warrant later. Sure, you can file a lawsuit and perhaps collect some money out of it, but in the end your privacy is down the toilet.
May 16th, 2007 at 1:18 pmBottom Boy,
“If you’re not plotting to bomb someone, you’ve got nothing to fear.”
The Founders must be turning in their graves. As Alexander Hamilton – arguably the most conservative of the Founders – wrote in Federalist 84:
“The establishment of the writ of habeas corpus … are perhaps greater securities to liberty and republicanism than any it [the Constitution] contains. …[T]he practice of arbitrary imprisonments have been, in all ages, the favorite and most formidable instruments of tyranny. The observations of the judicious [British 18th century legal scholar] Blackstone, in reference to the latter, are well worthy of recital:”
“To bereave a man of life,’ says he, ‘or by violence to confiscate his estate, without accusation or trial, would be so gross and notorious an act of despotism, as must at once convey the alarm of tyranny throughout the whole nation; but confinement of the person, by secretly hurrying him to jail, where his sufferings are unknown or forgotten, is a less public, a less striking, and therefore A MORE DANGEROUS ENGINE of arbitrary government.”’ [Capitals all Hamilton's from the original.]
The question, ultimately, is whether our nation will continue to stand for the values upon which it was founded
Early American conservatives suggested that democracy was so ultimately weak it couldn’t withstand the assault of newspaper editors and citizens who spoke out against it, or terrorists from the Islamic Barbary Coast, leading John Adams to pass America’s first Military Commissions Act-like laws, the Alien and Sedition Acts of 1798. President Thomas Jefferson rebuked those who wanted America ruled by an iron-handed presidency that could – as Adams had – throw people in jail for “crimes” such as speaking political opinion, or without constitutional due process.
As Alexander Hamilton wrote in Federalist Number 8:
“The violent destruction of life and property incident to war; the continual effort and alarm attendant on a state of continual danger, will compel nations the most attached to liberty, to resort for repose and security to institutions which have a tendency to destroy their civil and political rights. To be more safe, they, at length, become willing to run the risk of being less free.”
May 16th, 2007 at 1:18 pmKrazny,
Padilla was not held under the MCA. He was classified as an enemy combatant not under the MCA (which was just enacted last year) but under the president’s constitutional authority as commander-in-chief, similar to FDRs declaration of an American citizen as an unlawful enemy combatant who was the subject of the Quirin decision. Padilla is no longer classified as an unlawful enemy combatant.
May 16th, 2007 at 1:19 pmEveryone serves FOR President Bush’s pleasure.
May 16th, 2007 at 1:24 pmBad Comey!
Bad, Bad Comey!
Exley,
are you ready to tell us you were wrong however about the MCA as it applies to US citizens?
May 16th, 2007 at 1:24 pm#69 and 74,
You are incorrect:
Sec. 948c. Persons subject to military commissions
`Any alien unlawful enemy combatant is subject to trial by military commission under this chapter.’
`(3) ALIEN- The term `alien’ means a person who is not a citizen of the United States.’
Thus, while a U.S. citizen may indeed be classified as an unlawful enemy combatant (See Ex Parte Quirin, 1042), such citizen is not subject to trial by military commission under the MCA,
May 16th, 2007 at 1:28 pmhttp://home.comcast.net/~thehillonline/quotes.htm
May 16th, 2007 at 1:29 pmWait a minute! Bush already threw an American citizen into prison indefinitely and tortured him just because Bush called him an unlawful enemy combatant?
May 16th, 2007 at 1:30 pmHas anyone told Exley, Exley?
What the hell is wrong with you libs? If you aren’t doing anything wrong you have nothing to hide!
Comment by nanlichi — May 16, 2007 @ 1:08 pm
And if Bush has done nothing wrong and has not listened in on the phone conversations of other politicians and has not tapped the phones of innocent Americans and if the warrantless wiretapping program is perfectly legal and can survive review by a court of law, even the Supreme Court, then HE has nothing to hide.
Yet I remind you that Bush personally blocked an investigation by the DOJ into his warrantless wiretapping program by refusing to give security clearance yet gave clearance to civilians, of all people, in an earlier DOJ investigation that looked into the leaking of the NSA program.
What’s he got to hide?
You may now proceed to go f*ck YOUR self.
May 16th, 2007 at 1:30 pmMia Culpa has James Comey’s testimony
May 16th, 2007 at 1:33 pmoops.
http://miaculpa.blogspot.com/search/label/Video
May 16th, 2007 at 1:34 pm#61
“#48: If you join something as stupid as a peace group, it’s your damned fault if you get wiretapped. When you deal with idiots, you get treated like an idiot.”
If it truly is, in your opinion, the government’s right and obligation to interfere with the “stupid,” than you better be watching your back. Anyone who defends party and president over country and Constitution is a threat to this democracy (not to mention a weak cretin who needs to be led by the nose because they can’t think for themselves). You are advocating throwing out Constitutional protections for groups that don’t have your ideology. Have you ever read the Constitution? It was designed to protect us from people like you.
May 16th, 2007 at 1:38 pmNoOneYouKnow and Crump’s Brother,
You are confused about the difference between who is subject to trials before a military commission pursuant to the MCA of 2006 and the question of whether U.S. citizens can be declared unlawful enemy combatants.
As I have already shown, the MCA subjects only alien unlawful enemy combatants to trials before a military commission.
The question of whether a U.S. citizen may be declared as unlawful enemy combatant is entirely a separate matter. The answer to that question has been answered over and over again by the Supreme Court and that answer is “yes,” most recently in Hamdi v. Rumsfeld:
“There is no bar to this Nation’s holding one of its own citizens as an enemy combatant. In Quirin, one of the detainees, Haupt, alleged that he was a naturalized United States citizen. We held that “[c]itizens who associate themselves with the military arm of the enemy government, and with its aid, guidance and direction enter this country bent on hostile acts, are enemy belligerents within the meaning of … the law of war.†While Haupt was tried for violations of the law of war, nothing in Quirin suggests that his citizenship would have precluded his mere detention for the duration of the relevant hostilities. Nor can we see any reason for drawing such a line here. A citizen, no less than an alien, can be “part of or supporting forces hostile to the United States or coalition partners†and “engaged in an armed conflict against the United States.” [citations omitted]
Thus, while a U.S. citizen may indeed be classified and held as an unlawful enemy combatant, such citizens may not be subject to trials before a military commission under the MCA of 2006.
Understood? Good.
May 16th, 2007 at 1:39 pm#83
Exley..
(c) Determination of Unlawful Enemy Combatant Status Dispositive- A finding, whether before, on, or after the date of the enactment of the Military Commissions Act of 2006, by a Combatant Status Review Tribunal or another competent tribunal established under the authority of the President or the Secretary of Defense that a person is an unlawful enemy combatant is dispositive for purposes of jurisdiction for trial by military commission under this chapter
No where does it state “alien” unlawful enemy combatant, and, more importantly, the status to which defines an unlawful enemy combatant is established by the President or SOD.
May 16th, 2007 at 1:39 pmNow, I’m no lawyer (and have no inclination to be one), but, to me, this is pretty clear in stating that anyone (citizen or alien) can become an unlawful enemy combatant, just by the pen of the President.
Exley,
I stand corrected.
thank you
May 16th, 2007 at 1:42 pmWC,
Please go back and read my entire post. Sometimes sarcasm is lost on the net. I am trying to point out to the f*cking idiot trolls how ridiculous the argument of “If you haven’t done anything wrong, you have nothing to hide”.
But I will accept your invitation as soon as I get home tonight and ply myself with a good bottle of wine and some mood music.
May 16th, 2007 at 1:42 pmDRxj,
You are right that an American Citizen canned be labeled an enemey combatant, but it is Alien Combatants that are subject to the MCA.
I still think it’s unnecessary.
May 16th, 2007 at 1:45 pm#92
No problem, Crump’s Brother. You’re welcome. It can be confusing.
May 16th, 2007 at 1:45 pmPadilla was not held under the MCA. He was classified as an enemy combatant not under the MCA (which was just enacted last year) but under the president’s constitutional authority as commander-in-chief, similar to FDRs declaration of an American citizen as an unlawful enemy combatant who was the subject of the Quirin decision.
Comment by Exley
Again with the Quirin decision? We both know that it was (and is) viewed as constitutionally shaky. The only reason you alluded to FDR is because no other president has since thought the law to be so well-grounded as to use it, including St. Ronny.
May 16th, 2007 at 1:47 pmNo problem, Crump’s Brother. You’re welcome. It can be confusing.
Comment by Exley
Ha, ha, ha, ha … It’s only confusing to the willfully ignorant. Like you.
May 16th, 2007 at 1:49 pmGreat review of this topic over at TPM.
May 16th, 2007 at 1:51 pmPardon, I should mention King George thinks other wise. Go figure . . .
May 16th, 2007 at 1:52 pmdispositive for purposes of jurisdiction
Okay, I’m having problems with this
does dispositive mean one can’t be tried, or can be?
and can someone besides a fantasy lawyer (m.a./ v.v.) answer?
May 16th, 2007 at 1:55 pmIt becomes more and more obvious that what we suspected for the past six years was so. We have a drunken AWOL chimpanzee running the country under the direction of a crook, KKKarl Rove, and another coward, Dick Cheney. It is imperative that we, the people, take our country back from this out of control group of thugs. Chimpeachment is the answer to this mis-guided administration.
May 16th, 2007 at 2:00 pmWatching the trolls in this board along with the falling poll numbers tells me who the idiots in the 28% are and it tells me that they are the dumbest America has to offer. 28%ers = Dumber than common road gravel.
May 16th, 2007 at 2:04 pm“Comey explained yesterday that, even after Ashcroft rebuked Gonzales and Card, Bush pushed forward and reauthorized the spying program without the Justice Department’s approval.”
This thread is NOT about the confusing nature of the MCA or the legal status of “enemy combatants.” This thread is about the lawlessness of the Bush administration. This thread is about the fact that Bush has no respect for the law or the constutition. But, nice try, Exley. I will admit that you have a talent for obfuscation.
May 16th, 2007 at 2:04 pmWhy did it take four years?
Because that’s how long it took for the Commander-In-Chief to tire of the duties…
“Prezdentin’s hard work…heheh…keeps me busy…heheh…got lots a brush to clear, gotta go…”
May 16th, 2007 at 2:11 pmdoes dispositive mean one can’t be tried, or can be?
Dispositive – involving or affecting disposition or settlement: a dispositive clue in a case of embezzlement.
So it would be, a “finding” (one that involves or affects disposition), whereby a person is an unlawful enemy combatant is [held to be] “dispositive” for purposes of jurisdiction for trial by military commission under this chapter.
“Dispositive” modifies “finding.” Or, a finding that actively decides the issue, one way or the other, to properly establish jurisdiction.
I think it means a test case, to establish jurisdictional issues?
May 16th, 2007 at 2:21 pmI think it means a test case, to establish jurisdictional issues?
Comment by barfly — May 16, 2007 @ 2:21 pm
Thank you. That’s kinda what I thought. And it appears to me that, yes, a United States citizen can be tried under the MCA of 2006:
established under the authority of the President or the Secretary of Defense that a person is an unlawful enemy combatant is dispositive for purposes of jurisdiction for trial by military commission
May 16th, 2007 at 2:28 pm“we both know that it was (and is) viewed as constitutionally shaky.”
Completely incorrect, Barfly. Quirin has been and continues to be cited by the courts, including the Supreme Court, as good law. It is cited with approval in Hamdan and Hamdi.
You really should read those opinions, Barfly.
May 16th, 2007 at 2:57 pmSo Exley,
May 16th, 2007 at 3:24 pmdoes your perceived silence on post #106 mean that you agree, it is possible for a United States citizen to be tried by military commission?
Quirin has been and continues to be cited by the courts, including the Supreme Court, as good law. It is cited with approval in Hamdan and Hamdi.
You really should read those opinions, Barfly.
Comment by Exley — May 16, 2007
As I amended, Bush is the only other one to use Quirin as justification.
Could you cite another instance (pre-Bush2, post-FDR) of an American president using Quirin as precedent?
Just one will do.
I’m sure during Vietnam there must have been a case that cited Quirin, right? We held thousands of prisoners during that war, so Quirin must have been cited, over and over again, correct?
May 16th, 2007 at 3:26 pm#108, DRxJ,
I am really not sure how often I can repeat this and what additional documentation I can provide. The MCA expressly states that only alien unlawful enemy combatants are subject to military commission trials under that chapter.
May 16th, 2007 at 3:59 pmSince Exley is curiously reluctant to provide an example citing Quirin, I’ll let the cat out of his bag: there hasn’t ever been a prosecution using Quirin as precedent, other than Bush’s using it post 9/11.
Not one.
May 16th, 2007 at 4:10 pmAgain Exley, I am not a lawyer, nor pretend to be one, but provision 948 (a) clearly states “alien” unlawful enemy combatant, yet provision 948 (c) omits the “alien” from it’s wording, to which a tribunal can determine a status dispositive.
To me, that ommission is open for anyone, not just “aliens”
I’d gladly discuss this later, but alas, now a steady fax of prescriptions are upon me.
Ciao
May 16th, 2007 at 4:33 pmJohnson v. Eisentrager (1950)
“And we have held in the Quirin and Yamashita cases, that the Military Commission is a lawful tribunal to adjudge enemy offenses against the laws of war.”
May 16th, 2007 at 4:35 pmAS AN IMMIGRANT TO THIS COUNTRY, I HAVE ALWAYS ADMIRED THE GENIUS OF AMERICA’S CONSTITUTION FOR ITS CHECKS AND BALANCES SYSTEM. POWER CORRUPTS NATURALLY; AND THE FOUNDING FATHERS OF THIS COUNTRY CLEARLY UNDERSTOOD THAT AND WENT OUT OF THEIR WAY TO PREVENT THIS. W BUSH BRINGS SHAME TO THIS COUNTRY; THE SAME FOUNDING FATHERS WOULD TURN OVER IN THEIR GRAVES IF THEY SEE WHAT IS GOING ON RIGHT NOW IN THIS ADMINISTRATION.
May 16th, 2007 at 4:47 pm“[S]urely since Ex Parte Quirin…there can be no doubt of the constitutional and legislative power of the president, as Commander in Chief of the armed forces, to invoke the law of war by appropriate proclamation; to define within constitutional limitations the various offenses against the law of war; and to establish military commissions with jurisdiction to try all persons charged with defined limitations.” Colepaugh v. Looney, 235 F.2d 429 (1956)
Barfly is incorrect that Quirin has not been cited anytime between FDR and Bush II. I have now provided two such cases.
May 16th, 2007 at 5:05 pmMadsen v. KinsellaA, 343 U.S. 341 (1952) is yet another Supreme Court case that cited Quirin in finding that the president has the inherent authority to establish military commissions.
May 16th, 2007 at 5:48 pmI’m not one of the gun freaks but I can think of a few of these clowns who could stand to be “kneecapped”
May 16th, 2007 at 6:19 pm>Nice selective (and dishonest) editing of a quote, TP.
Yes Exley, selective + dishonest indeed.
Pot. Kettle. Nice selective (and dishonest) editing of intelligence to support the invasion of Iraq. Once again exley, you nitpick and fuss about every
detail of articles on a liberal BLOG yet dont seem to hold the people you support to those same standards when it comes to starting WARS. Its a question of magnitude, something you dont seem to grasp. Somehow, in your mind, liberals who use vaugely missleading headlines in thier blogs have no right to criticize people who go to war based on grossly misleading (to the point of falsity, I would argue) intelligence.
Personally, I say fight fire with fire. Tell you what, when your side stops manipulating and twisting words and trying to hide and redact documents and stops experiencing grossly selective memory loss, we’ll start having some sympathy for your nitpicking. Your like someone rooting for a guy who pulls out a gun during a boxing match, who then complains because his opponent later pulls out a knife. Once you get some people in office who start playing fair, we will too.….
Exley, while I congratulate you on having a functioning central nervous system, which is something most of your fellow flaghumpers here lack, I really suggest you get some sort of hobby that doesnt revolve around being a nitpicking, absurdly literal apologist for DUmbya. Fact is, it doesnt matter whether some certain law allows for the indefinite detention of american citizens or not. Bush is going to make some crap up and do it anyway, just like he did with Padilla. Bush has been asked point blank “do you think theres anything the president can’t do if he thinks its necessary” and he didnt have an answer. The implication: “a president can do whatever he wants as long as this secret war which has no cognizable end is going on”
By the way, the only reason Padilla ISNT currently being held as an enemy combatant is because the administrations plan to get Supreme Court precedent on thier side regarding the issue of indefinite detention of American citizens backfired on them in Hamdi. Padilla was a handpicked test case, something the government has a unique ability to do for criminal statutes. He was supposed to be an anti-rosa parks… the sleazy, scary looking guy with a sordid murderous history whose alleged “facts” and “background” would pave the way for precedent that allowed decidedly less scary (and non-violent) american troublemakers to be jailed.
But thank heavens, it didnt work, the judicial branch actually called them out on this BS, so theres no reason you should be using Padillas’ current lack of “enemy combatant” status as an argument for ANYTHING your asserting. If it was up to the bush administration, he’d still be held without trial and there would be supreme court precedent justifying not only that detention, but also any future detention of ANY american citizen based on the word of the allegedly infallible fact finder known as the president.
> You have lost the right to plot with people to commit mass murder.
ok Patrick, I’m going to go out on a limb here. Now I know in your mind this administration is the pinnacle of honestly and forthrightness, but you dont think, somewhere down the line, that perphaps some president less moral than this one will come along and use his powers to spy on non-violent political opponents? Its never been done before, has it?
> If you’re not plotting to bomb someone, you’ve got nothing to fear.
Right, Martin Luther King Jr had nothing to fear right? Except that domestic surveillence of his extramarital affair would be used to blackmail and embarass him…
http://www.globalpolicy.org/empire/terrorwar/liberties/2006/0228domesticspying.htm
“FBI agents even went so far as to send King a letter, complete with audiotapes of an alleged extramarital affair taken from a bugged hotel room, suggesting that he kill himself in order to avoid public embarrassment. In light of Congressional investigations that uncovered an FBI plan to promote somebody “to assume the role of leadership of the Negro people when King has been completely discredited,†one must wonder how much the bureau’s impatience with King’s continued popularity might have contributed to his untimely death. The man responsible for “neutralizing†King summed up his experience: “No holds were barred. We have used (similar) techniques against Soviet agents. (The same methods were) brought home against any organization against which we were targeted. We did not differentiate. This is a rough, tough business.†”
This whole “war on terror” thing will never end, theres no way you can prevent more terrorists from being created, there is no possible way you can be 100 sure nothing like 9-11 will never happen again. Never. This is crap straight from Orwell, and heres me and all us lefties giving the finger to all you double plus good m@therfucking reichstag brownshirts who want to surrender our privacy just because some brown people might, maybe, possibly be plotting against you somewhere. 9-11 was the best thing that ever happened to you and the people you support. frankly, 3000 isnt that many people compared to the yearly death toll in america, and i am horribly frightened that someday, some other fascists will come to power and “accidentally” let another attack slip by on their watch, making things like Patriot II a reality. I used to think things like 1984 were fantasy, but the past 7 years has sadly shown it is not.
May 17th, 2007 at 1:26 amWC,
Please go back and read my entire post. Sometimes sarcasm is lost on the net. I am trying to point out to the f*cking idiot trolls how ridiculous the argument of “If you haven’t done anything wrong, you have nothing to hideâ€.
Comment by nanlichi — May 16, 2007 @ 1:42 pm
My apologies. I neglected to read the last sentence in your original post.
May 17th, 2007 at 11:35 amDuh!!! All that has to be done is to ask Mrs. Ashcroft if Shrub called her to let Gonzo and ol’ Card in.
May 17th, 2007 at 2:47 pm#75, nanlichi says: “If you aren’t doing anything wrong you have nothing to hide!” That standard should be applied to Gonzo, Rove et all in the stonewalling and concealment of evidence relevant to the DOJ scandal. If THEY have nothing to hide, then why withold emails, why lie, why deny, WHY!? Blowing off a subpoena is illegal. “If you aren’t doing anything wrong you have nothing to hide!” This has nothing to do with national security and everything to do with Congress’ DUTY of oversight. What are THEY hiding?
You also said: “Come on libs, what are a few civil liberties when lives are at stake? If we can save one American life by being inconvenienced it’s worth it.” Ben Frankiln said “Those who would sacrifice a little essential liberty for a little temporary security deserve neither. My god, what ever happened to “Give me liberty of give me death!” Has the land of the free and the home of the brave become the “country of cowards??!!”
My God, nanlichi, you would rather live in a dictatorship than bravely face the inherent risks of freedom. Not me! Not my country!
May 19th, 2007 at 2:19 pmMy apologies to nanlichi, I too misinterpreted your post. In your effort to speak “troll”, you sounded just like one. I agree that:
You slimey puke trolls can all go f*ck yourselves.
May 19th, 2007 at 2:24 pmThank you, ACLU, Democracy for America, True Majority, Common Cause, et al, for defending our country and its sacred Constitution from fascist terrorists like Patrick1.
Patrick, you don’t mind giving up a few rights? Good. Each of us, including you (when you were still an American) assumes the right to “Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.” Glad to know you’re willing to sacrifice. I get to pick which one of yours I’ll eliminate.
Move to Russia while you still can you worthless little toady.
June 8th, 2007 at 2:28 pm