Here it is.

691 Views 19 Replies 9 Participants Last post by Els' 3 Ones, Jun 21, 2004

chicagomom

Discussion Starter · Jun 9, 2004

This is the one. I knew they would try to pull something like this the moment they saw the country's attention was focused on Reagan.

The usurpation of the Constitution by the executive branch.

Quote:

KENNEDY: I'm asking you whether this is -- these are -- there are three memoranda, January 9, 2002, signed by John Yo (ph), the August 2002 Justice Department, the (inaudible) amendment memo and the March 2000 -- the interagency working group. Those are three memoranda. Will you provide those to the committee?

ASHCROFT: No, I will not.

KENNEDY: On what basis? Under what basis?

ASHCROFT: On the basis that the long-standing established reasons for providing opinions provided to the executive branch...

KENNEDY: General, the executive privilege is not a legitimate basis of withholding memoranda from this committee. This Congress is investigating the prisoners' abuse that have occurred. Immense importance -- we have specific need of the documents that have allowed these abuses to occur.

The memoranda issued did not involve confidential communications between the Justice Department and the president, but instead legal advice that was widely distributed throughout the executive branch.

Worth a read, if a bit long.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...-2004Jun8.html

1 - 20 of 20 Posts

chicagomom

Discussion Starter · #2 · Jun 9, 2004

Quote:

The Wall Street Journal's revelation of White House counsels' memoranda permitting what most people would consider torture-- on the basis of the president's position as commander in chief in wartime-- is among the most chilling things we have seen from a Bush administration not lacking in chills for civil libertarians. It seems clear from the anger expressed by senators like Joe Biden in the hearings addressed by Attorney General John Ashcroft on Tuesday that they now suspect Bush himself authorized the Abu Ghuraib torture routines. And, they are helpless to do anything about it.

From Juan Cole. http://www.juancole.com/

Here's the '03 torture memo originally discussed in the WSJ article and elsewhere. Wonder if they'll be able to compel Ashcroft et al to produce the three memos the Judiciary Committee wanted.

http://online.wsj.com/public/resourc...itary_0604.pdf

See less See more

Els' 3 Ones

· #3 · Jun 9, 2004

I hoe Asscroft is found in contempt of Congress...............

Bush would then have to cut him loose.

Maybe he and Cheney will be off the ticket?

librarymom

· #4 · Jun 9, 2004

Quote:

Originally Posted by Els' 3 Ones
I hoe Asscroft is found in contempt of Congress...............

Bush would then have to cut him loose.

Maybe he and Cheney will be off the ticket?

Maybe prayers do get answered.

See less See more

chicagomom

Discussion Starter · #5 · Jun 10, 2004

Ain't talkin about him. Bush's explicit or implicit approval (by knowing about it) of their attempt to redefine torture down is an impeachable offense. That's why Ashcroft doesn't want to release the memos.

Even talking about it (in memos) without 'doing it' is conspiracy to subvert the law by using executive priveledge to 'redefine' torture, an offense that can be prosecuted criminally (against the President). The executive branch is not the one that interprets and defines the law (though Bush mistakenly once said it was). If Bush ordered this legal exploration, this fishing expedition to 'redefine' torture, or even knew of it without explicitly opposing the legal memo released today, he could face criminal prosecution, and impeachment. He could face prosecution even if he isn't re-elected.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...-2004Jun8.html
http://www.buzzflash.com/contributor.../con04260.html

See less See more

sohj

· #6 · Jun 10, 2004

This was on the front page of the NY Times yesterday. Definately AFTER the Washington Post broke the story...but I was happy to see that the times gave almost as much space to this as to the reagasm.

librarymom

· #7 · Jun 10, 2004

WHERE IS THE SPECIAL COUNSEL ON THIS?????????????????????

See less See more

8

RowansDad

· #8 · Jun 10, 2004

Quote:

Originally Posted by sohj
This was on the front page of the NY Times yesterday. Definately AFTER the Washington Post broke the story...but I was happy to see that the times gave almost as much space to this as to the reagasm.

I believe it was the Wall Street Journal that actually broke this story:

"This week, The Wall Street Journal broke the story of a classified legal brief prepared for Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld in March 2003 after Guantánamo Bay interrogators complained that they were not getting enough information from terror suspects. The brief cynically suggested that because the president is protecting national security, any ban on torture, even an American law, could not be applied to "interrogation undertaken pursuant to his commander-in-chief authority." Neil A. Lewis and Eric Schmitt reported yesterday in The Times that the document had grown out of a January 2002 Justice Department memo explaining why the Geneva Conventions and American laws against torture did not apply to suspected terrorists."

From NYTimes editorial: http://www.commondreams.org/views04/0609-04.htm

See less See more

grnbn76

· #9 · Jun 10, 2004

Did anyone else notice that during Ashcroft's testimony, he very clearly stated that Bush didn't "direct" or "authorize" the torture of inmates, but cleverly left out the fact that he could have (probably did) ALLOW it?

It just smacks of my children to me...
Mom never specifically said we *couldn't* blow spit balls....

Sorry, it just kept jumping out at me.

chicagomom

Discussion Starter · #10 · Jun 10, 2004

Quote:

AMY GOODMAN: If the memo says that the President can claim to be able to ignore laws regarding torture on the grounds of national security, what other laws could he ignore?

MICHAEL RATNER: Well, it actually goes farther than that. It says that the President is exempt from all criminal laws in the United States with regard to when he has the Commander of Chief power fighting a war. In other words, he's exempt from all law. The example of what happened to Troy is not outside here. That's what he's saying. He's saying in a war I can do anything. In the war, there's no Geneva convention and there's no convention against torture and there's no law there at all. I can pick you up tomorrow and put you in the brig, torture you and do whatever I want and it can be justified in the name of national security.

http://www.democracynow.org/article....=25#transcript

Michael Froomkin's excellent synopsis of the recently released (really long) memo:
http://www.discourse.net/archives/20...ture_memo.html

See less See more

RowansDad

· #11 · Jun 10, 2004

Soldier Described White House Interest
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp...nguage=printer

"The reference by Jordan to a White House link with the military's scandal-plagued intelligence-gathering effort at the prison was not explored further by Taguba, whose primary goal at that time was to assess the scope of prisoner abuse at Abu Ghraib. The White House was unable to provide an immediate explanation."

I'm sure they're working on some response, in between edits for Bush's eulogy for Reagan.

librarymom

· #12 · Jun 10, 2004

Quote:

Originally Posted by chicagomom
http://www.democracynow.org/article....=25#transcript

Michael Froomkin's excellent synopsis of the recently released (really long) memo:
http://www.discourse.net/archives/20...ture_memo.html

Does this not scare anyone?? A thought that has been at the back of my mind since '03 is...can he deny/cancel the election? (I'm sure it will be to protect our freedom.) I just can't push the thought away in light of these revelations of him being above and beyond the law.

Isn't there historical precedence for Presidential limits during war?? There have been enough of them.

This just makes me...

:

See less See more

2

Plady

· #13 · Jun 10, 2004

Quote:

Originally Posted by librarymom
WHERE IS THE SPECIAL COUNSEL ON THIS?????????????????????

These days you can only get one of those if it involves real estate deals or blow jobs.

See less See more

8

chicagomom

Discussion Starter · #14 · Jun 19, 2004

The Senate Judiciary Committee has refused, for now, to subpoena the Justice Department memos that Ashcroft refused to give to them. They voted on party lines, 9-10 Dems-Repubs.

Orrin Hatch seemed to be saying let's not do it this way right off the bat (compel the memos). Let's give the administration a chance to give them up voluntarily.

Quote:

Hatch said he had talked with the White House and it was amenable to trying to reach a compromise. Hatch said that if this did not happen, he and other Republicans may favor a limited subpoena.

The administration's argument for not turning them over is that they don't want interrogation techniques revealed because terrorists might then train specifically to resist such techniques.

John Warner (R VA) of the SJC is also head of the Armed Services Committee, and has seen at least some of the memos in question. He said he would "work with Hatch" on the matter.

See less See more

pilesoflaundry

· #15 · Jun 19, 2004

I hope the sob gets impeached but no such luck! I'm a bit worried he will cancel the election or do something else to keep his power. If he does I'm telling dh to ask for overseas orders until the idiot is out of office.

chicagomom

Discussion Starter · #16 · Jun 21, 2004

Can I just brag about my Senator for a moment? I'm so happy to have Durbin as my Senator - he's one of the guys really standing up against this. Last Wednesday, he sponsored an amendment to the defense spending bill which specifies the US "shall not engage in torture or cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment ... a standard that is embodied in the US Constitution and in numerous international agreements which the United States has ratified."

The measure has passed, and a similar measure was introduced in the House in response to Durbin's lead. He has been one of the most vocal critics of this whole torturegate business.

"In the age of terrorism, we may be tempted by the notion that torture is justified. Our enemies certainly do not respect any rules in their relentless quest to kill Americans," Durbin said. "But this nation's commitment to principle, even during difficult times, is what distinguishes us from the terrorists we fight."

http://www.taipeitimes.com/News/worl.../18/2003175539

See less See more

RachelGS

· #17 · Jun 21, 2004

Quote:

"In the age of terrorism, we may be tempted by the notion that torture is justified. Our enemies certainly do not respect any rules in their relentless quest to kill Americans," Durbin said. "But this nation's commitment to principle, even during difficult times, is what distinguishes us from the terrorists we fight."

That is so well-said.

See less See more

6

Els' 3 Ones

· #18 · Jun 21, 2004

I have actually been proud of Durbin a few times the past two years................and that is saying something bcuz I hate them all!!!!!

If HE were picked for VP, I might actually be able to get behind Kerry.

But,,,,,,,,that's just wishfull thinking, I know.

chicagomom

Discussion Starter · #19 · Jun 21, 2004

If you like Durbin, wait till you see Obama!

I love this story:

Quote:

Jan Schakowsky told me about a recent visit she had made to the White House with a congressional delegation. On her way out, she said, President Bush noticed her "obama" button. "He jumped back, almost literally," she said. "And I knew what he was thinking. So I reassured him it was Obama, with a 'b.' And I explained who he was. The President said, 'Well, I don't know him.' So I just said, 'You will.'"

http://www.newyorker.com/fact/content/?040531fa_fact1

See less See more

Els' 3 Ones

· #20 · Jun 21, 2004

I like Schakowsky too!

Glad Obama got the nomination............tho I voted for Chico. Looking at the 3rd parties now for November..................

Not impressed with Blago tho.................imo, he is as slimey as they come.

Sorry to be

T

See less See more

1 - 20 of 20 Posts

This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.