Did Bush Lie to Vaughn Walker?
Yesterday, after the 9th Circuit refused the Obama/Dead-Ender appeal in al-Haramain case, the Obama Administration filed two documents to try to minimize the damage of Judge Walker’s presumably imminent review of whether or not George Bush broke the law when it wire-tapped al-Haramain’s lawyers. I discussed this filing, which warned Walker that they intend to fight his efforts to make information available so al-Haramain’s lawyers can litigate the suit, here.
Sometime after the Obama Administration posted that filing yesterday, they posted this one, which mostly fulfills an order Judge Walker gave them on January 5 to determine whether any of the materials entered in the case thus far could be declassified.
The Government hereby reports, as set forth in the attached public declarations, that the classified information at issue in this case remains classified and is not subject to declassification under Executive Order (“E.O.”) 12,958, 60 Fed. Reg. 19,825 (Apr. 17, 1995), as amended by E. O. 13,292, 68 Fed. Reg. 15,315 (Mar. 25, 2003).
Not to be picky, but they missed the 45-day deadline Walker gave them by 8 days.
That news from the filing–that they maintain this information is still classified–is not surprising.
But this is:
The Government’s ex parte, in camera classified submissions also address an inaccuracy contained in a prior submission by the Government, the details of which involve classified information that cannot be set forth on the public record.
Given that Obama has not yet submitted classified information in this case, this almost certainly means that the Bush Administration submitted "inaccurate" information in one of its past representations to Walker.
Or, to put it another way, now that Walker is going to look at the wiretap log from al-Haramain and assess whether or not the wiretapping was legal, the Obama Administration is changing the record in some meaningful way.
Obviously, we don’t get to know what Bush either lied or hid, but here are three possibilities:
- Bush withheld something (to use WO’s speculation, perhaps something like proof that they not only wiretapped al-Haramain’s lawyers’ conversations with al-Haramain, but that they also wiretapped the lawyers’ conversations with others?) and it is now being advanced as an "inaccuracy"
- Obama is introducing something new (perhaps some evidence that might go further to support an otherwise nonexistent probable cause determination) in an effort to limit the damage of the impending Walker review
- Bush had not yet admitted one of his rationales for legality before (perhaps, for example, he was hiding the OLC opinion that eviscerated the 4th Amendment out of embarrassment?) and they’re adding it now to minimize the possibility that Walker will rule the wiretapping illegal
All of these utterly speculative possibilities, of course–as well as some more I can think of–are ones that would mean Obama was trying to cover-up Bush’s earlier efforts to pull a fast one over on Vaughn Walker. Sure, maybe this "inaccuracy" was something totally innocuous. Just as likely, though, Bush was lying to the Judge.
Yes. In a word.
So, the question comes to my mind: Why is Obama sullying himself with this? What’s keeping him from taking the moral high ground?
ditto
Don’t the words “Chicago Politics” imply, among other things, the proverbial “back scratching”, along the lines of “do it, or else……”?
And if that’s the name of the game, the MORE YOU KNOW, well, ya’know……….
I look at it like “gathering ammo”, for future use.
anyway, i would HOPE that’s what it is. I understand that’s “audacious” these days.
“Inaccuracy” is a blindingly useful term. It is correct without disclosing anything further, such as the meaning of the incorrectness. That could be anything from an inadvertent omission to obstruction to perjury to murder. As an umbrella term, it covers a multitude of sins without admitting to one’s confessor what they are.
A phrase Winston Churchill came up with to meet similar political needs was, “terminological inexactitude”. When a painfully direct and articulate speaker like Churchill dreams up one like that, you know it’s to hide painful secrets. In Churchill’s case, he came up with it in 1906 to avoid describing the English colonial use of Chinese labor in South Africa as “slavery”. So it is right to wonder what secrets team Obama is hiding by describing the flawed court submissions of his predecessor with the term, “inaccuracy”.
It really could go in so many different ways.
“We have recently come to learn that the previous administration willfully kept materials from the attorneys representing the government in this case, which has only now been provided to them. From the attached memos and emails, it would appear that this was a deliberate action to keep this information from the court on the part of . . .”
Or
“We found this additional log of wiretaps we should have mentioned earlier. . . .”
Or
“We misspelled the names of three people in that log of warrantless wiretapping subjects. The correct spellings are . . .”
It could be anything from discovery of obstruction of justice to typos.
Whatever it is, though, no attorney likes to admit that they screwed up earlier filings, because it forces the judge to decide whether to treat them as idiots or crooks.
Yes, and Vaughn Walker was so fond of them and their positions prior to this…..
Especially in teh current situation, where Walker’s already convinced they’re crooks. He was hoping Obama wasn’t, but I think he’s changed his mind.
Thank you, Marcy. Wasn’t it yesterday that Obama made his ‘courtesy call’ to GWB about his plans for exiting Iraq? Or was that the cover for other matters they discussed? (like the subject of your article).
For me, Obama and Holder are at the crossroads in this; one road leads to truth, real justice, and transparency and the other leads to more of the same lies and cover-up of Bush/Cheney.
I try to hope that Obama and Holder will take the good road that will show us real change.
He did??? Do you have a link to that?
Here’s another link:
http://www.ndtv.com/convergenc…..52:00%20PM
The courtesy call was on the evening news. I’ll try for a link.
It was widely reported by all major news
Marcy (and all), does it make sense to any of you that Obama would call Bush before announcing his new plans to exit Iraq? W, the guy who screwed it up from the first lie with which he tried to justify said war???
Suspicious old crone that I am, I’m going with the cover for discussing the hot water these court cases have Obama in over the courts’ right to classified info.
“…Obama made his ‘courtesy call’ to GWB…”
I don’t remember reading about that. Linky?
I’d like to think that you’re right about other items on the agenda. Like, maybe
“Mr. President, you remember those assurances I gave you about not prosecuting you? We’ve got a problem with that now that can’t be avoided.”
Dum de dum dum… dum de dum dum DUM!
(I think I’m trying to channel that old Dragnet sound bite)
Bob in HI
links given by others at #7 and #10 (thanks, 7 and 10)
Nice job channelling it, too! (my name is … not Joe Friday, anyway.)
I really hope that someone can get the WH turned around and pointed in the direction of a legal exit from this mess, instead of the way deeper into the swamp of illegal surveillance.
Another possibility is that they are scapegoating Bush in order to change the reasoning now.
obama bush call: http://voices.washingtonpost.c…..ll_to.html
Very fascinating, manys and acquarius. THanks.
Thanks, manys. Now I don’t have to search.
In a theory perspective, I found interesting and distantly relevant to the current “Government Defendants’ Report on Declassification Review” and its attached two declarations, a go slow viewpoint addressing ways of dissolution of Patriot strongExecutive-in-times–of-a-pickle prescriptions, in a recent paper by academics Fionnuala Ni Aolain, and Oren Gross, “A Skeptical View of Deference to the Executive in Times of Crisis”. On the tech side, it was noteworthy scanning the ‘ReportOnDeclassification’ download document, that Acrobat recognizes text only in the 2pp Report proper yet not in the 10pp of the two appended declarations.
To Walker and to many other courts – but it isn’t “Bush” It is Bush and the lawyers making the filings.
This gets to the issue that I think has been so prevalent in so many of the scandals and yet gets kind of short shrift in most discussions, where the sexier elements like torture and massive FISA felonies take the limelight.
Every lawyer working for the Executive branch and in particular every lawyer working for the Department of Justice has an affirmative duty to not mislead the tribunal and another one to correct the record.
In one of the extremely rare instances of anyone in DOJ following any baseline professional standards, Daniel Levin actually did what he was supposed to when he appeared before Congress and during that same hearing was exposed to tribunal fibbing on how many times waterboarding had been used. He entered a statement into the record that Congress had just been punk’d.
I realize that Judge after Judge after Judge after Judge has given DOJ and its luminaries such as Goldsmith, Yoo, Ashcroft, Gonzales, Bybee etc. a bye on this, but the lawyer’s duty attaches and remains when they have knowledge, even I believe after they leave DOJ. For all the wingflapping over whether or not Berkley should dump Yoo bc he wrote crappy opinions (they should imo) and the first amendment and diverstiy defenses for him offered up, no one questions why and how he allowed Clement to make representations that the US does not torture and does not do things like torture to the Sup Ct without doing what Levin did – filing a statement with the court to correct that record.
Where were Yoo, Goldsmith, et al when courts were ordering DOJ to preserve records on detainee abuse and DOJ was blissfully going along with the destruction of those records and never advising the courts? This goes to something beyond how bad an opinion may or may not be and it is something that Harvard and Berkley should be appalled to be associated with – professors who had knowledge of their client’s misrepresentations to the court and of covered up violations of court orders and destruction of evidence and sat mum.
Take a look at the Coleman case and how fast co-counsel threw other counsel under the bus when it came to the cover up of a witness and, more imporatantly even, the misreps made about that witness.
Somethings get drilled into you at a decent institution of legal instruction – one of which is that you don’t lie to the court and if someone on your team does, you have to fess up and take your lics. Apparently, that’s been foreign concept in DOJ to the extent that they thought they could get by with the lies – – – it really ties right in with Goldsmith’s theory of international law, which is basically that you (a nation state) can do anything you are big enough to get by with doing.
But that’s not how it works in the real world and for most lawyers. While Holder et al might be willing to own Bush’s immoral, unconstitutional and just plain bad arguments, I don’t think they want to own the misrepresentations to the court that have been going on, esp if the courts are going to start asserting themselves again. It’s one thing to make crappy arguments, it’s another thing to have a judge refer you for bar discipline.
Great info, Mary. In re your comments about Yoo and others still being retained at their universities, there is an excellent set of videos at http:www.afterdowningstreet.org/node/36369 in which Phillipe Sandes addresses that very question.
Phillipe Sandes has zero use for Yoo, but he states that Yoo has not been prosecuted or convicted of a crime, therefore under Calif. law, he as a tenured prof cannot be terminated.
IANAL….These panels were videos of a Justice Robert H Jackson Conference held (I think) about last Sept/2008. At the link, scroll down to the picture of Phillipe Sandes for this particular subject matter.
Trying for the link at my 21 again
Robert H. Jackson Conference 09/2008, Phillipe Sandes
Again trying for link at my # 21 (copied and pasted)
Scroll down to all the small pics and click on man in pink shirt behind podium. (Chris Pyle)
Walker seems bent on holding DoJ attorneys and the Administrations feet to the fire on their legal parsing. Too bad there aren’t a lot of Judges out there setting sanctions against the sharp practices of the Executive Branch. Maybe a trend will develop from the Ted Stevens case. We can only hope since citizen participation in our Government is as powerless observers.
What Mary said.
I raised the idea of the government’s sealed filing having something seriously wrong with it several weeks ago, per response #37 on Jan 24: http://tinyurl.com/cxuvpx & response #23 on Feb 5: http://tinyurl.com/ck2d2h.
Also, I want to repeat a previous caution about & against attributing the bad faith conduct of the dead-enders here 1:1 to Obama [though Holder I’m less confident about]. The government crew assigned this case was, and remains, from the cream on top of the Bush DOJ anti-terrorism office. My personal experience with transition is that incoming masters only get informed what the outgoing masters choose to let them know about, and even freshly-arrived set of masters generally are only offered briefings at most — unless & until they command more. The activity on this case over recent weeks, particularly this last week, is completely consistent with that experience. What happened yesterday is precisely of the sort that tends to attracts far more interest from the new masters.
These late filings reek of the ground crew scrambling to cover up that which they’ve been covering up.
I realize Obama’s had his plate full, but where’s the upside in not tending immediately to these matters; i.e. clear renunciations and reversals of DOJ stance? Not just the obstructions (”inaccuracies”) of the courts, but the defense of classification as a means defending a unitary executive.
You’ve partly answered your own question: he’s had a lot on his plate. Otherwise: [1] Obama’s a constitutional lawyer, but this stuff is nowhere near his sphere of chosen interest, the classes he taught over the decade at U of Chicago being largely in electoral rights, so I very much doubt he himself would have been motivated to raise this case during the transition period; [2] Holder was caught up in confirmation until about 20 days ago, from which point this case would have been his baby; [3] bmaz convinced me to have doubts about Holder, who seems more of an establishment power player than the sort of reformative rule-of-law type to take this case on; [4] again: this behavior by the government crew on the ground smacks of desperation made up at least in part of the pressure of soon being caught out.
In sum, contrary to what some here have said, I have not thought, nor do I think now, that the “Obama” position on this case since Jan 20 can be attributed to some grand philosophical commitment to carrying on Bushie positions.
Just inertia, then?
just a humble, heartfelt thanks to all who share their knowledge, experience, wisdom and intelligent opinions, especially regarding the Bush administration’s efforts at imperialism.
having held out hope that the new administration was just going through the motions in order to — eventually — assist in proving Bush-and-Company’s illegal activities (and being corrected on that score), I’m sort-of relieved to read LabDancer’s #18.
again, thanks from one who’s passionate about freedom and justice, yet ignorant of points of law.
18 – I just don’t buy that on Obama being unable to set policy and make his dept toe the line. Classified briefings or not, there is a gazilliet already in the public record and discourse about all these FISA and torture cases. He’s been gettig FISA briefings and updates since at least his time as a Senator being lobbied to vote for the amendments and it’s not like Russ Feingold isn’t an asset available to him – he knew how to go to Feingold when he needed him in the WI primary.
And unless I remember wrong (which I might) the “gov crew” on this case has invovled outside counsel too hasn’t it? In any event, this isn’t so hard or difficult. All Obama has to do, and what he has never done as a candidate or as President, is simply say, “no Executive branch illegal activity is eligible for treatment as classification and courts are allowed to make the ultimate interpretation of whether or not activity is or was illegal” Not a tough policy statement to make and one that is already reflected in existing EOs and existing law.
All I can say is that I called Obama’s vote on FISA, not from prescience but because I was paying attention to what he was actually saying and whiffling and what he was not saying. I called the “stay the course” on torture and massive FISA felonies for the same reason.
Obama knows how to get slow downs on cases, he knows how to demand briefings and he knows the intrinsic signficance of the issues before the courts in these cases where he has finger steepled. It’s like all the excuses on Binyam Mohamed case when his WH is sending out thank you notes to the Brits for the cover up.
These things aren’t that difficult (of course, they’d be even less difficult if the press would actually ask the questions – like asking Gibbs or Obama “If there were evidence that the US government had about abuse of Binyam Mohamed after he was first taken into US custody, whether it includes razoring genitals or some other abuse, are you willing to have that information released and to direct the UK High Court that you have no objection to such release?” – these aren’t hidden questions, they are just ones that Obama is not being asked)
Keep in mind that the privilege being asserted is one that belongs to Obama. Not to the lawyers – but to Obama. Also keep in mind that if it is being asserted to obstruct justice – well, let’s just say Obama isn’t the kind of fool who wouldn’t recognize the real and distinct issue of asserting privilege to obstruct justice and what that lays at his door. If he’s going there – it’s of his own free will.
So we disagree. Time will tell — & maybe not too much time, too, given the situation since yesterday.
So, any other explanation, other than Obama wants the Bush-asserted presidential powers for himself? I do hope there is.
Dang!!! got a 404 page not found.
I’ll go the long route and get it right! (Sorry)
I’ll have to also offer up my personal experiences with transitions, albeit more private sector and not DOJ. That experience is that when a new adminstration/CEO/Bd Dir/Majority Owner etc. steps into power as the client, they have no problem whatsoever cracking a whip and making cases go another way if they are unhappy with how things are going.
It’s a leadership issue, not a procedural impasse. Strong leaders get what they want.
After 40 days and untold number of direct avowals to courts that this is, indeed, Obama’s policy I think it is time to make the grand leap to the conclusion that it is …. Obama’s policy.
(Tearing my hair out here) Why is it his policy? What does he believe he has to gain from it? He certainly loses a big chunk of moral authority, in my eyes.
Well, don’t discount the financial liability, which could be in the billions of dollars. It is also still my complete belief that the Bush/Cheney Administration agreed to indemnify the telcos which if true, only adds even more financial liability. The whole can of worms that comes spewing forth is very, very ugly.
From your linked post:
if the telcos are already sufficiently protected, where’s the potential financial liability? Against Bush administration officials? Is the federal government financially liable for their actions? If not, why would Obama need to protect them?
Federal government is exactly it. Combine that with the very salient elements in play that Mary delineated @36 and you have some very powerful inertia. Not to mention that if you really paid attention to Obama, he has never indicated any willingness to unwind all the dirt of the Bush years; in fact, quite the opposite and only to do things different going forward.
Quite so.
But, if it were, don’t you think that Dawn Johnsen would have withdrawn her name by now?
The question was never IF BushCo lied, it was how many times did they lie.
Boxturtle (And who ordered them to lie)
33 – he feels like he needs to keep intel guys loyal to him by taking up for them and to keep telecoms cooperating for the same reason, and to cover up for foreign countries providing assistance to keep diplomatic meltdowns in check etc.
It’s not hard to see why it’s his easy path, and he never promised to travel the tougher roads. Ante up info on Moroccan and UK help with torture and watch riots in Morocco backed and instigated by extremists and the possible topple of Brown’s gov in the UK – as well as some ugly tit for tats back and a lot of distraction and lack of cooperation that doesn’t help on the intel sharing front. Then factor in that some of the experienced Middle East intel guys or halfway decent analysts are the ones who stepped in as torturers and figure out if you want to lose them to trials during Pakistan melting down with its nuke supply in the balance.
On and on – but none of this is some kind of new info for Obama or his crew. And some of what weighs in the balance is horribly troubling. For one thing, Obama is taking every whistleblower, every soldier and officer who said “no” and he’s setting them adrift. They are the abuse victims placed in a foster home that … abuses them.
Well, it’s all too much to go over, but of course it’s easier for Obama, sitting gettign his intel and doj briefings every day, to assure them that he’s going to protect them, instead of looking the briefer in the eye and acknowledging that he (Obama) will be instituting a policy that involves criminal trials of … the guys with boots on the ground generating the info in those briefings.
Ez it aint – but that doesn’t mean that there isn’t a right and a wrong.
This is what it boils down to, for me.
This comes closest to a satisfying explanation of motive. A Sophie’s Choice.
EW “Not to be picky, but they missed the 45-day deadline Walker gave them by 8 days.”
So does this mean that the Obama administration is not as quick on the classify/declassify trigger as the Bush administration?
Naw, means they were convinced they were going to get the stay and were jerking the court around.
So when a Federal Judge finds that they have entered “inaccurate” information do they get their hands slapped or do they get whacked?
Christy said this the other day. How many of you lawyer folks agree?
Christy Hardin Smith | Thursday February 26, 2009 07:17 am 57
In response to Leen @ 55 (show text)
The judges hate a weasel attempt on acceptance of responsibility has been pretty standard across the board with every judge I’ve dealt with — state or federal. Judges don’t like being lied to and, worse, they hate it when defendants don’t seem to take their admonitions or authority seriously.
DO FEDERAL JUDGES CARE IF IT IS THE PRESIDENT, OR OFFICE OF LEGAL COUNSEL “JERKING THE COURT AROUND”?
Some do, some not so much. For instance, the judge in Ted Stevens’ case seems to have no limit of abuse that he won’ give a perfunctory scold and then accept full bore.
And in addition to what bmaz said, consider the timing.
They were supposed to turn in this document on February 19. I think they issued a different filing that said, “we’ve done the review and we’re going to” declare this stuff is classified. So why didn’t they declare it classified then?
Because they didn’t want to admit to this “inaccuracy” until after they knew that Walker could officially look at the wiretap log. THey were hoping to get a stay and hoping to not have to make this admission.
THAT’s why tehy were so frantic to prevent it. I suspect–just a wildarsed guess, mind you–that the “inaccuracy” is the big story here, even more than the hard proof that they illegally wiretapped.
Marcy,
Am I allowed one of those guesses? Square one: follow the money….did BushCo freeze defendant’s bank accounts? Wasn’t this about the time W
piratedfroze the accounts of a multitude of persons with Arabic names?Bank robbery on a grand scale being W/Paulson’s specialty…while Bernanke stores their loot in that big vault where all the foreigners have their gold bars for ’safekeeping’. /s
I’m probably way behind you and bmaz on this.
#1 makes sense to me.
EW, in following your posts on this since yesterday, and looking at the timing, is it possible Walker may have viewed the logs by now?
#1, as in WO’s take…it’s the most logical an seems Bush-like.
I’m sure he has. He was supposed to have gotten the document by January 19 (Bush’s last day in office, and I’m sure that wasn’t a coincidence of timing) and nothing that has been said since then suggests he didn’t get the document.
Of course, he hasn’t reviewed the newly “accurate” information.
That may not be accurate. Just because we cannot access it on PACER doesn’t mean he could not have received it.
Given the way we know about these logs, I’ll bet the Judge has already reviewed them, and knows what is in them, so that now he only has to do so *officially.* He can write his decision 99% based on what he already knows. His official review will probably just serve to verify what he already knows.
Bob in HI
Oh, that I get, based on the fun history on the call logs evidence “oops” by the gov’t…I have a sense that Walker has figured out exactly how the government would argue this out (and probably assumed Obama would follow in step) and Walker has everything ready to roll out “officially” based on his previous knowledge of the logs’ content and what he and the prosecution saw in those logs (especially calendar-wise).
I see this exercise as Walker’s responsibility to the rule of law, based on his knowledge. I just wondered if, with the timing this week, he had done the “official” review by now and the whether the decision is ready to roll on Monday AM no matter what?
I am wondering why the administration doesn’t approach the supreme court and have them stay any decisions walker makes
they are going to be on obama’s side in this case since it protects bush
I wish walker acted on his decision before the weekend and made the logs entered into record so all this becomes moot
now we are going to have some weekend dancing by the obama administration
and I have to say, I did not think obama would have been so quick to defend this position, especially since it is so constitutionally challenged
I am led to believe there is something in the record that actually does concern national security
administrative stare decisis.
Book Salon up at the Mothership with author Matt Miller and The Tyranny of Dead Ideas hosted by Christy
Everyone should pause and take a few deep breaths.
President Obama is now standing at the ramparts. He sees far more than any here can. He sees that one mistake or miscue allowing any kind of significant attack within this great country, and I don’t mean an attack of the level of 9-11 but something on the level of the USS Cole, or the US Embassy in Lebanon but within the USA itself will totally undermine any of his other worthwhile efforts. It will immediately derail a chance of a second term.
His greatest efforts must go toward security, and the great disadvantage of that is that if he is totally successful, then absolutely nothing will happen. There will be no headlines, no keys to the city, no medals.
Secondly is the economy (”stupid”) and that there will be lots of headlines, and news stories everyday, but come 3 to 4 years from now, there will be an very intense reckoning, and President Obama knows that he must meet that muster, or again all is lost for his 2nd term.
Given all that, he can spend a little time (relatively) selecting and tasking people to look in the DOJ, Medical Care, Energy, Automobiles and other goings on that so enthrall TalkLeft and Emptywheel’s blogs.
Give him a little time. The world really isn’t ending anytime soon, hopefully.
So never mind that whole oath to “preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States”?
To hell with the crimes committed the last 8 years. “turn the page, move on, don’t blame, we don’t want to be about vengeance”
Just roll right by all of those dead, injured and 5 million Iraqi refugees….just roll on by with your petal to the metal
Jesus if I hear any more of this hogwash…that land I have been looking at in Costa Rica keeps looking better.
Just when did justice and accountability start being defined as “vengeance”? (Cheney and Rove must be smirking)
Just be careful. Wifi, cable, and even dial-up can be hard to come by in Costa Rica. I’m going to Panama!
sometime around inaugural day, 2000 A.D. – – For Bush, justice (as he practiced it) is vengance; and as for accountability, he never experienced it. (from what I’ve read of his childhood, youth, middle-age, or as an old man. Poppy always bought off, either with $$$ or influence, W’s “mistakes” – – that is, until the stuff hit the fan as a result of his rampage during his presidency.
Does this mean that you think the fix is in, perhaps from Poppy via Bill Clinton, to shield Georgie boy from the legal consequences of his crimes?
Bob in HI
Hi Bob,
Well, I was mostly being snarky but forgot the symbol. But, now that you mention it….hmmmm, I don’t doubt that if there is anyone involved in this case who can be bought or ‘coerced’, then Poppy and his henchmen will or have done it.
We need a former
spyintelligence agent here at the lake.Its really far bleaker than one can imagine from a political perspective. I mean in the end “its the economy stupid” would work as Stalin’s mantra. And now,according to Montefiore, Putin has launched a reeducation campaign to rehabilitate Stalin to the extent that Stalin is popularly regarded as Russia’s most revered historical figure.
The rule of law, from a political perspective, is not an unassailable inviolable rampart, it is merely a principle that has historically distinguished the United States with respect to the impulse to tyranny. In the end its a spiritual principle that diminishes the natural impulse of “the love of money” in a cultural context. The institutional elites in their ever bold approaches to preempt the political system in the US have disavowed, betrayed even, this principle in the push for global hegemony since WWII as Noam Chomsky has well shown. Buck Owens and Derrida notwithstanding one might even see this bull headed arrogance in the drunken TV appearances of Jack Kerouac spewing out support for the effort in Viet Nam.
Cf. Saul Williams, and Johnny Cash finally transcended the Hee Haw mentality when he started working with Trent Reznor.
Thank you Peter. Quite well said. And it saved me from having to be impolite!
My pleasure. Really.
Read here often?
OMG he kept us safe. I trust him because he has so much on his plate. It’s the economy? WTF?
Obama took an oath. Live up to it!
Oh, brother. You sound like Jack Nicholson in A Few Good Men. Give us a break. I, for one, choose not to be infected with this kind of cowardice and paranoia, particularly as these speculative threats will never go away.
Would be really frightening if Obama/Holder ended up being the Bush administration’s firewall on this.
On CNN Rush Limbraugh is directly challenging The WH and us.
This is Unsettling to watch and listen to the crowd…
Of course he is also destroying whats left of the Repugs/conservative party so it is all good..He is a dangerous idiot, but this are strange times…
these* times
There’s a saying: No justice, no peace. This is not a threat, but a reading of the historical record. For any leadership to try to sidestep justice brings consequences worse than facing it.
I think Mr and Mrs Barak Obama agree with much of what we say.
The ONLY way to make sure this can never happen again is
1.to have the courts rule on Bushs legal manipulation and have legal record, so President Obama is using the Bushs legal arguments to have show/have proven there is no legal standing once and for all.
2. If Bush/Co actions are proven illegal,(plus all other tidbits brought to light) there is NO cover from War Crimes trials at the Hague.
3. We can then start to fix the injustices/abuses in our legal system.
this has to happen or we will continue to rot from within. the whole world is watching
I’m watching closely and I am quietly impressed and hopeful.
Why is Limpnuts STILL on CNN?
Rush Limbaugh, whose been given an extraordinary amount of uninterrupted time on CNN today, just called liberals the new “castrati”…he then went on to mock these so-called “castrati” with a lisp…CNN cut him off, much to the surprise of an unwitting reporter, Sandy Kay..then they went back and finished off the so-called speech.
CNN. Up yours.
That had to be the strangest 1+hr I have ever spent watching CNN.
Weird..
And a pretty expensive one I’d say. Absolutely depraved.
Hold up. Ann Coulter is sleeveless. I guess she’ll get her comeupance.
A guideline and a suggestion:
1. Seek justice. Only justice. [[As one misunderstanding can destroy any work-product [ask an electrical engineer], please check that you have a firm definition of “justice”. Check a good dictionary.]]
2. A pardon for Nacchio/Quest, with brief explanation, would serve as powerful demonstration that #1. is the new game. New indeed. Impinges on the very audience that matters. A real justice system enables citizens to bear hard times…like the difficulties tumbling at us right now.
BTW, Glenzilla has a post up today parallel to this one, and which cites EW’s diary on the same case yesterday. The title is Obama’s efforts to block a judicial ruling on Bush’s illegal eavesdropping, Saturday Feb. 28, 2009 06:43 EST. His analysis follows closely, if I understand it correctly, the analysis on display here in the Wheelhouse, not only by EW, but by bmaz, WO, Mary et al.
Bob in HI
Thank you Marcy, Mary, Lab Dancer bmaz and others for your insightful opinion. So much better than MSM.
Just back. Thanks for the info about popularity of Buicks in China/Asia, ew, bmaz. That just doesn’t fit into my head. Have to go google about current cars, I see.
Heh, the Buicks in China took me by surprise a little when Marcy first drilled it in my head.
It’s true for two reasons: timing, and the way cars are used in China.
Remember that GM was one of the earlier car companies into China. And it lucked out by having SAIC, out of Shanghai, as its partner. That meant it had access to local deals in Shanghai, and was located in the same city going crazy with growth. That’s true of VW, too.
But the difference is in how cars–at least at first–were used in China. If you’re rich enough to have a car in China (and much of Asia, frankly) then you’re rich enough to have a driver. So we’re not really talking about cars that people like to drive, we’re talkng (though sales people are trained to sell to the driver in China, too). You’re talking about a nice back seat. NOthing else manufactured in China (Passats, Mondeos, Accords, Camrys) have as nice a back seat. Voila, you’re the best moderately rich person’s car.
When I was working with Ford they bemoaned BOTH that they weren’t allowed to build Lincoln Town Cars in China AND that they were located out in Chungqing, meaning they’d never get over GM’s two critical advantages.
GM wanted smaller, driver-focused cars. But in a tightly centrally controlled industry, it won the semi-luxury sedan allocation from the boys in Beijing. At the time, SAIC was calling the shots and they chose GM, at the time, the US’s leading car company. Toyota putzed around in Tianjin and Honda in Guangzhou, but with less success.
And it wasn’t luck, it was hard work. GM paid a high price; it’s concessions included commitments to invest in a Shanghai-based automotive research center, to which SAIC had at least as much de facto access as GM. It’s an important part of why Chinese products will be globally competitive.
Also, neither the Caddy nor the then Lincolns, the American luxury cars, would have been much use inside any of the major cities except on a few thoroughfares like Jianguomenwai in Beijing or the ring roads (though making the turns to get off and on them would have been tough, too). They were also more complex and harder to maintain in a market that had filthy air, severely uneven gasoline quality, and very limited parts and service operations. Those cars are now smaller and relatively more maneuverable, as well as higher in quality.
After thinking about Bush as he is portrayed in the movie ” W ” I can picture him shedding a tear privately with Obama and admitting that he screwed the pooch in his haste to protect The Nation and The American People and because he was deceived by people close to him. I picture Obama comforting him hand on shoulder and developing an ” understanding ” for the future. Of course this does not help the Constitution and Justice any.
sufficiently discouraged, I am.
All this information, plus the new president channeled Bush when, in answer to a question on Iraq, he said something to the effect of “not making decisions based on popularity or polls.”
Will anyone within DOJ step forward truthfully, or are my Pollyanna pigtails tied too tightly again?
Does anyone know why Dawn Johnson (sp?) hasn’t been confirmed at DOJ yet?
Gerald (61) wrote:
TRANSLATION: Obama must compromise this term or else he won’t be around to compromise next term.
ATTENTION: The reason national security is such a big issue is that Democrats didn’t fight the Republicans over that narrative. And Obama continued that failure when he voted for the dodgy FISA legislation last year and saying it was for “national security”.
Believe it or not, people will respect him and vote for him if he says the truth and acts on it. If the Democrats changed the narrative to put 9/11 and terrorism in some kind of realistic perspective, then enough people will respond positively.
I hate this endless, “we can’t do the right thing now, because then we won’t be able to do the right thing in the future” circular thinking.
Bingo. We would witness an even larger surge in his popularity. The way Obama operates he could follow through with a smooth strategy. You know the “no one is above the law” line that they all endlessly repeat.
At the same time keep reaching out to the Republicans. Knowing that the Republicans were so deeply concerned about a President who lied under oath about a blow job…..they must be concerned about the Intelligence snowjob given to the American people by the Bush administration
I sure didn’t expect the response above (63, 77, 83, 98, 101). I was just trying to explain why I thought President Obama was doing things in the order he has chosen in, as bmaz says, the last 40 days.
Personally his role as the CIC stands out to me more than it probably does to a lot of you, because I was in the Service for a long time. I think his actions stressing that area are reasonable, but I can understand you lawyers having other priorities.
I think if you read Mary’s 36, the lawyers have no shortage of understanding of the security issues (in fact, it’s a clearer and better-prioritized exposition of some of them than we ever got from the CiC of the past 8 years.)
(IANAL.)
It’s not priorities, its jurisdiction. Karl Rove’s harmful propaganda aside, the President as C-in-C has authority only over service personnel in the armed forces of the United States. That role gives him no power of command over other citizens, over Congress or the Courts. His duty to them is to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution that creates his office and to enforce the law. Just as an admiral or general has no power over the CEO of Staples, the ACLU or service outside his command, and the pope has no authority over the American Academy of Sciences.
Thanks, Earl. I have a question: I heard some video speaker, can’t remember who, who stated that the president’s broad powers as Commander In Chief were limited to times when our country is at war. (so, W made dxxx sure it went to war, huh?). Can you tell me if this is true?
Obviously many of the lawyers here believe in Justice and accountability. Many peasants out here in the real world want to witness justice for those who have needlessly lost their lives in a war based on the “pack of lies” that was stuffed down Americans throats (I for one heard far too many wise individuals question the legitimacy of the intelligence). Scott Ritter, El Baradei, Seymour Hersch etc.
The thugs who lied our nation into an unnecessary war, undermined national security by outing Plame, undermined the DOJ, illegally wiretapped need to be held accountable. It is the only way to truly move forward
The C-in-C power is always “on”, but only with respect to the founder’s political choice to put a civilian in charge of the federation’s armed forces. It was not meant to be his day job; protecting ALL of the Constitution and enforcing the law was.
The founders chose the president, nearly always a civilian, as C-in-C to limit the power of the army’s officer class. (They knew all about pre-unified Germany’s Junkers.) They gave the legislature, not the executive, the power to declare war, too, because they were the branch with the power of the purse. They also wanted to avoid the kinds of harm they feared could come about when king’s willfully engaged in war to enrich themselves or to seek personal vendetta, not to preserve, protect and defend the commonwealth. (They had read their Shakespeare, too.)
There is another significant individual shouting that it was all a lie, and no, I am not kidding. Sadaam Hussein. Oh and that Hans Blix dude too (although he was only adamant that nothing could be corroborated or confirmed).
followed everything Hans Blix was saying. he sure had questions. so admired Zinni for coming out against the invasion. We know what happened to him.
Whither Zinni
http://www.amconmag.com/blog/2…..her-zinni/
Hell I heard Swarzkopf, Carter, El Baradei, Ritter, former Cia analyst on the Rehm and TOTN all questioning the validity of the intelligence before the invasion. Hell I even heard Robert McNamara come out and say it was a bad idea to invade Iraq
And Karl Rove in full defiance of Congressional subpoenas is making the Sunday talking head circuit “Interruptin’ and Misdirectin’” (I am thinking that is an old Roy Clarke standard).
this sickens me. He is just thumbing his nose at Congress..just thumbing his nose.
A slug who was part of the slimy team who outed Plame, undermined national security, politicized the DOJ, ignores subpoenas when the fuck are they going to nail this thug? At the very least keep him off the air waves. Will we ever witness him “frogmarched”