quote: The president is not above the law, Kennedy wrote, but there is a "paramount necessity of protecting the executive branch from vexatious litigation that might distract it from the energetic performance of its constitutional duties."
Isn't that EXACTLY the same logic they rejected when Clinton asked them to defer his grand jury hearing until after the end of his term? Why does this constitute more "vexatious litigation" than the Paula Jones case?
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't one difference that the beef they had with Clinton had nothing to do with him performing his duties as President, but the beef they have with Cheney is about what he's done as vice president? That seems like a pretty important difference to me.
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
It would seem to me that investigating a vice president's vice-presidential activities would be far, far more important to do while someone actually occupied the vice presidency. The idea that only unrelated activities are worthy of immediate legal scrutiny would ultimately suggest that presidents and their staffs should stick solely to high treason, election fraud, and political malfeasance when choosing which crimes to commit, as they're too important to investigate while the administration is actually benefiting from its criminal activities.
posted
Tom, I'd suggest reading up on executive privilege. The idea is that President's need to be able to get advice from subordinates without those subordinates having to fear their internal musings being exposed to the public.
And besides, this isn't a government request for documents or discovery in an on-going civil case. This is a request for working information produced by the President's policy advisors by a collection of private citizens. It's not an investigation; it's a fishing expedition.
Any other policy would limit the ability of people to play devil's advocate or float preposterous ideas during brainstorming sessions.
The vote was 7-2, and even the dissenters didn't say they were entitled to everything they asked for automatically.
Again, your last post seems to assume that this decision is stonewalling some criminal investigation. It's not.
posted
"The idea is that President's need to be able to get advice from subordinates without those subordinates having to fear their internal musings being exposed to the public."
As I understand it, the documents in question are not full minutes of the meetings; the primary request involved a ROSTER for the meeting. They don't have to fear having their hypothetical musings released; in this case, they only have to fear being identified as people who advised the president.
Can you explain to me why this would be a bad thing?
(As a side note, I'm not convinced that releasing the minutes would be a bad thing, either. I don't really see the long-term benefit to the country in keeping the president's advice completely and permanently secret on all non-classified issues, except insofar as gutless worms would be less likely to offer advice if they thought the public would be reading their gutless worm advice. This is not inherently bad, IMO, as it keeps gutless worms from talking to the president. Then again, I've never been a big fan of executive privilege, and have never had someone convince me that it should exist in any form.)
--------
I can understand if the Court, in hindsight, wants to stomp out "fishing expeditions" like the Starr investigation -- but if that's the case, why not admit that they were wrong in their first ruling?
posted
Tom, characterizing them as gutless worms is highly unfair. Have you ever considered an action and then later, before doing it, decided it was ill-advised or immoral. Would you want that exposed to the world?
They're asking for task force documents, not just the roster. The judge erred in awarding all the documents; the roster probably will be released.
posted
"Have you ever considered an action and then later, before doing it, decided it was ill-advised or immoral. Would you want that exposed to the world?"
The great thing about releasing all documents is that they would include the minutes in which I told the president, "Hey, I've been thinking about that recommendation I made last month; it's stupid and immoral. Let's take that off the table immediately. I'm sorry I even brought it up." And if I DIDN'T tell the president that, it's my own darn fault, isn't it?
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Not with the press we have nowadays. And this isn't a liberal press accusation, it's a sensalationist media accusation.
Look at how the articles characterized the memos released yesterday, the ones where Bush said he would not authorize departure from the Geneva Convention.
posted
Argument against disclosure: If presidential advisor makes a brainstorming suggestion that is illegal, immoral, or impractical, then it may appear as a sensational lead in the press next month, and result in a frivolous lawsuit the following year. So advisors will not make any suggestions at all.
Such notes and emails on suggestions in reguards to prisoner abuse have already been handed to the press. People proposed, for security reasons, that we legally dispence with Geneva Convention and torture laws. These ideas were apparently not accepted by President BUsh, but the news does not play that up. Headlines report how such ideas were considered.
The Argument for Disclosure in this case. What is being asked for is not the minutes of the meeting, but a list of what people were there. This is not a fishing expedition. It is believed that only gas and oil companies were at this meeting that was supposed to be about the energy future of the US. This is despite promises by Cheney that the meeting would included other industries and environmentalists. In other words, one industry was able to convince, unopposed, our government on how our future should be planned. Among those who may have been present were Ken Lay and other Enron cronies. Do we have the right to know if our energy future was engineered by a fraud prone embezzler like Lay?
Posts: 11895 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
"it's a sensalationist media accusation. Look at how the articles characterized the memos released yesterday.
In the memos, Dubya stated that he accepted his right to torture people. And that he chose not to exercize that "right" for the moment. Which in no way means that he didn't authorize torture the next moment.
Dubya also refuses to release the vast overwhelming majority of the documents written after that moment. Since the main portion of the documents that were officially released had already been leaked onto the Web, the best that can be said is that the DubyaAdministration is engaging in spin control, not in openness and candor.
Considering that the claims from the few presumably best-treated prisoners released from Guantanamo and that the stuff in Iraq&Afghanistan mirror the physical&mental abuse known to have been authorized...
quote:These ideas were apparently not accepted by President Bush, but the news does not play that up.
How do you figure?
quote: Bush staked out a hard-line position less than four months after the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks. Siding with the Justice Department, Bush in a February 2002 order declared that suspected Taliban and al-Qaida prisoners are not protected under the Geneva Conventions.
Bush ordered that all prisoners be treated humanely and, "to the extent appropriate and consistent with military necessity," in line with the "principles" of the Geneva Conventions. But at the same time he reserved the right to suspend the conventions "in this or future conflicts." Bush said publicly this week that he never ordered torture.
Not surprisingly, when asked approval to go beyond normal rules, Rumsfeld approved "techniques" that would have otherwise been "forbidden by US military doctrine." I'm not sure what Bush means by "torture." That's probably the problem. If Rumsfeld approved the techniques (ones that I consider torture) how can Bush say he didn't approve it? Of course, if we have a president who delegates to such an extent that he has the Vice President giving orders to shoot down commercial airliners, I'd say we have a problem. Oh wait, we do have a problem.
It seems to me that everyone is trying to make sure Bush is as well protected as Reagan was during Iran Contra. As long as Bush doesn't have his signature on anything, he has plausible deniability. With a wink and a nod, he did approve the torture techniques. I don't know how he can say he didn't.
Even if Rumsfeld approved those techniques without telling the President, the President's February speech paved the way for it. Of course, after the fact, Bush has said Rumsfeld has done an excellent job and has steadfastly refused to ask for his resignation or fire him, so how anyone can believe that Bush didn't approve of this crazier than I am. (And I'm pretty damned crazy.)
Bush is playing the "the definition of is" game very well. And when he's not, his refusal to acknowledge the truth is astonishing. I've never seen an administration who can totally ignore questions and stick to "talking points" better than this one. So, just because you've read that Bush rejected such idea, it doesn't make it true. That's the trouble with lying to the public in the first place. He's told so many "almost truths" that I don't believe him anymore. Not that I ever trusted him, but then I don't trust any of them.
Posts: 9871 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
TSS, that's not true. He might be discussing how his rights were violatated, but he wouldn't be saying that it was a the Anti-Bush people.
Posts: 9871 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:If Cheney got caught molesting a bus load of 7 year old boys, Dagonee would be on this board in an instant talking about how he did nothing wrong, and it was all caused by anti-bush people.
B.S. and you know it. I've taken positions against the proposed marriage amendment, the steel tarrifs, and the prisoner abuses.
You can't find anything to back up your ridiculous statement.
And Kayla's right, although I couldn't tell if it was a joke. If there was a rights issue, I'd be talking about that, mainly because it interests me. The main reason it interests me is because I intend to attempt to put people in jail while still paying attention to people's constitutional rights. Witness my recent thread on what I consider to be a mistaken Supreme Court decision on the right to remain silent. But I wouldn't be excusing the behavior.
I'm spending a lot of money to go to school and take a serious pay cut when I get out mainly to pursue people who prey on the helpless, especially children. So it pisses me off more than a little when someone accuses me of being a potential apologist for hypothetical child molestors.
Dagonee Edit: Considering you just posted right after a post of mine in another thread where I said I disapproved of any authorization of torure, you really are full of it.
posted
I wasn't kidding. I'm interested in that stuff, too, though it's just a hobby for me. (Speaking of legal technicalities, what did you think of the new L.A.police brutality tape? Senseless beating, or justified force?)
Posts: 9871 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Haven't had a chance to see it. I will be checking that out, and commenting if it's at all more interesting than, "They beat the crap out of that guy."
posted
I think it debate over justified force is a load of horse manure. However, it does remind me of the torture cases in Iraq right now. These cops had a high adrenaline, high speed car chase, then a short foot race. The guy had his hands up in the air, a cop was on top of him (the first mistake, in my opinion) and after he's down on the ground with 2 cops now on top of him, a third one hits him in the head area about a dozen times with his flashlight. It was clearly bad police work, no matter if they end up charging the cop or calling it justified. Too much adrenaline. What they need to do, rather than teaching political correctness is to teach these cops how to handle adrenaline rushes and suspects.
posted
I saw part of it, and it was pretty bad. I was on my way out the door though, so i didn't really get a good look. I for one enjoy your posts Dag, even if I don't always agree with them, so I would like to hear what you think of the tape.
Kayla, if a guy has run in a car, and then on foot, I believe it is acceptable to tackle him....after all, he could wait for you to stop and then take off again; I've seen it happen.
But hitting him anywhere when there is already a cop on top and his hands are stretched out would fit my definition of :unreasonable force". I think it is a matter of safety to take down a fleeing suspect, but beatings are another matter.
quote:The president is not above the law, Kennedy wrote, but there is a "paramount necessity of protecting the executive branch from vexatious litigation that might distract it from the energetic performance of its constitutional duties."
Which is why the Lord God invented secretaries.
Posts: 1839 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Can't watch the video here, but will check it out tonight. From descriptions, it sounds like one guy used the excessive force (if any) and the other two didn't react to stop him fast enough. Will have to see for myselves as to whether they are "accomplices."
I have read that the suspect was released with minor injuries, so this is no Rodney King either in number of rogue cops or severity of the injuries. Will start a thread on it later.
Printer-friendly view of this topic
