There is a fantastic op-ed in the NYTimes this morning from two very well respected lawyers — one a former Attorney General, and the other with a similarly storied history of public service and currently working with the Brennan Center. The timing on it is even more fascinating. From the op-ed:
…When the Justice Department, usually acting through its Office of Legal Counsel, issues legal opinions binding on the executive branch, there is never justification for keeping them secret. Opinions that narrowly define what constitutes torture; or open the door to sending prisoners for questioning to Egypt and Syria, which regularly use torture; or rule the president has some “inherent power” to ignore laws are all of concern to Congress and the public whether one agrees or disagrees with the legal analysis.
Yet all these opinions have been kept secret, along with many other, related post-9/11 opinions that purport to decide what America’s law is.
Secrecy always increases the risk of foolish mistakes. If the withheld opinions are sound, why fear letting them see the light of day? Is there ever a justification in a government of law for keeping what one believes to be the law secret?
Some may say releasing the opinions will lead to more embarrassment. To this, there are two answers. First, what is most important is that we get it right and remain true to our country’s values. Second, the best way to restore our reputation is to confront our mistakes openly and then resolve not to repeat them.
David Luban, writing at Bakinization the other day, went further on this with regard to the ethical obligations of the OLC lawyers:
…But what if the client doesn’t want the law straight? There’s an old legal adage attributed to Elihu Root: “The client never wants to be told he can’t do what he wants to do; he wants to be told how to do it, and it is the lawyer’s business to tell him how.” Root was a corporate lawyer, and he was cynically expressing – a century ago – the scofflaw attitude of business people who resent lawyers who say “no.” But lawyers who say yes to whatever the client wants (”Dr. Yes” was reportedly John Ashcroft’s nickname for John Yoo) violate basic ethical norms of what legal advisors are supposed to do. As I’ve written elsewhere, lawyers who write opinions saying yes to whatever their clients want are no better than indulgence sellers.
As hired counsel, your job is certainly to try to find a way for your clients to achieve their objectives, but also to anticipate pitfalls before they occur and to find a way around them. If that is not possible, you tell your client straight out that the proposed action is contrary to the law and not recommended. To allow your client to act in an illegal or otherwise problematic way without a clear, unambiguous warning is contrary to your ethical and professional obligations as a lawyer.
And if that is what has been going on at the OLC throughout the Bush Administration, the public has a right to know about it. Because, after all, we are paying the salaries of these lawyers with our tax dollars. I suspect, with the timing of the op-ed on the day before the Federal Bar Council luncheon in NYC, that is a conversation that a whole lot of very powerful lawyers will be having around lunchtime tomorrow.
If any of our readers will be attending the luncheon, do let us know if the subject comes up. I’m sensing a nudge here from some very well respected lawyers…and I’d love to know what sort of fruit it bears.
(Photo via stephenccwu.)
UPDATE: As scribe says, “This is The Establishment talking, and putting its foot down.”
Related posts:
Spotlight
Support this site!
Subscribe to the newsletter
Advertise on Firedoglake
Send
us your tips
Make us your homepage
About Firedoglake
Advanced search
Christy!
Christy!
Ann in AZ:
Well well…
The OLC does what David Addington tells them to do, right? Strange days — power emanating from the Vice President’s office.
And Rachael P. is headed back to DC from Mpls. Nice.
I absolutely agree. I think the good lawyer goes farther, and tries to encourage good behavior while explaining the alternatives clearly, with a fair evaluation of risks and rewards. The client does not always know what is best, even in personal matters. And often clients need to be reminded of their principles, and how those principles relate to the decision, especially in tough situations.
Speaking of DoJ:
Rachel Paulose is gone from MN as AUSA… She’s heading back to DC to a new position in Justice.
Good morning, all;
Wouldn’t it be wonderful if the ideas expressed by Katzenbach and Schwarz were to actually gain ‘traction’, inspiring debate and subsequent change. Secrecy has, for too long, held sway, it has but little, if any, legitimate place in a true Democracy.
Speaking of crooked lawyers…
Alberto Gonzales did not exactly enjoy his speech at the University of Florida. Until he went to the bank. Depositing the 40k check was probably somewhat enjoyable.
He was booed and heckled. There were protesters in the auditorium. It was not a fun experience for him.
Bush has no regard for legal scholars, constitutional lawyers, or for that matter, the law of the land. BUT he does understand that it is in his own interest to keep hidden the faulty legal opinion under which he has been operating.
Its pretty clear that the secrecy keeps from revealing the failure of the legal opinion, and provides Bush cover for admitting he himself is a failure.
FYI–
Rachel Paulose’s new job in DC is legal policy adviser to AG Mukasey and his (Mukasey’s) deputy…
bg at 5 — Yes, Miss Rachel is headed back to the part of the DOJ that is the holy of holies for Federalist Society types: the section that vets potential federal bench candidates.
Oh wow! Good catch Christy.
Another spotlight day comin’ up, I’m thinkin’.
Why do we have to go through this every generation?
It’s Nixon all over again. Remember the outcry against secrecy: secret tapes, secret operations, secret meetings, secret plans, etc…?
Everybody knows secrecy is code for “covering up illegal activity.” So why the debate (or lack of debate) today about secrecy in government?
Because the big money special interests who have come to dominate the Pentagon, the telecommunications industry, and the financial industry have also been dominating Congress for the last dozen years and the White House for the last six.
The concentration of money and political hegemony has given rise to a culture of secrecy that neither the media, the intelligence agencies, Congress, Federal regulators, the judiciary, nor the public can penetrate.
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11…..17nsa.html
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/08…..swift.html
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10…..cotus.html
Howard Dean actually has a good idea of how to organize a people’s movement that can unseat these megalomaniacle forces from the centers of power: grass roots organizing.
If you haven’t responded to your local Democratic party outreach, do it now.
“To allow your client to act in an illegal or otherwise problematic way without a clear, unambiguous warning is contrary to your ethical and professional obligations as a lawyer.”
Christy – is there a “Hypocratic Oath” for lawyers? Are ethical and professional obligations something that is covered in law school? In business school NOW they are covering ethics (in the accounting area, esp. for auditing, you get this big time – not that it helped with Enron, etc.)?
Biodun @ 3
Hey, Biodun, I waited in the tall grass for a long time for this post to come up. I worked hard to get this one!
David W. Bartoo @ 8
In relation to previous thread, this is one of the concerns the Dem candidates need to adopt as part of their platforms and be unified on this concern.
White lie?
“The most powerful leader in the world had called upon me to speak on his behalf and help restore credibility he lost amid the failure to find weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. So I stood at the White house briefing room podium in front of the glare of the klieg lights for the better part of two weeks and publicly exonerated two of the senior-most aides in the White House: Karl Rove and Scooter Libby.
“There was one problem. It was not true.”
Scotty’s mea culpa could be a problem for his former bosses:
http://www.editorandpublisher……&imw=Y
Toby at 15 — Ethics are absolutely covered in law school — there is a course on it your first year and it is a part of your bar exam. Also, you have to have a certain number of hours of professional responsibility and ethics for your continuing legal education class requirements every year. At least, you have to here — and I think that’s true for most states.
Ann in AZ:
Yep–a new Christy post usually comes up at 7′nish PT…*g*
Coordinating with this topic, Emptywheel has a nice post on the Geoffrey Fieger case, where he is alleging the government is selectively prosecuting trial lawyers who gave to Edwards. There’s quite a bit of mess being turned up there, not the least of which is that it appears former USA Bud Cummings (Arkansas) was canned immediately upon refusing to indict an Edwards contributor.
Go read, here: http://thenexthurrah.typepad.c…..es-al.html
This is all of a piece – crooked US Attorneys, politically motivated (and coordinated) prosecutions, secrecy, and torture. It’s called a dictatorship.
VP as in Corporate VP Cheney is just following what he has always believed lawyers are for. They are not the sword or shield of justice; they are simply the orator and cover for whatever position the litigant espouses.
The secrecy is because the Bushco. board of directors didn’t want the subjects debated at all. The memos are just legal cover for future SCOTUS battles. Now that the SC is stacked they have a sympathetic ear; and these opinions will be just enough legal cover to keep them out of Jail or at least to run out the clock in litigation until the patient dies.
Biodun @ 11
Probably best to keep her close to keep an eye on her. On the other hand, if she is as pushy as rumored, and she starts trying to throw her weight around Mukasey and his deputy, it’s easier to reach out and touch her in a manner she will understand. Hard!
mc @ 18
I had unknowingly passed along false information. And five of the highest ranking officials in the administration were involved in my doing so: Rove, Libby, the vice President, the President’s chief of staff, and the president himself.”
Ding, ding, ding.
Scotty – I think you should be expecting a subpoena one of these days…
Christy:
Gov’t lawyers and Judicial Branch employee/lawyers are exempted from CLE at least in Texas. I don’t think Yoo or Gonzo have been in private practice (at least in a long time) that required them to maintain their law license requirements.
1,664 DAYZ AND THE KILLIN’ GOEZ ON AND ON AND..
Citizen Hardin Smith and the Firepup Freedom Fighters:
On the topic of followin’ the law and the responsibility to follow the law and procedure as instructed in the constitution, I implore you Christy and all the FDL Freedom Fighters to go see the re-run of the press conference David Obey and John Murtha held (note: without Nancy One Note) tellin’ the DC press corps that there would be NO supplemental without the 3 conditions as put forward in the House passed version no matter what the Senate does or does not do.
What is significant here is:
1. Obey and Murtha are two of the strongest committee chairs in the House and they have made an alliance in opposition to the leadership (even though their politics are polar opposite and still be Democrats).
2. The there are two very arcane methods that the fascists can use to bypass Obey and the appropriations committee but they require the acquiescence of Murtha’s committee.
3. In order to get past Obey, Nancy Fancy Pants would hafta declare open warfare on two of the most powerful and effective committee chairs and, in my opinion, even if she were to succeed she would lose in the long run because the progressives will be able to take it to the people in the primaries and Pelosi and Hoyer and Emmanuel will be toast (and they know it).
4. This press conference should have been organized and coordinated BEFORE the recess with the leadership and is further proof that the senior House leadership has abandoned the rank and file.
5. In addition to FISA law breakin’ and torture the failure to follow the direction of the House of Representatives in the administration of appropriated funds is another impeachable offense.
Finally, I am waiting to hear from those women leaders that I respect, like Sister Hardin Smith, Sister Hamsher, Sister Pheonix Woman et al on why women voters should not be openly opposin’ Mrs. Clinton…she’s gettin a free ride and she’s takin’ the women’s vote for granted not to mention that she’s fully funded by the arms industry and the nuke industry.
KEEP THE FAITH AND PASS THE AMMUNTION, THE BASTARDS ARE CRAWLIN’ OVER THE FENCE INTO YER BACKYARD!!
scribe @ 21
Whoa – wait a min. I recall reading something about Gonzalez going after Edwards contributors in Michigan…this is different..and additional.
KLynn @ 17
One would certainly think so.
Well, perhaps they will. What do you think?
TexEx at 25 — I think they have internal requirements, though, in terms of updates and seminars. Maybe some of the ex-AUSAs in the audience can chime in on that, but I know I’ve had to juggle hearings on occasion when I was doing federal defense work based on an AUSA having to go to DC for a seminar or training update.
selise, if you are still around, ygm fb
Nudge nudge wink wink!
mc @ 18
Well, at least now we know why Rove actually quit the WH. I saw an article yesterday that said that he was advising Rethugs to move away from the President if they want to win in 2008. Since he couldn’t really say that and work at the WH at the same time, he found it necessary to quit so he could tell the truth to candidates.
What I can’t figure out is, how have they moved away? They’re still with him on the war, and Rethugs are still backing his plays in Congress against their own best interest (i.e. Schip.) I’ve heard some criticism of early moves in the war, but nothing like them all moving away from him.
I may have been thinking in regards to paying for your law license but if the individuals aren’t actually practicing law, like Yoo, I don’t think they would actually need a license. Of course once he became AG Gonzo would have to. Maybe he skipped the ethics part of the seminar and just signed in.
Ann in AZ @ 23
Per the local FOX TV affiliate (FOX 9 News) last night, the last straw was when she went whining to conservative blogger John “Hindrocket” Hinderaker in the National Review Online.
Redd,
Great post. Yep that’s the continous tension between management and the legal dept in any organization in which I’ve worked…lawyers are paid to avoid lawsuits- management is paid to make money- and those goals often collide. It requires mutual respenct and a willingness to compromise on both sides to form a winning team.
If the lawyers always win, the organization will become so risk adverse that it suboptimizes performance and becomes mediocre- a “me too” company. If managment always wins- you get Enron- or Bushco.
Great subject.
Re: Rachel Paulose:
Yep. Ari Shapiro said the same thing on NPR’s Morning Edition his morning. He also said Norm Coleman helped move things along. Her replacement hasn’t been announced yet.
Following up: it’s not just that the authors of the op-ed are a former AG and the head of the Brennan Center and that their timing is opportune.
Nope. This is The Establishment talking, and putting its foot down.
By way of history, Katzenbach was AG after being a deputy to Bobby Kennedy. Most of the Big civil rights cases from the 60s, were done by Katzenbach. One pops to mind from law school – Katzenbach v. McClung – which (IIRC) was a restaurant/public accommodations desegregation case. There were a lot of those.
Here’s a semi-official biography. http://72.14.205.104/search?q=…..enbach.asp katzenbach&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=12&gl=us
He was then general counsel to IBM for almost 20 years.
Interestingly, he spent no little amount of time as a prisoner of war of the Nazis, having been in the Air Force and captured. (FWIW, his son wrote the novel “Hart’s War”, http://www.amazon.com/Harts-Wa…..0345426258 , based in part upon his father’s experience as a POW.)
F.A.O. Schwartz was a senior partner at the seriously white-shoe firm of Cravath, Swaine and Moore for many years, then became Corporation Counsel to the City of New York (the head lawyer for the whole city), among other things. And, IIRC, yes, his family was with the eponymous toy store at 5th and 58th.
These are two huge figures in the Establishment, and they are sending a serious message from, to and for it. We should recognize that, and that (for once) the Establishment is on our side.
rw at 35 — Exactly so. And its a subject that really ought to get a lot more discussion. I thought it would after the Enron and subprime mortgage messes, but it seems to only get more discussion in tight pockets — like among the corporate law types, but not so much in the public in general.
It’s high time we all started realizing how much impact these little bits and pieces have on all of us. And how much change is really needed.
Given Bush’s limited experience and problem solving ability- he needs people around him who are strong and push back- instead he has insisted on synchophants- and in this lies most of that error and tragedy his administration has inflicted on the world.
The truth was always there to be spoken- but Bush insisted on not hearing it.
As Clauswitz said- “You will have some in your army who are both stupid and ambitious- those you must eliminate at all cost or they will lead to your defeat.
apologies for the ot: did anyone hear gen. wes clark on stephanie miller’s show just now? i don’t want to misquote him, but he attributed the lessening of violence in Iraq to Iran, saying they want a period of calm, then mentioned Iran’s nuclear ambitions. he said Iran is stronger and U.S. is weaker since the conflict.
this is the second time I’ve heard him on her show come down strong against Iran. does anyone know if he advocates military action? as he’s a big Hillary supporter, i’m curious what advice he’s giving her.
scribe at 37 — Exactly so. And said much better than I did above — thanks. *g*
Redd
One reason that it gets so little discussion, perhaps, is that you can’t solve it through policies, laws, rules, etc. It can only be solved by having a wise CEO- and you can’t legislate that. An idiot will screw it up everytime regardless of the rules.
This is ALL about George Bush- not Alberto.
TxExSpeedy @ 25
Don’t most lawyers keep their licenses current regardless of whether they need it to do their jobs (and I would think it would be needed to be the AG) like realtors do? You normally would not let your license lapse just in case you ever want to go back into private practice.
If I let my RE license lapse, I would have to go back and start the whole process over again with the higher educational credit hours (when I started it was 45 credit hours; later that increased to 90)and I would have to retake the test. If I let it lapse, I probably would not ever get it back (by choice,) so I’ll probably renew.
scribe @ 37:
The establishment of the legal profession? As they say in Chile: claro!
scribe @ 37
Let us see who heeds this ‘message’.
Christy Hardin Smith @ 41
Always a pleasure to be of assistance.
My con law professor (Kinoy) argued the Keith case and, when he told the story of it to the class, mentioned that the counsel for the district judge (it was a mandamus, so the judge was made a party) was also the GC for Ford Motors. The Prof was a long-time, recognized figure on the Left, but he remarked that the GC said to him the night before the argument (to the effect of): “we’re usually on different sides and poles apart, but this time we’re on the same side. Because we both want the same thing – a Constitution which means something.” (It’s been nearly 20 years since I sat in that class, so forgive me if I’m misquoting – but I know I got the gist right.)
Today, we’re in the same spot as they were, then.
Ann in AZ:
IANAL: But in a word: No. Timmeh, for instance, is a lawyer. But he certainly didn’t keep his license current for the job he has…*g*
We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union,
establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common
defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to
ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the
United States of America.
scribe @ 46
Greatly appreciate your ‘inside’ view.
Thank you for sharing it.
scribe at 46 — It is one of the reasons that people like Bruce Fein and others have stepped forward in the same role. The rule of law has to be given a voice. But it needs to be voices from both sides of the political aisle at the same time in this particularly nasty political environment for most people to pay attention.
We have done a very bad job of highlighting the level of disgust in the establishment in thiscountry — mainly because they don’t tend to be the sorts of people who carry big sticks and speak loudly. This op-ed is a shot across the “wake the hell up” bow…
From the NYTimes op-ed in Christy’s post:
A lofty goal (and methinks a tall order) for this administration.
“Because we both want the same thing – a Constitution which means something.”
Damn straight.
Nice post Christy. Many old timers remember Nicholas Katzenbach confronting George Wallace at the University of Alabama. The famous photo is at wiki, but I’m no good at linking.
Me @ 51:
I meant restoring the Constitution and America’s reputation…
I believe it was under Reagan that the Congressional Divide became impossible to bridge. Until that time, there were disagreements between the parties, but people remained civil, and bargains were made.
Newt really furthered the divide in the 90s.
From then until now, it is very difficult to overcome the division.
But outside the government, where there are distinctions that remain between historical Republicans and Democrats, we see the kind of dialog about the Constitution, as you have highlighted, Christy.
Some of the people still have the capacity and willingness to think like the founders on issues of great import, like the rule of law and how freedom is lost and (re)gained.
Thank goodness.
pma @ 53
P.S.
Those were heady days, when one could feel really good about the Justice Department.
(new thread from jane upstairs…)
mc @ 18
Can we get him to speak on Countdown?
I wonder how many families will be enjoying their last holiday meal in perhaps their last ‘real home’? I am thinking forclosures. I am absolutely disgusted with the so called “Grand” Old Party.
1,664 DAYZ AND THE KILLIN’ GOEZ ON AND ON AND..
Citizen rwcole and the Firepup Freedom Fighters:
“…you can’t solve it through policies , laws, rules etc. It can only be solved by having a wise CEO…”
What the fuck??!! I thought democracy and the rule of law demand followin’ “policies, laws, rules etc” either in the private sector or public. I’m afraid that the Chimpenfuehrer IS successful by havin’ synchophants and scofflaws in place since the goal is to destroy the effectiveness of the organization, in this case the federal government, and secure the corporation(s) as the only institutions capable of gettin’ anything done.
We have full blown corporate fascism in place…the last thing we need is to give ourselves over to the corporate “benevolent despot” model of governance, either in our private or public lives.
KEEP THE FAITH BUT OPEN YER EYES BEFORE THEY TAKE THAT AWAY FROM YA TOO!!
Norske
I’ve worked for very good CEOs and shitty ones. The good ones find a way to do the right thing in these areas and the shitty ones fuck it up ala Bush.
I don’t see any way of installing “rules” that would require the CEO to listen to his chief legal counsel when appropriate and push back at her when it is not.
Jane’s upstairs with Gonzo…
Where were these establishment lawyers and their “fantastic op-eds” during these last five years of carnage?
Long live Seymour Hersh.
Irons at 63 — A lot of them have been working their asses off behind the scenes to change things. The Brennan Center, for one, has been doing some excelent work on civil liberties issues. And some of them have been doing public speaking about this all along — at major legal events that don’t get much coverage by the corporate media.
Christy Hardin Smith @ 50
There are three basic components to the problem.
1. The Establishment doesn’t talk to DFHs.
2. DFHs don’t talk to the Establishment.
3. Loyalties.
1. and 2. are of a piece and stem from the basic difficulty that there is very little common space where the Establishment and DFHs can communicate. By that, I mean their paths just don’t cross. The Establishment lives in their world and DFHs in theirs. They are largely separate.
The workplace further segregates. Working in the white-shoe law firm or the investment bank, one has no time to read blogs or talk politics – one is working 16-20 hours/day, every day.
Additionally, when under that level of intensity in the workplace, one only gets to see the very tips of the discussion. Thus, (by way of example) the Establishment member only sees raging, screeching protests, or the kids coming home from college with strange piercings or hair, or the like. You get the picture. And the DFHs only see the Establishment as plutocrats trashing this forest or that neighborhood or making an ass of themselves in the society pages.
Neither side really gets to see the commonality of ideas and principles the other shares, which underlie both their places in society.
As to “loyalties” – that’s not just the “traitor to his class” thing which FDR (and many others got tagged with). It also has to do with “I know so and so, and he’s a good guy, our kids go to school together (or we went together), we’ve done business together…” and one is reluctant to step outside of conformity within the group (this applies on both sides) to reach across “the divide”. Even moreso, one is reluctant to step outside conformity because it might be held against one later. They have mortgages, too.
I wish I could come up with a solution, but absent people looking up from their own particular grindstones to recognize the shared values underlying things, I’m at a loss.
Ann @43
In Texas you can have your license on non-practicing status and avoid paying your Atty License dues and taxes. Usually professors and lawyers who are doing other things that are not considered practicing law. If you do not file things in court or appear in court or more importantly receive fees for giving legal advice.
scribe @ 65;
Please forgive my lack of understanding, but what does ‘DFH’ translate into, in terms I might understand?
I would truly like to understand what you are saying, but am not.
Regardless, would not a mutual effort regarding lifting of noses from the grindstone rough be worthwhile if not desperately necessary if our world is to survive?
It seems you might be a worthy ambassador for such an undertaking.
I remember my college days in the mid 80’s always thinkning that this or that politician could never do the things BushCo. is doing because no one would let it happen and the media would shine a big spotlight on it.
9/11 changed that for a short time after, but what really changed that reality was the Corporate Media/entertainment CEOs and Major Share holders all being rightwing fascists, for lack of a better word.
BushCo. was owned by them and other corporations
the stopped the media from being independent to being a propaganda machine. That is why net neutrality needs to be saved. The net is the underground, the leaflet publisher, and yes the conspiracy publisher, but most importantly the new public square where the free flow of ideas can be discussed and reasoned without gov’t interference or censorship.
David W. Bartoo @ 67
“DFH” = Dirty F*cking Hippies, also known as progressives.
Biodun @ 11
They are putting her in the closet. This is a Quebec government term for getting rid of embarrassing and incompetent civil servants that can’t be fired. Put them in an office with no windows, give them no work, and make it so uncomfortable they will quit. Some never quit, but the cost to the public is much lower than actually allowing them to screw up their work. I think this would be the best way of handling Federalist and other ‘moles’ in the next administration. If they can’t be fired, bury them in the basement.
Thank you, scribe. Understanding quite clearly now.
What think you of diplomacy as an option?
Would you be willing to serve? Your country has need of you, Ambassador.
Knut Wicksell @ 70
Except that Ms Rachel CAN be fired. As a USA, she “serves at the pleasure of the President” as we have been reminded many times.
Christy Hardin Smith @ 50
To paraphrase Nixon, Establishment types don’t need to carry big sticks and speak loudly.
A quiet comment, raised eyebrow, or non-invitation from one of them is usually enough, because it comes from a position of strength and because “everyone” knows there are minions out there to enforce the decision.
But, in light of a comment such as Katzenbach’s and Schwartz’s today, we may well see the Establishment move as one, in the way schools of fish and flocks of birds do. When they change direction, they do it almost in unison. Today’s op-ed is reflective of the change in mindset which has taken place, and a signal that it is ok to manifest that change in mindset with a change of direction.
This will be Topic One over the Thanksgiving table, in the polite and refined way they do it.
Watch.
And, digressing a bit, a nice way to frame the debate for your Thanksgiving table is, paraphrasing a Kos diary earlier today (now off the screen):
scribe @ 73
LOL,
You capture ‘their’
drollery most
admiraby.
How might you
frame the approximate
same regarding DFH
or ‘progressive’
‘asperity’?
It’s not the OLC’s job to write new laws; it’s to interpret existing laws and define the LIMITS of executive power. That’s the “No” part of a legal opinion, more colloquially rendered as “Yes, but…”. This administration’s lawyers, notably Addington and Yoo, have rejected the notion that there are limits. Which is to reject the notion of law itself.
As with the judges and lawyers convicted of war crimes at Nuremburg for abusing the legal system, there should be legal consequences for knowingly gutting the system of law on which our government and our rights and lives depend.
That, in part, is what the immunity fight in Congress – nominally over FISA – is all about. It’s not just about violating FISA, and it’s not only about immunity for telcos.
Clinton, Obama and Edwards are all lawyers. To echo the purported words of William Wallace, each should be asked “What will you do?” to reinstate the rule of law. And then we should all keep track of whether they “make it so”.
You forget who the Democratic congress just confirmed as AG. Mukasey said that if the president asks someone to do something illegal, he is bringing the illegal act into the sphere of legality. In other words, if the president does it, it is not illegal. Now where have I heard that one before???
I have noted that in Pakistan, it is the LAWYERS that are in the streets protesting, and the LAWYERS are arrested and put in prison–all because their leader is not following the Rule of Law. Where are the lawyers in this country? They seem to be comfortably writing op eds and blogs and making a tidy little sum writing legal opinions to allow the Rule of Law to be compromised in this country. See any discrepency here? Am I stepping on any toes?
eat the establishment!
peas!
With Ramblin’ Rachel Federalist Paulose at OLP there ain’t gonna be no sunshine or honesty at DOJ–it’s been wrecked irreversibly, as US Attorneys have been comfortable lying along with the FBI on over 2500 false evidence cases.
What DOJ has become about is advancing the cause of the loyal Bushie interests from Civil Rights to the Criminal Division. It has been irreversibly turned into a Sopranoesque cabal.
The policy is as usual—lie and redact; redact and lie; target Democrats for prosecution as a survey has shown has happened from 4 to 1 to 10 to 1 in some districts.
Grievance Project
For nearly two years, I have been watching intently the consistent and continuous dismantling of the Constitution by the President. Through December of 2006, the Congressional Republicans enabled the President both actively by passing legislation and passively by failing to fulfill their Constitutional oversight responsibilities.
When control of both houses of Congress was unexpectedly transferred to the Democratic Party in the 2006 midterm elections, I was cautiously optimistic that there might be some change in the operation of the federal government. Instead, the Bush Administration continue to daily violate the Constitution, Congressional Republicans remain more loyal to their party than to their country and Congressional Democrats have failed to exercise the full powers provided to Congress by the Constitution.
Accordingly, it quickly became clear that the Congressional Democrats would be unable to enact any legislation or stop the occupation of Iraq until 11/18 – not November 18, but until the eleven Republican Senators needed to stop their party’s unprecedented use of filibuster and the eighteen Republican Senators needed to override a veto of that legislation crossed the aisle. It’s simple arithmetic that leaves Congressional Democrats with two – and only two – effective powers: stalemate and subpoena.
For whatever reason, Congressional Democrats have been timid – too timid, in my opinion – in their use of these weapons. Although Congressional Democrats have undertaken an oversight role by issuing subpoenas and holding hearings, each new revelation of incompetence and wrongdoing only leaves me thinking ‘Well, that’s finally enough.’ But it never is.
More HERE