Comments on: HJC Testimony: DOJ And Interrogation — Ashcroft, Dellinger And Wittes

By: KayInMaine

KayInMaine — Thu, 17 Jul 2008 21:50:01 +0000

This has probably already been said above but I’m going to say it again:

ASHCROFT IS AN ARROGANT ASSHOLE! Wow. I couldn’t believe how he acted like he was being picked on and said a couple of times, “I am no longer Attorney General and this happened years ago”, like it’s no big deal!

Asswipe. I wished [Moderator: this portion was taken out for advocating violence.].

By: earlofhuntingdon

earlofhuntingdon — Thu, 17 Jul 2008 19:13:45 +0000

Why is it acceptable politically, much less legally, to call torture techniques merely, “controversial” rather than illegal, against our laws, our traditions, our aspirations and our interests? What do our journalists make of such statements?

The harm, including at least a hundred deaths, done to hundreds of prisoners within our control is well-documented. The politically useful claims that their torture saved “hundreds of thousands” of lives, or might have done, are undocumented and unproven. I might have won the lottery, too, but the odds are somewhat against it. About 175 million to one. Are those odds worth risking my life, my honor and my sacred treasure? Perhaps I might think so if it avoided Karl or Dick yelling at me or campaigning aga.

By: earlofhuntingdon

earlofhuntingdon — Thu, 17 Jul 2008 19:02:29 +0000

Ashcroft and Dellinger are giving us their ”lawyers’ view” of the facts, not an objective assessment. Their job is to put themselves, their actions and those of the CheneyBush administration in the best possible light.

An objective assessment would require, say, not just listening to Al Capone tell us about the taxes he paid. It would require comparing his actual tax returns with a list of his assets and actual expenses, and a search through his books and the mind of his bookkeeper.

Listening to Al is likely to tell us what he hopes will keep him out of jail. Critically assessing the facts is likely to put him there.

By: fate2×4

fate2×4 — Thu, 17 Jul 2008 18:19:37 +0000

I thought Adam Schiff asked an excellent question until I heard the answers which I did not understand.

By: rwcole

rwcole — Thu, 17 Jul 2008 18:06:40 +0000

We have learned in the course of this administration that it is not enough for congress to be legally in the right- as they certainly are in the current executive privelege battles- they must also have the power of the judiciary behind them in order to accomplish anything.

By: rwcole

rwcole — Thu, 17 Jul 2008 18:00:21 +0000

Yes- it is about that- and whether there are any court decisions dealing explicitly with that question. I am not aware of any- are you?

By: Hugh

Hugh — Thu, 17 Jul 2008 17:54:08 +0000

Sorry, I thought the subject was on limits to executive privilege in an impeachment setting. You are correct about Jaworski but the decision was made within and with knowledge of the larger process. I have to say though that an impeachment inquiry by the House would be on a lot stronger legal ground than that of a Special Prosecutor.

By: rwcole

rwcole — Thu, 17 Jul 2008 17:52:31 +0000

Wonder if Clusterfuck would be willing to ignore a court decision on executive privelege? That would really assert the imperial executive. The court also relies on DOJ to enforce their rulings.

By: rwcole

rwcole — Thu, 17 Jul 2008 17:50:19 +0000

Yes- I know that- which is why I don’t think the decision is relevent to an impeachment hearing.

By: dakine01

dakine01 — Thu, 17 Jul 2008 17:47:21 +0000

Leon Jaworski was the Special Prosecutor for H2Ogate who replaced Archibald Cox after the “Saturday Night Massacre.” His investigations ran concurrently with the Impeachment Hearings conducted by the HJC, then headed by Peter Rodino, (D-NJ).