L'estat c'est moi

[mrdiscreet]

An ongoing compendium of the the Bush crime family.

For openers:

Sen. Whitehouse Reveals Secret DoJ Legal Memos: Bush Determines What Is Constitutional

This morning, Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI) delivered an impassioned floor speech (http://emptywheel.firedoglake.com/2007/12/07/whitehouse-rips-the-white-house/) to help frame the debate over FISA reform. Using his privilege as a member of the Senate Intelligence Committee, Whitehouse said he has “spent hours poring over” secret opinions issued by the Department of Justice’s Office of Legal Counsel (OLC) — and he took notes.

Whitehouse is a lawyer, a former U.S. Attorney (http://whitehouse.senate.gov/biography.cfm), a former legal counsel to Rhode Island’s Governor, and a former State Attorney General. He said he sought and received permission to have his notes declassified because he wanted to show the public “what the Bush administration does behind our backs when they think no one is looking.”

“To give you an example of what I read,” Whitehouse said on the Senate floor, “I have gotten three legal propositions from these secret OLC opinions declassified. Here they are, as accurately as my note-taking could reproduce them from the classified documents”:
1. An executive order cannot limit a President. There is no constitutional requirement for a President to issue a new executive order whenever he wishes to depart from the terms of a previous executive order. Rather than violate an executive order, the President has instead modified or waived it.

2. The President, exercising his constitutional authority under Article II, can determine whether an action is a lawful exercise of the President’s authority under Article II.

3. The Department of Justice is bound by the President’s legal determinations.

[mrdiscreet]

So, what this amounts to, is our Department of Justice, whose attorneys swear oaths to the Constitution, have flatly violated their oaths of office to provide cover for spying on US citizens and torturing "enemy combatants"

The law is whatever George Bush says it is? This is treason.

[spare_change]

And that, folks, is what we fondly call a leap of logic --- amazing the distance it can cover.

[Iwantutowantme]

So, what this amounts to, is our Department of Justice, whose attorneys swear oaths to the Constitution, have flatly violated their oaths of office to provide cover for spying on US citizens and torturing "enemy combatants"

The law is whatever George Bush says it is? This is treason.

**
I agree that George Bush has committed teasonous acts while being illegally elected president of the US. He should have been hung along with Sadam. Rove, Rumsfeld and Cheney also should have been hung. Justice does not exist in the handpicked supreme court. Enough Executive Orders have been created by this president and some before him to give control of the US to the existing shadow government at a moments notice.

[mrdiscreet]

And that, folks, is what we fondly call a leap of logic --- amazing the distance it can cover.

Please specify the leap.

(1) the syllogism cited is contrary to well-settled Supreme Court caselaw going back to Marbury vs. Madison.

(2) waterboarding as torture has never been in dispute, until thie Bush administration has now chosen to pretend it is an open question.

(3) warrantless tapping of our telecoms is a clear invasion of privacy, proven by the fact the Bush administration is desperate to provide the telecoms retroactive immunity for participating in it.

(4) a legal opinion that states the president declares the law is not a legal opinion at all; the fact that such a non-statrter was relied upon demonstrates the was no basis available for a valid opinion to be issued.

(5) subversion of our Constitutional rights is treason. Any official who put loyalty to the rpesident above duty to the Constitution should be prosecuted by every means available. Any attorney who participated in furthering unconstitutional acts should be disbarred.

[PunkyBob]

Tyranny hides behind the veneer of law.

[spare_change]

Please specify the leap.

(1) the syllogism cited is contrary to well-settled Supreme Court caselaw going back to Marbury vs. Madison.

(2) waterboarding as torture has never been in dispute, until thie Bush administration has now chosen to pretend it is an open question.

(3) warrantless tapping of our telecoms is a clear invasion of privacy, proven by the fact the Bush administration is desperate to provide the telecoms retroactive immunity for participating in it.

(4) a legal opinion that states the president declares the law is not a legal opinion at all; the fact that such a non-statrter was relied upon demonstrates the was no basis available for a valid opinion to be issued.

(5) subversion of our Constitutional rights is treason. Any official who put loyalty to the rpesident above duty to the Constitution should be prosecuted by every means available. Any attorney who participated in furthering unconstitutional acts should be disbarred.


It's your world, I just live here. You can paint it any color that helps you get thru the night.

[mrdiscreet]

It's your world, I just live here. You can paint it any color that helps you get thru the night.

I invited a specific response on the merits to the claimed "leap of logic" in my prior post. I'm still waiting.

This actually demonstrates one of my concerns: iinstead of engaging in true debate on the merits of issues, the GOP simply put down their opponents.

[spare_change]

I invited a specific response on the merits to the claimed "leap of logic" in my prior post. I'm still waiting.

This actually demonstrates one of my concerns: iinstead of engaging in true debate on the merits of issues, the GOP simply put down their opponents.


Now THAT is funny.

You can continue to wait --- until you show a willingness to discuss the facts intelligently and rationally instead of engage in emotional rhetoric.

[mrdiscreet]

Now THAT is funny.

You can continue to wait --- until you show a willingness to discuss the facts intelligently and rationally instead of engage in emotional rhetoric.

I am quite content for anyone who cares to read this thread to assess which posts present facts and argument on the merits.

[mrdiscreet]

Tyranny hides behind the veneer of law.

Well said.

We tend to think Hitler and Mussolini marched to power. They both arose out of democratic republics, and scared and compliant legislatures, before consolidating their dictatorships.

Our founding fathers understood democracy is an audacious opening up of society from the historical norm of tyranny, always at risk of closing back down.

We take for granted what history demonstrates is an exceptional and fragile form of government.
.

[spare_change]

I am quite content for anyone who cares to read this thread to assess which posts present facts and argument on the merits.


Deleted -- it ain't worth the effort.

[mrdiscreet]

Deleted -- it ain't worth the effort.

It is worth the effort. We now live in a country where peace activists and Princeton constitutional schoars have been placed on No Fly Lists and denied entry to Canada for daring to criticize the Bush administration.

[mrdiscreet]

What does this remind me of? Oh yeah, Scooter Libby.

CIA destroyed tapes despite court orders

By MATT APUZZO, Associated Press Writer


WASHINGTON - The Bush administration was under court order not to discard evidence of detainee torture and abuse months before the CIA destroyed videotapes that revealed some of its harshest interrogation tactics.

Normally, that would force the government to defend itself against obstruction allegations. But the CIA may have an out: its clandestine network of overseas prisons.

While judges focused on the detention center in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, and tried to guarantee that any evidence of detainee abuse would be preserved, the CIA was performing its toughest questioning half a world away. And by the time President Bush publicly acknowledged the secret prison system, interrogation videotapes of two terrorism suspects had been destroyed.

The CIA destroyed the tapes in November 2005. That June, U.S. District Judge Henry H. Kennedy Jr. had ordered the Bush administration to safeguard "all evidence and information regarding the torture, mistreatment, and abuse of detainees now at the United States Naval Base at Guantanamo Bay."

U.S. District Judge Gladys Kessler issued a nearly identical order that July.

At the time, that seemed to cover all detainees in U.S. custody. But Abu Zubaydah and Abd al-Rahim al-Nashiri, the terrorism suspects whose interrogations were videotaped and then destroyed, weren't at Guantanamo Bay. They were prisoners that existed off the books — and apparently beyond the scope of the court's order.

Attorneys say that might not matter. David H. Remes, a lawyer for Yemeni citizen Mahmoad Abdah and others, asked Kennedy this week to schedule a hearing on the issue.

Though Remes acknowledged the tapes might not be covered by Kennedy's order, he said, "It is still unlawful for the government to destroy evidence, and it had every reason to believe that these interrogation records would be relevant to pending litigation concerning our client."

In legal documents filed in January 2005, Assistant Attorney General Peter D. Keisler assured Kennedy that government officials were "well aware of their obligation not to destroy evidence that may be relevant in pending litigation."

For just that reason, officials inside and outside of the CIA advised against destroying the interrogation tapes, according to a former senior intelligence official involved in the matter who spoke on condition of anonymity because it is under investigation.

Exactly who signed off on the decision is unclear, but CIA director Michael Hayden told the agency in an e-mail this week that internal reviewers found the tapes were not relevant to any court case.

Remes said that decision raises questions about whether other evidence was destroyed. Abu Zubaydah's interrogation helped lead investigators to alleged 9/11 mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and Remes said Abu Zubaydah may also have been questioned about other detainees. Such evidence might have been relevant in their court cases.

"It's logical to infer that the documents were destroyed in order to obstruct any inquiry into the means by which statements were obtained," Remes said.

He stopped short, however, of accusing the government of obstruction. That's just one of the legal issues that could come up in court. A judge could also raise questions about contempt of court or spoliation, a legal term for the destruction of evidence in "pending or reasonably foreseeable litigation."

Kennedy has not scheduled a hearing on the matter and the government has not filed a response to Remes' request.

[mrdiscreet]

Bush Secret Shredding Soars

http://radaronline.com/exclusives/trend_graph.jpg
HELL BENT ON DESTRUCTION Shredding contracts during Bush/Cheney
Behold, the Bush Administration in chart form: Federal spending on paper shredding has increased more than 600 percent since George W. Bush took office. This chart, generated by usaspending.gov (http://usaspending.gov/), the U.S. government's brand spanking new (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/12/12/AR2007121202701.html) database of federal expenditures, shows spending on "contracts for paper shredding services" going back to 2000. Click here (http://www.usaspending.gov/fpds/fpds.php?reptype=a&database=fpds&mod_agency=&mod_fund_agency=&PIID=&psc_cat=&psc_sub=R614&contractor_type=&descriptionOfContractRequirement=&compete_cat=&dollar_tot=&fiscal_year=&first_year_range=&last_year_range=&detail=-1&datype=T&email=) for the full, heartbreaking breakdown. In 2000, the feds spent $452,807 to make unpleasant truths go away; by 2006, the "Cheney Effect" had bumped that number up to $2.9 million. And by halfway through 2007, the feds almost matched that number, with $2.7 million and counting. Pretty much says it all.

[PunkyBob]

Damn...knew I shoulda bought shredder machine stock in '00!!

[oldandnaked]

Hope they recycle.

[mrdiscreet]

What does this remind me of? Oh yeah, Scooter Libby.

CIA destroyed tapes despite court orders


In legal documents filed in January 2005, Assistant Attorney General Peter D. Keisler assured Kennedy that government officials were "well aware of their obligation not to destroy evidence that may be relevant in pending litigation."



Update: It turns out Keisler has resigned from the Justice Department shortly before the document destruction become public. This is the only ethical choice for an attorney who discovers his client is continuing a criminal enterprise. Yet there is no attorney-clinet privlege for governmanet acts, so his testimony should be interesting ...

[mrdiscreet]

U.S. paid $32M for Iraqi base that wasn't built
By Matt Kelley, USA TODAY
WASHINGTON — The U.S. military paid a Florida company nearly $32 million to build barracks and offices for Iraqi army units even though nothing was ever built, Pentagon investigators reported.

The project had to be abandoned because the Iraqi Defense Ministry couldn't obtain rights to the land where the headquarters were to be built, according to a report released this month by the Defense Department's Office of Inspector General. Contracting records show the buildings would have housed one brigade and three battalions of the Iraqi military in Ramadi, a hotbed of the Sunni Muslim insurgency and capital of Anbar province.

Still, the Air Force agency overseeing the project paid contractor Ellis Environmental Group $31.9 million of the $34.2 million obligated for the project, the report said.

An Air Force spokesman, Michael Hawkins, said in an e-mail that Air Force auditors are reviewing the contract. Although the inspector general's report says the Air Force was considering suing the contractor, Hawkins said any talk of a lawsuit was premature until the Air Force audit is complete.

Ellis Environmental Group spokesman Steve Brownstein said the work was reassigned to Ellis World Alliance Corp., a related company. Bob Smith, of Ellis World Alliance headquarters in Gainesville, Fla., said contracting rules barred any official comment.

[FRMale]

Well said.

We tend to think Hitler and Mussolini marched to power. They both arose out of democratic republics, and scared and compliant legislatures, before consolidating their dictatorships.

Our founding fathers understood democracy is an audacious opening up of society from the historical norm of tyranny, always at risk of closing back down.

We take for granted what history demonstrates is an exceptional and fragile form of government.
.

Please get it straight... we are never to be a democracy. Our Founding Father's never wanted a Democracy (Please understand the history of this country). We have a Republic! We elect our officials. We only have a say through the people we elect.

If our founding Fathers came back from the dead and saw what had happened to their ideal of an utopia, they would have never risked their lives fighting the English and the King for Freedom. We have put up with more from our own government (TAXATION, which gives the government the power it does, but no one sees that, or very few do to care what happens to future generations), then the colonists did from English and the power they had over the Colonists.

Please do ever call this country a DEMOCRACY... WHAT LAWS DO I ACTUALLY VOTE ON??? I have to scream at my elected to vote to my way of thinking... DEMOCRACY gives power to each individual... the only power we have to elect people into power

[FRMale]

Could Everyone repeat the Pledge of Allegiance with me...

I pledge allegiance to my Flag,
and to the Republic for which it stands:
one Nation indivisible,
With Liberty and Justice for all.

October 11, 1892


I know that this REPUBLIC doesn't stand for much these days except for the dollar; no matter how one goes about getting it. But, the Pledge says nothing about a democracy, as of today. That may change with the way people think these days

[mrdiscreet]

True. But democratic republic is kind of a mouthful. So I'll keep using democracy as shorthand. I like the emphasis that it puts on how each of us should be paying attention to what OUR elected representatives are up to.

[mrdiscreet]

Could Everyone repeat the Pledge of Allegiance with me...

I pledge allegiance to my Flag,
and to the Republic for which it stands:
one Nation indivisible,
With Liberty and Justice for all.

October 11, 1892



I'm not really into reciting ad jingos originally coined to support flag sales to schools. But it is better than the McCarthy-era version. Our focus should be on having the state be obedient to we the people, not the other way around.

[spare_change]

I'm not really into reciting ad jingos originally coined to support flag sales to schools. But it is better than the McCarthy-era version. Our focus should be on having the state be obedient to we the people, not the other way around.



Now THAT'S funny, I don't care who you are!

[Iwantutowantme]

Please get it straight... we are never to be a democracy. Our Founding Father's never wanted a Democracy (Please understand the history of this country). We have a Republic! We elect our officials. We only have a say through the people we elect.

If our founding Fathers came back from the dead and saw what had happened to their ideal of an utopia, they would have never risked their lives fighting the English and the King for Freedom. We have put up with more from our own government (TAXATION, which gives the government the power it does, but no one sees that, or very few do to care what happens to future generations), then the colonists did from English and the power they had over the Colonists.

Please do ever call this country a DEMOCRACY... WHAT LAWS DO I ACTUALLY VOTE ON??? I have to scream at my elected to vote to my way of thinking... DEMOCRACY gives power to each individual... the only power we have to elect people into power

I agree..it was to be a republic.....

[mrdiscreet]

Now THAT'S funny, I don't care who you are!

From The Pledge Of Allegiance, A Revised History and Analysis, 2007 (http://history.vineyard.net/pdgech0.htm)
by Dr. John W. Baer (http://history.vineyard.net/pledgesig.gif).

Copyrighted 2007 by John W. Baer.

The Youth's Companion Magazine

The Pledge of Allegiance never would have been written and promoted if The Youth's Companion had not existed in 1892. Today, the magazine and its owner and editor, Daniel Ford, are largely forgotten.

The Youth's Companion magazine from 1892 to its demise in 1929 promoted the Pledge of Allegiance. The magazine claimed that its personnel, under the leadership of James Bailey Upham, Ford`s nephew, had written the Pledge. The magazine resented Francis Bellamy's claim that he alone, and not Upham or the staff of the magazine, had written the Pledge. [Note: Bellamy was hired by the magazine to write the Pledge.]

Flag Over the Schoolhouse Campaign

In 1886 Upham had become head of the Premium Department. By 1888 he had launched his School Flag Movement not only to sell flags but also to raise the level of patriotism in the schools. His promotion often would take the form of an advertisement in the magazine.

One very successful ad urged the student to write the Companion for one hundred cards bearing the inscription: " This Certificate entitles the holder thereof to one share in the patriotic influence of a Flag over the schoolhouse." These cards, sold by the pupil at ten cents each, brought in the ten dollars to buy a flag sold from the Premium Department. The Board of Education was asked to furnish the flag staff. This plan, supported by spirited literature, resulted in about twenty-five thousand schools buying the American flag in the year 1891 alone.

The school flag movement was recognized by the nation's education press and was encouraged at the teachers' meetings. Soon it would have the support of the National Educational Association [Bellamy headed the NEA committee, and lobbied for this] and the United States government. Previously military installations were the only institutions which flew the Flag every day. Upham argued many times that the best national defense was free public school education and therefore all public schools should fly the Flag.

Funnier still: Francis Bellamy was a Chistian Socialist -- I do crack up whenever I hear obedient right wingers affirming his decidedly French ideals of socialist "liberty and justice for all" popularized by commie teachers unions :D

[spare_change]

Now THATS funny, I don't care who you are!

[FRMale]

even patriotism is market and sold... what a sad state of afairs