Democrats & Liberals Archives

Rules? We don't need no stinking rules

Court documents were filed, late on Friday night, by the Bush administration declaring to a federal court that the Bush Administration wasn’t obligated to preserve videotaped interrogations of suspected terrorists. (link) For the Bush administration, where signing statements are a license to kill, rules simply don’t apply.

Everyone was wondering when and how the Bush administration would respond to the story about the CIA interrogation tapes. After a week and a half of "I have no recollection" (link), the Bush administration finally announced in court documents, (in a tactic that only Nixon would appreciate (by filing the documents late on a Friday night), that federal rules and laws, like the Federal Records Act (link) didn't apply to them. That the administration can and will destroy federal records at their discretion without any oversight whatsoever.

And not only did the Bush administration say that they had no obligation to retain the records, they went as far as to urge the court to stop the investigation.

Talk about hutzpa...

This administration has consistently argued that only certain rules apply to them. Over the past, almost 7 years, we've heard every rationalization under the sun to underscore that rules only apply to commoners and those that can't fight back but that the administration is just a signing statement away from ignoring all rules whether we like it or not.

One could ask, if the tables were turned, and a Democratic administration took a similar stance, would the Republicans be okay with "we don't need no stinking rules"? i think not.

Posted by john trevisani at December 15, 2007 11:42 AM
Comment #240790

I think not, either, john, but just look at most of us and see how placated we have become. No wonder waterboarding isn’t such a big deal. We have been lied to, stolen from, cheated on, and yet we go on like nothing unusual is happening. Of course, the we I refer to is pretty much generic, and the number of us grows by the day. I’m personally all for the hanging of the whole administration for their part in the attempt to destroy the meaning and intent of our Constitution, but reality check always kicks in at this point. These scum are going to walk away in a year with impunity for what they’ve done to us and our country. There will be about 17 or 18 percent who will think we had the best thing since sliced bread and the rest of us will rejoice that we’ve finally been been freed from the tyranical powers.

Posted by: Jane Doe at December 15, 2007 2:12 PM
Comment #240792

John and Jane, do you think it might not be a good idea to wait until the court rules before savaging this action? We all remember well the outright lies President Clinton told us all on T.V. while pointing his finger at the camera. He was later found guilty of lieing under oath and paid the consequences. If this admistration is found to have violated the law, by a court, not liberal public opinion, they also will pay the consequences. Sounds fair and judicious to me.

Posted by: Jim at December 15, 2007 3:24 PM
Comment #240794

The action that you are planning to do, in my opinion, would be a bad idea. The rules help use what to do and how we should react. It would be unfair for the people that follow the rules to have the same punishment as people who do not follow the rules. Everyone should follow the rules or else this country will fall apart.

Posted by: Vincent Ji at December 15, 2007 3:46 PM
Comment #240796

Vincent, just who is it you may have in mind who you feel has “followed” the rules and shouldn’t be punished? And also, in case you haven’t noticed lately, this country is dangerously unraveled already.

Posted by: Jane Doe at December 15, 2007 4:21 PM
Comment #240799

Your administration will not even prosecute people for refusing subpeonas.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at December 15, 2007 4:38 PM
Comment #240800

Jim, “savaging this action”? That’s a bit brutal even for us heathen liberals, don’t you think?
I’m pretty sure that our call for heads isn’t going to make it to the guilty parties, so Bush and Co. should feel quite safe. Everyone knows that their high crimes and treasonous acts don’t begin to challenge legality as much as sexual trysts do.

Posted by: Jane Doe at December 15, 2007 4:40 PM
Comment #240802

Is the CIA legally required to make and keep videos of their interrogations?

If so, then this would be a pretty clear violation of that law. But if they’re not required to make such videos, much less keep them, then it’s not clear what problem there is in destroying something that they didn’t have to make in the first place.

Posted by: Loyal Opposition at December 15, 2007 6:02 PM
Comment #240806

So now I hear that Bush signed a “Free Trade” aggrement with Peru, where I also heard he’s planning to retire. I wonder if the pink tutu Democrats are also going to vote to provide/fund his security via Blackwater after he’s out of office, if he leaves office.
Stephen Hines

Posted by: Stephen Hines at December 15, 2007 7:56 PM
Comment #240812
Court documents were filed, late on Friday night, by the Bush administration declaring to a federal court that the Bush Administration wasn’t obligated to preserve videotaped interrogations of suspected terrorists. For the Bush administration, where signing statements are a license to kill, rules simply don’t apply.

It seems to me that if you’re going to make such a statement, you ought to at the very least mention what rules you’re talking about so we can see for ourselves whether or not they’ve been broken.

Perhaps rules were broken here—I don’t know. But I’d like somebody to at least point out what they are. Why didn’t you even bother to mention them?

Posted by: Loyal Opposition at December 15, 2007 9:36 PM
Comment #240813

Jim, your comment is way behind the curve. It doesn’t matter how the Court rules. The Bush administration has already demonstrated it is a defacto authoritarian government writing its own rules, and as long as it controls the enforcement arm of government, it is untouchable by the law. Do you not see the need for folks like Gonzalez and Mukasey as heads of Justice Department? Mukasey has rejected Congressional oversight as legitimate. The courts can’t enforce a single one of its rulings, for that, it relies on the Justice Dep’t. which is now entirely controlled by the White House.

From Ashcroft on, this has been the power of the Bush administration to act however it pleases, rewriting legislation to suit its purposes, (clearly unconstitutional), selectively enforcing laws against its opponents primarily (clearly unconsitutional), rejecting subpeonaes by the Congress, preventing assembly of non-supporter public near the President while allowing such assembly for loyalists, authorizing and defending torture which violates treaty, law, and regulations (clearly a high crime and misdemeanor), and all this without fear of anything or anyone, save a few sacrificed loyalist minions who are rewarded for their sacrifice after the fact.

America is neck deep in a Constitutional Crisis and less than 70% of people are even aware of it. America is a defacto authoritarian state, and the only limit on that authoritarian reach, is the Republican politicians in the Congress. They are the only limit as the White House must fear alienating them to the Democratic side for articles of impeachment. Not much of a limit when you do the political calculus though, since the majority of Democrats and Republicans in Congress do NOT want impeachment for very differing political reasons.

Posted by: David R. Remer at December 15, 2007 9:37 PM
Comment #240814

Nice rhetoric, David, but it doesn’t really address the issue does it?

Is there a violation of law here or not, if there is, let’s do something about it. If not, move on…

Posted by: Rhinehold at December 15, 2007 9:45 PM
Comment #240815

Loyal Opp, I don’t think they are required to make videos of interrogations, though it would be helpful in court if confessions were forthcoming. But, that is not the issue, as Nixon’s ghost would tell you. It’s not whether or not one make’s tapes, its whether one destroys them AFTER co-equal branches of government order their preservation. That is the issue, and it is unclear yet, whether such orders were issued by either the Justice Dep.t, a Congressional oversight committee, or a Federal Court. Claims are being made that they were, but, it remains to be seen, as far as I can see yet in the Media.

But, its all moot, if impeachment is off the table, since without impeachment potential, the Bush administration is free to do as it pleases without fear of consequence. And it is! Funny how that authoritarian rule sneaks up on people running around celebrating how patriotic and free they are.

Posted by: David R. Remer at December 15, 2007 9:46 PM
Comment #240816

Rhinehold, would you mind if some investigation takes place first to acquire the facts of the case, before moving on? It’s sort of Constitutional, you know, those provisions of oversight and investigation.

Posted by: David R. Remer at December 15, 2007 9:49 PM
Comment #240817

This is really turning into a kind of echo-chamber where unproven allegations come to be regarded as “true” based on the lingering reverberations of previous unproven allegations.

I truly wonder what it would take to break a rhetorical feedback loop as impervious to outside influences as this one.

If an article appeared in the Blue Column about George Bush’s habit of killing and eating a newborn infant each morning for breakfast, would any of the habitual (non-conservative) posters stop and say “Wait a minute?” Or would it all be “YEAH!” and “YEAH!” and “That’s exactly the kind of guy we know he is! Of course that’s true! He outed Plame and lied about Iraq!” “Signing statements!” “Stolen election!” “Article V!”

Posted by: Loyal Opposition at December 15, 2007 10:07 PM
Comment #240826

This is going to be another in the long line of investigations and inuendo. When the investigations turn up not very much, we get calls for more investigations and/or simple outrage that not much has turned up.

Investigation produces calls for more investigation. The Dems control the Congress and the media is sympathetic. With all those clowns looking so hard to pin something - anything - on the President, he must be pretty smart to consistently beat the rap or pretty good not to deserve it.

So my liberal friends, which is it? Is Bush smarter than you guys or more honest?

And good luck with your latest Fitzmas. It would be funny if it was not so pathetic. I look forward to taughting you again in a couple of weeks.

Posted by: Jack at December 16, 2007 7:51 AM
Comment #240829
Is the CIA legally required to make and keep videos of their interrogations?
If i understand the question correct, whether or not a federal agency, such as the CIA, is legally required to keep interrogation records.

Since the CIA is federal agency, like any other agency, they are obligated, IMO, to adhere to the same rules, laws and record retention guidelines as every other agency within the government. After all, it’s our money paying for those things; shouldn’t we have a say in how our money’s spent?

If you look at the early timeline (link) of this latest scandal, you’ll see:
- 2002 the interrogations were taped
- 2003 CIA briefs select committee and discloses the existence of the tapes. Rep. Harman authors a letter to the CIA’s general counsel to urge the CIA not to destroy any video tapes.
- 2003, CIA and DOJ say that no video tapes exist
- 2004 CIA’s general counsel solicits opinions about the potential destruction of the video tapes (that evidently didn’t exist)
- 2004 Abu Ghraib scandal breaks.
- 2005 NY Times report (link) that the CIA may face possible prosecution over the torture tactics.
- Late 2005, the CIA orders the tapes destroyed.

So, if we take a 30,000 view of this mess, it appears that the CIA destroyed evidence that could possibly implicate themselves for prosecution. They did this, after Congress told them not to destroy anything.

Posted by: john trevisani at December 16, 2007 8:57 AM
Comment #240830

When a matter is under investigation, they are obligated to preserve evidence. Destroying evidence in a case like this could very well be obstruction of justice.

You remember that: what Scooter Libby was convicted of. Whether or not a crime has actually been committed, destroying or falsifying evidence and/or lying to interfere with an investigation is illegal. It has to be, because otherwise how do we keep people from covering up illegal activities? If they have committed no crimes, why do they cover things up?

Virtually everybody consulted about this manner said not to destroy the tapes. The irony is that they were originally made to cover the butts of the people doing the interrogation. Now they are being destroyed so investigators and the public can never see the depths to which we descended.

This is what bothers me about the Right-Wing’s approach. They’re all so big about allowing these things to go on, but whenever it gets out in the media, they lament how bad it looks. Well, duh. Of course it doesn’t look right, because it isn’t. When we can proudly stand on our own two feet, having defended ourself without crossing these lines, then we can complement ourselves on our good intentions.

One of the guys interrogated on these tapes sent authorities on one wild goose chase after another, after our torture broke him. Seems like everytime we had a concern, we asked him about it, he volunteered information. Unfortunately, he was a bit of a kook, and we wasted, time, resources, and America’s patience chasing his leads around.

The consequences? Opportunities lost to go after real information, real terrorists, confront real emergencies. When your information is unreliable, so is your ability to confront the threats at hand.

Wait until the Bush Administration is over. Then things will get really interesting. The real question here is why your people have so much to hide. You talk about Fitzmas, but because of that investigation, we now know that administration officials indeed did know about who leaked the information to the media, and that some of the President and Vice President’s closest advisors were involved. I don’t know, but history will not judge them well simply because they’re not working a chain-gang.

Repeat after me: just because nobody’s convicted, doesn’t make it right.

As for the Media? I don’t think you know anything about sympathy if you think the media is that sympathetic. If it were that sympathetic, all the news channels would be roasting your party over the fire for their continued obstructionism. Instead, our illustrious Congress is portrayed as weak.

As well it should be, if it’s not standing toe to toe with Bush and fighting back. Bipartisanship is long dead, and the GOP’s fingerprints on the weapon. The voters told them they were disgusted with everything they were doing, and now what do they do when Congress comes back into session?

More of the same.

Bush is not smarter, nor more honest. He is a self-righteous, stubborn man fully prepared to slough off any responsiblity for his actions, his unpopularity, and his party’s fall onto someone else. He’s rediscovered checks and balances now that a Congress of the opposite party is in office, and used them to veto legislation that is popular with most of the people in the country.

I’d be perfectly willing to let Bush destroy more of the Republican Party’s credibility and popularity, but unfortunately he’s doing so with policies that are doing damage to our country.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at December 16, 2007 9:21 AM
Comment #240838
When a matter is under investigation, they are obligated to preserve evidence. Destroying evidence in a case like this could very well be obstruction of justice.

Yes, but what matter was under investigation here? What case might have been obstructed? With Libby, there was an open investigation and he was under oath when he made the statements he was held to account for. How is that comparable?

Apparently there was waterboarding on those videos, but is there any investigation into whether waterboarding has taken place? Everybody knows it has—the CIA has openly acknowledged it. Why is evidence required for something that’s already admitted? The controversy about waterboarding has to do with its legality—not about whether it has taken place. And because the CIA is not required to videotape interrogations in the first place, I still don’t see what legal issue is involved in NOT keeping such videos.

Posted by: Loyal Opposition at December 16, 2007 3:02 PM
Comment #240842

Loyal Opp, a judge issued an order to preserve all materials regarding terrorist interrogations. Which means a petition was made to the court which alleged possible violations of law regarding torture.

Those are the facts.
Here is the philosophy:

That system of governance breaks down very quickly into either authoritarian rule or anarchy if those in power can ignore such orders of the court without consequence.

The White House and CIA have placed themselves above the Law and the Courts in their refusal to comply with the court order to preserve such records. Which is a high crime and misdemeanor, and an impeachable offense for those responsible for ignoring the court order. That was the lesson of Watergate. A Constitutional crisis will be created if the Congress demonstrates neither the will nor capacity to hold those responsible for violation of the Law and Court, accountable, and or, the Justice Department refuses to enforce the methods of investigation such as subpoenae and writs for disclosure.

Posted by: David R. Remer at December 16, 2007 3:45 PM
Comment #240845

John, there are no rules, at least not for the criminal elite. Read what one US patriot has to say about the stinking corrupt system;

This lady is an insider, apparently one who remembers a moral upbringing and acts accordingly. The whole system is corrupt and evil. The centre of the axis of evil is in Washington. Don’t believe me? Then take the trouble to read the above very detailed indictment.

Posted by: Paul in Euroland at December 16, 2007 5:28 PM
Comment #240847
Loyal Opp, a judge issued an order to preserve all materials regarding terrorist interrogations.

It seems the rest of your sentence was eaten…

I’ll finish it for you.

… preserve all materials regarding terrorist interrogations OF PRISONERS AT GUANTANAMO BAY.

I’m sure it was just an ‘internet’ thingy.

Posted by: Rhinehold at December 16, 2007 6:41 PM
Comment #240848

Rhinehold is absolutely right—the judge’s order related only to events at Guantanamo Bay.

Considering that judge’s order didn’t even pertain to this case, and that this case isn’t even a “case,” this controversy is already OVER.

Also, what were these tapes even evidence of? Of a practice (waterboarding) that EVERYBODY already acknowledges the CIA used at least twice.

Something is not “evidence” if there’s a.) no case in which evidence is required and b). no dispute about what that evidence contains.

Posted by: Loyal Opposition at December 16, 2007 9:48 PM
Comment #240850

Gee, is it possible that it only pertains to Guantanimo because the other places were SECRET? Surprise, surprise.

Posted by: womanmarine at December 16, 2007 11:39 PM
Comment #240852

I’m sorry womanmarine, but it seems pretty cut and dry to me right now. Granted, there is still going to be an investigation, but I don’t personally see how it will be considered ‘illegal’.

If they had originally stated that all interrogations, with no qualifier, were to be saved then there would be a case. But there was a qualifier, one put in for a reason.

Is the CIA wrong for destroying tapes that they had no legal requirement to keep? What about taping of interrogations not at Guantanamo that were known, are they to be kept as well even though the original requirement stated Guantanamo? I don’t remember seeing Abu Grahib included either… it seems like there was concern about interrogations at Guantanamo, not interrogations in general. So I’m not sure how it could even be considered ‘spirit of the law’ either.

Of course, I’m no lawyer, I’ll see how it plays out first with a presumption of innocence, unlike many who have already convicted (again).

Posted by: Rhinehold at December 17, 2007 12:46 AM
Comment #240854

Rhinehold, long after this story fizzles for lack of substance, it will be used as a reason why we should believe some other allegation down the road.

Watch and see. The chain-reaction continues.

Posted by: Loyal Opposition at December 17, 2007 1:25 AM
Comment #240855

Rhinehold, true enough that the court order referred to Guantanamo. But, as the NY Times reported in Feb. 2005, many other laws existed which the Justice Dep’t. itself acknowledged which come into play when evidence of a violation of law is destroyed in anticipation of investigation. I quote:

“But they [Justice Dep’t.] said such reviews would seek to determine whether the facts in the cases warrant prosecution under several federal statutes, among them the civil rights laws, which bar government employees from using excessive force, and the federal torture law, which forbids the use of extreme interrogation techniques on detainees.”

Posted by: David R. Remer at December 17, 2007 2:46 AM
Comment #240856


Repeat this: we live in a country with the rule of law. We cannot make crimes of political differences. Not being convicted does not mean you did everything right wrong, but mere accusations and extrapolations don’t mean you did anything wrong.

With all the power of the congress and all the support of the press, you have to question the bona-fides of the accusers when nothing comes of it.

Re Plame, you guys get all upset about that. The law is very specific. We know who the first leaker was, but this does not seem to matter. That shows how political the whole thing has become. ON the other hand, we hear no calls to find the guys who leaked various secret procedures to the NYT etc.

It is the liberal method to accuse and investigate. When nothing is found (as in the elections in Florida or Ohio) they point to the innuendo. When nobody is found to have broken the law being investigated (Fitzmas) they go after cover ups.

It will end when Bush leaves office because the political motivation will leave with him. We are not talking about right and wrong here. This is mere politics brought into the courtroom.

Posted by: Jack at December 17, 2007 3:47 AM
Comment #240860

long after this story fizzles for lack of substance,
Hmmm… lack of substance.


Members of BOTH sides of the respective aisles are now for looking into this issue.

Posted by: john trevisani at December 17, 2007 8:43 AM
Comment #240875

One thing you have to hand to the Bush Administration is that they have shoved their philosophy right in our faces. That philosophy is that the President is the supreme authority and he is not bound by any laws, rules or treaties. They have shown that they will do anything, destroy evidence, deny supoenas, stall any investigation to maintain their philosophy.

One might argue that the Democrats have been lax in their efforts to hold the Administration accountable. I would argue that there is a reason for this. What segment of our society has benefited the most from the Bush/Cheney philosophy and what segment of our society holds the purse strings of our politicians.

I look foward to the time when a Democrat president can take advantage of the Bush/Cheney philosophy. I will be looking foward to our Republican friends reaction to that turn of events.

If Bush and Cheney were Democrats would they have already been impeached?

Posted by: jlw at December 17, 2007 3:00 PM
Comment #240878


What bothers you guys is the rule of law. The lefties like to make charges. They demand invesitations. When these investigations turn up nothing or much less than the lefties want, they cry about it and move on to another charge.

Republican extremists suffered the same anger when Clinton was president. They also were sure he had done all sorts of bad things, including actual murders. Their problem was the same as yours, the rule of law applied and investigations did not support their charges.

We have the rule of law to keep extremists on all sides under control. It happens that at this particular time your side is more extreme.

The current charges are interesting. The Bush Administration is charged with using harsh techniques against terrorists. This action resulted in the capturing of other terrorists and probably prevented terror attacks. Bad on Bush for doing this.

So we hear that the guy who planned the 911 attacks suffered. How many Americans would have liked to be in the room to help with that?

We have a duty to follow our laws. When congress actually comes out and makes a law about waterboarding, maybe we can figure out the definitions. This exceedingly cowardly congress likes to investigate and make grand statements while standing on its hind legs. But I hope you understand that they have NOT passed any laws re waterboarding. They just talk about it and pretend.

Posted by: Jack at December 17, 2007 3:26 PM
Comment #240883

Jack: Wrong! What bothers us is ylur sides willingness to condone the actions of what is obviously a criminal Administration. An Administration that violates the law, ignores the law, does anything and everything it possibly can to stymie any attempt to investigate them. An example is the ongoing Abramoff investigation. The Administration has refused to cooperate with the investigation of Abramoff’s involvement with Whitehouse operatives. This is not the actions of an Administration that has nothing to hide. If they have nothing to hide, why are they so determined to prevent any and all investigations? Why are they not cooperating?

What bothers many of us, including some Republicans is not the rule of law, but a lack of it. Should we be satisfied that apparently some of us are above the rule of law?

Posted by: jlw at December 17, 2007 4:43 PM
Comment #240884

“Should we be satisfied that apparently some of us are above the rule of law?”

Might as well be, you sure were satisfied with that line of thought throughout the 90s.

Quit worrying so much about the other sides “willingness to condone the actions of what is obviously a criminal Administration,” at least until you fix your side. THEN, you might have a leg to stand on and then, maybe more people will listen.
Until then, its nothing but the same hypocritical babble.

Posted by: kctim at December 17, 2007 4:52 PM
Comment #240885


Rule of law. You want Bush just to agree to whatever hysterical charge Dems make. Our president relies on the rule of law.

The Dems are not trustworthy. They are fishing for something - anything - that can make look bad.

Consider Fitzmas. Did ANYBODY determine the original charge was sustainable? IF so, why did nobody indict Armitage who we KNOW did it? And what about all that BS about voting in Florida or Ohio? Nothing came of that desite thousands of lawyers.

Cooperate with investigation? Why should he cooperate with a partisan witch hunt? He is under no obligation to cooperate beyond what the law requires. The President follows the rule of law. When the Dems have law on their side, come back and talk to us.

Posted by: Jack at December 17, 2007 4:53 PM
Comment #240888


The Bush Administration is charged with using harsh techniques against terrorists. This action resulted in the capturing of other terrorists and probably prevented terror attacks

i’m sure you have a link somewhere that i can read to verify this claim; please post it. Thanks.

Posted by: john trevisani at December 17, 2007 5:24 PM
Comment #240893

Well, I just used the first link in the article posted…

Zubaydah was the first high-value detainee taken by the CIA in 2002. He told his interrogators about alleged Sept. 11 accomplice Ramzi Binalshibh, and the two men’s confessions also led to the capture of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, who the U.S. government said was the mastermind behind the terrorist attacks.
Posted by: Rhinehold at December 17, 2007 8:25 PM
Comment #240908


Well, I just used the first link in the article posted…

Are you answering for Jack? Okay…
So exactly where is the evidence that this “probably prevented terror attacks”?

Posted by: john trevisani at December 18, 2007 7:30 AM
Comment #240924




If you think capturing the guy who planned the 911 attacks is not worth the trouble, I suppose you are right. Some liberals subscribe to the theory that you do not need to catch criminals in order to reduce crime. I disagree.

I guess that we cannot say with cosmic certainty that capturing the terrorists who had planned and executed past big terror acts (such as 911) prevented future attacks. Still, to me it seems like a good idea. Maybe that is why I am not a Democrat. And if you do not agree, maybe that is why you are.

Why do Democrats so often want to accept, even welcome defeat? I am old fashioned. If somebody attacks me, I prefer to neutralize him if I can. It may or may not have been illegal, but if I had the mastermind of 911 in the room with me, I do believe I would have done it to the SOB and not felt particularly bad about it. I guess it is just the troglodyte in me. Those of you who have evolved above that can now be horrified, but I would not feel bad if that happened to Osama bin Laden and I hope that Zarqawi suffered a painful death.

You know that series “24” is very popular. I know that liberals don’t watch such shows and/or consider characters like Jack Bower the villains and the guys he is fighting as the victims. I bet most Americans disagree.

Posted by: Jack at December 18, 2007 10:40 AM
Comment #240936
So exactly where is the evidence that this “probably prevented terror attacks”?

Most people whould agree that capturing a person who plans terrorist attacks for al Qaeda would lead to the organization having to spend time reshuffling or finding someone who can plan other attacks, and most likely that person would not be as good as the one that they just lost, or they would be doing it already…

Of course, there are people who don’t think like that. I guess at that point we’ll have to agree to disagree.

Posted by: Rhinehold at December 18, 2007 11:43 AM
Comment #240946

Well it appears that there are enough questions to warrant an investigation.

Posted by: Jane Doe at December 18, 2007 1:41 PM
Comment #240947

It amazes me that so many (otherwise) intelligent people can be so completely bamboozled by by all the distractions, shuffling, avoidance and outright illegal maneuvering from this administration. You will find a way to justify anything said or done, regardless of what surfaces that indicates total corruption. You will latch onto single words or abject circumstances and spin it to suit your purpose. Sometimes it’s amusing and almost entertaining to read what creative process you tap into next.

Posted by: Jane Doe at December 18, 2007 1:57 PM
Comment #240950


Of course it warrants an investigation. Everything warrants an investigation. The Dems in congress have done little BUT investigate. And in they end of all the investigations, they have found themselves back where they started, with nothing. So they investigate some more. Eventually they will find something, much like the blind squirrel finding a nut or the broken clock being right twice a day. But it will probably be something trivial.

My point is that all these investigations, costing millions of dollars and absorbing most of the limited creative energy of the Dems in Congress, so far have turned up almost nothing. You keep on telling us there is more, but when it comes time to charge or prove, you come up empty.

I do not need to be creative. All I need do is keep on repeating that we are a country of laws. You cannot just say something, you need proof AND it needs to be a violation of the law, not what Dems are calling the law.

The Dems in congress STILL have not outlawed waterboarding. If they are so upset about it, what does their lack of successful action say about them?

Posted by: Jack at December 18, 2007 2:46 PM
Comment #240957

I’m sure you would all have been happy for us to just ignore all the law bending, breaking, illegalities that we had to wade through to find our seats. I believe there were many things we would have liked to accomplish, but people were demanding justice where it had been absent for so long. One should be faulted for never trying to accomplish good things, but not for trying and being defeated.
See Jack, you think it’s clever to play with words, and that maybe we’ll let it slide by one time so that we can be charged with not challenging or rebutting a statement.

“The Dems in congress STILL have not outlawed waterboarding. If they are so upset about it, what does their lack of successful action say about them?”

You know as well as everyone else, (and it’s really getting old trying to deal with memory lapses), that we don’t have the control in Congress to do what needs to be done !

And to use some of your own way of stating things: Just because someone wasn’t hung for their crime, doesn’t mean there was no crime !!

Posted by: Jane Doe at December 18, 2007 3:53 PM
Comment #240965
people were demanding justice where it had been absent for so long

That’s part of the problem, Jane. You are sure that so many things have happened in the past that you are using whatever next accusation comes along to pin justice on. But unfortunately, THIS specific accusation doesn’t hold much water, it is on very shaky ground. So people like you who want this administration to pay for their abuses say of course they are guilty, make them pay! But when the accusation is this flimsy it makes it nearly impossible to do so.

Find some evidence to the great injustices, evidence that is not ‘flimsy’, and move forward. But latching upon every single accusation that comes along doesn’t help your cause, there are many of us who still remember the call for Bush’s impeachment before he was innagurated. Because of that it will require more proof than simple accusation…

Posted by: Rhinehold at December 18, 2007 4:10 PM
Comment #240975


The rule of law just gets in your way again. I am srre that some guilty people get away with crimes and some innocent people get stuck, but we follow the rule of law to determine the results as best we can.

I understand that you hate Bush, but you have really jumped the line. First we need to determine a crime has been committed. If yes, we need to investigate. If yes, we need to determine who may have done it. If yes, we need to narrow it down and prove it. If yes, we need to determine what lawful punishment is merited. That is just the bare bones. You are not even past stage 1. So far Dems have not gotten past that on much of anything. You do not get to jump to the punishment stage w/o going through rule of law.

BTW - you may recall in the Constitution the part about ex-post-facto laws and bills of attainder. Those are both things Dems want to use. The Constitution won’t let them. Sorry. Those are the tools of tyranny.

Posted by: Jack at December 18, 2007 4:52 PM
Comment #241003

Jack, while I don’t think being hung in effigy qualifies as a crime I do think you’re being a tad bit melodramatic. Everyone knowssss, that this President feels he is above the law, therefore none would be applicable. Kinda why we’re going through all this with him.

Posted by: Jane Doe at December 19, 2007 3:10 AM
Comment #241007

Thanks Jane Doe for posting the NY Times article. As more facts come to light about this abuse of power and obstruction of justice, the ‘true believers’ of this board (and elsewhere) who enable an administration to abuse their power in the name of ideology will have a tougher time supporting their argument.

This story, to the lament of the ‘true believers’, isn’t about the ‘fight against terror’; it’s about a rogue administration running roughshod over the laws that govern this country.

Posted by: john trevisani at December 19, 2007 7:06 AM
Comment #241011

Jack said: “First we need to determine a crime has been committed. If yes, we need to investigate.”

While I am sure as a Republican you hope that this would be the model to follow, reality contradicts you Jack. A cop hears a scream. A scream is no indication that a crime has taken place. People scream for an enormous range of non-criminal reasons. Yet, a good cop would investigate the scream to determine if a crime is or has taken place.

So, while I see the convenience inherent in your comment above, it is factually in error, and not in any exclusive way, the way our legal system works. Investigation MUST very often preceded the determination of whether a crime has taken place. In government and our Constitution, it is called ‘oversight’ which is a form of ongoing vigilant investigation regardless of whether or not laws are being violated.

How bloody politically expedient for Republicans to erroneously claim that a crime must be determined to have taken place BEFORE investigation is warranted. How very UnConstitutional. But, also very Republican as evidenced by their roles in government this last decade obstructing oversight and investigation nearly every step of the way.

Posted by: David R. Remer at December 19, 2007 8:24 AM
Comment #241032

Okay, David

You have added another preliminary stage I had not thought of. Yes, we are currently at the screaming stage. We need to investigate to determine even if a crime has been committed. It is way to early to move to the execution stage.

As you say, most screams are not indictative of criminal behavior. Dems scream a lot and usually the shouting is all that comes of it.

Posted by: Jack at December 19, 2007 12:24 PM
Comment #241045

“Dems scream a lot and usually the shouting is all that comes of it.”

Posted by: Jack at December 19, 2007 12:24 PM

That’s because we encounter obstructions (too great to overcome) in the form of Reps still willing to shield Bush & cohorts from dealing with their 7 years of lawlessness.
I’m actually quite pleased that there is someone in DC looking out for the rest of us and would rather they try to correct the wrongs, than to never have tried at all.
They may not be doing be doing all they were elected to do, but they are at least making the effort.

Posted by: Jane Doe at December 19, 2007 2:34 PM
Comment #241049


You have added another preliminary stage I had not thought of.

David did nothing of the sort. You can’t add something that is already there. The investigative process in our criminal justice system has existed since the beginning of our legal system; to ignore that ‘little’ fact, isn’t something that you simply miss or ‘not think of’. You chose to do that. And if you think that the investigative process as some new ‘preliminary’ stage, there’s a bridge for sale in New York called the Brooklyn Bridge that you might inquire about.

Posted by: john trevisani at December 19, 2007 3:22 PM
Comment #241052

Posted by: Jane Doe at December 19, 2007 3:38 PM
Comment #241063


I simply meant what I said. David added a stage I had not thought of. I did not say it was not true or that he had just created it.

Think of it like this. You are getting ready to leave the house. Your wife asks if you remember the extra set of keys. You say, “I had not thought of that.”

David simply bolstered my argument by giving me yet another stage between Dem screams and actual guilt. I had not thought of it.

Posted by: Jack at December 19, 2007 4:59 PM
Post a comment