Luckily, these guys would never do anything that was illegal, immoral, or dangerous to us trusting Americans.

What will it take for Kevin Drum to forcefully state that G.W. Bush is a criminal, and should be swiftly impeached and removed from office?

More and more, it is invoked not in response to run-of-the-mill government negligence cases but in response to allegations of criminal conduct on the part of the government. These are not slip-and-fall cases. They are challenges to the administration's broad new theories of unchecked executive power.

Somebody explain that to me. In the author's ideal world, would the state secrets doctrine invoked in slip and fall cases and not cases involving state secrets?

Secondly, it's amazing to me that Bush is being criticized for legal tactics. The plaintiffs had their day in court. They lost. If you don't like the priveledge, write your congressman. Blaming the administration for exerting their legal rights in the same as critizing a defendant for exercing their fifth amendment rights; those doctrines exist for a reason.

Having just returned from a tour of Atrios, Josh Marshall, Glenn Greenwald and Digby, and seen the list of GOP travesties on display there, I can only agree with SteveK.

Does this American Hawk thing ever fucking sleep? It's beyond tedious. Or is Kevin going to start sharing his byline?

Henry Lanman's exposition makes for a truly scary scenario. Looks like Bush & Co. have found their holy grail. They can break the law, admit they did it and still avoid prosecution because the judiciary lie down to a (trustworthy?) executive. So now we have no legislative oversight and no judicial restraint.

The legal system has forgotten it's in the business of justice.

There is not nearly enough righteous indignation in the US. No one gets mad until it affects them. This time it will be too late.

I was scared enough before. This administration is a monster.

There's also something he leaves out that's crucial to the doctrine; the Supreme Court's decision is one of the rare incidents of common law in the modern era. It could be 'overruled' with an ordinary act of congress. It's not like the people are powerless to abrogate this doctrine, if they so choose.

Notthere-- As noted, either of the other two branches of government can alter the rule at any time, if it decides that the executive has done so inappropriately. It would only take an ordinary act of congress, or a supreme court decision. Common law is like that. I'd note, though, that this has been used in roughly two dozen cases. That's nothing.

Hawk's asshole:
Let's say you're an American, you live in Philadelphia, you argue with your wife and take yourself off to Cancun to blow off steam. Getting off the 'plane your name happens to coincide with that of a known terrorist. They hold you kin isolation, do not allow access to the US consul or to have any communication or representattion. A couple of Canadian (Sorry, had to pick somebody) intelligence types come in, fly you off to Venezuela. They keep you incommunicado, torture you and stick things up your pooper. Despite all your protestations of innocence this goes on for 4 months. Then they say sorry and drop you off in Belize. You get back to the States. The US government pretty much confirms your story, the Canadians pretty much admit they made a mistake. You look for redress. Where? Looks like the Canukes should pay.

You go to a Canadian court and state your case. The Candaian government attorney gets up and asks that the case be dismissed as national secrets are involved. The judge says "OK. Dismissed."

How would you feel? "Oh, that's OK. We gave it the old college try." Think the US press wouldn't make a meal of it?

Instead this just floats by. Another bundle of shit floating in the river of excrement this executive represents.

Texas Chicken:
2 dozen times doesn't seem like "that's nothing" to those who don't get justice. But that's a concept you hold in complete contempt, just like this administration.

You don't even know the definition of fascist.

nothere is being rude to hawk. how typical of a liberal.

Nothere: What you're making is a policy argument against the doctrine itself (or, perhaps, some applications of it). We could debate that. However, if a legal right exists, it's perverse to criticize a party for exercising it.

A classic example: Since the mid-90s, Rule of Evidince 407 has read:

When, after an injury or harm allegedly caused by an event, measures are taken that, if taken previously, would have made the injury or harm less likely to occur, evidence of the subsequent measures is not admissible to prove negligence, culpable conduct, a defect in a product, a defect in a product's design, or a need for a warning or instruction. This rule does not require the exclusion of evidence of subsequent measures when offered for another purpose, such as proving ownership, control, or feasibility of precautionary measures, if controverted, or impeachment.

The rationale was that the old system created a perverse incentive for companies not to make their products safer, lest it be used as evidence against them. This rule is extremely, extremely controversial, for obvious reasons.

Is it a good idea? I don't know. The emperical daty is mixed.

HOWEVER, if a company uses this rule in their favor, do you find fault with that? I would assume not.

Similarly, if you don't like the rules of the game, don't blame the player. You're not angry at Bush, you're angry at either the supreme court or congress.

Texas Chicken:
2 dozen times doesn't seem like "that's nothing" to those who don't get justice. But that's a concept you hold in complete contempt, just like this administration.

You don't even know the definition of fascist.

You raise an excellent point. Nine out of ten dictatorships start with the exercise of common law evidentiary rules.

it's amazing to me that Bush is being criticized for legal tactics

If you would read the article instead of rushing your talking points into print, you might have a prayer of making sense.

The article compares these cases to United States v. Reynolds. In that case, later discoveries showed that the government wasn't protecting state secrets. What they were doing was lying to cover their incompetence.

So great, this administration has been able to cover their lies and their incompetence with moderately competent lawyering combined with some deference for the executive in and alledged time of war.

I'm glad to hear that you support any criminal activity that doesn't result in a conviction. I'm sure you are happy that O.J. Simpson is moving in next door.

Craven Raven:
Since the executive and legislature are of the same party and have co-mingled interests and both have shown themselves susceptible to interests lying outside their responsibilities to the country, I am angry at all those who do not fulfill their constitutional responsibilites including those Dems who have been a "too loyal" opposition.

If you don't worry about a country where, in the course of 5 years, laws have been broken, rank corruption carried on, and thousands of our own and other people injured, maimed and killed while our enemies multiply and ther respect with which we are held declines, if that doesn't worry you, then your intersts must align with the perpertrators.

mangie budgie:
What would be wrong with doing the right thing? Just settle with the guy.

Out of the $300,000,000,000 and more that we've spent so far you'd think we could spare something. Maybe some of the proceeds from the first successful retrieval of "disappeared" money. After all, there's only still $8.8 billion unaccounted for just from Bremer's reign. Or maybe Haliburton could make a donation. Nah! They never give back anything if they can help it. And if they did they'd make it back in the next overcharge.

Oh, Yeah! Bush and buddies probably had a little dance and some near-beer after this decision. License to print money and to kill.

Craven Raven:
Since the executive and legislature are of the same party and have co-mingled interests and both have shown themselves susceptible to interests lying outside their responsibilities to the country, I am angry at all those who do not fulfill their constitutional responsibilites including those Dems who have been a "too loyal" opposition.

As I thought, this really has nothing to do with the rules of evidence, and everything to do with yet another hollow angle to criticize the current regime.

Did you know that Bush also gets a plane? For FREE? At TAXPAYER EXPENSE? Did you know what he flies that plane with? OIL. From OIL companies. There's some corruption for you!!

Seriously, if y'all want to criticize the republicans, then do so. But criticizing the executive for using an evidentiary rule it didn't even create (either personally or institutionally) is exceedingly indirect, a bit like trying to shoot somebody by firing at a mirror.

mangie budgie:
What would be wrong with doing the right thing? Just settle with the guy.

It wouldn't be a settlement, since he has no right to sue, but a private bill from congress would be the traditional remedy in this sort of situation. It was very common in the pre-FTCA days (which was one of the impetesus behind the creation of the FTCA itself, of course).

I remember seeing this back then but didn't get the full significance:

Executive Order 13233, in 2001, Bush extended State Secrets Privilege so former Presidents, their representatives, or representatives designated by their families could bar "secrets" in records from their time in office.

All makes perfect sense now.

Jerky turkey:
1) It's not a rule of evidence. Coming from comparatively recent and still evolving preceden, it is an executive privilege that can invoked despite clear evidence of its past (and, seemingly, present) abuse which this administration is pushing to new limits and its advantage while it breaks the law.
2) You called it a regime. You're right.
3) "Just settle with the guy" is not legalese. I don't think anyone accused Ellis of not doing his job but I haven't found a copy of his ruling. He did say that al-Masri probably deserves some remedy. I read that to say he doesn't totally agree with the situation otherwise he'd have no reason to offer the opinion.
4) If you're a Republican who likes small government, freedom, non-interference, what does executive overreach have to do with it? Oh, yeah. I get it. We can dispense with the legislature and the judiciary. Much smaller. Much cheaper. Except this lot haven't seen a taxpayer $, present or future, they don't want to spend.

Roll on Big Brother!

"Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere."
"Whenever a separation is made between liberty and justice, neither, in my opinion, is safe."
"It is the spirit and not the form of the law that keeps justice alive."
"If we do not maintain justice, justice will not maintain us."
and
"The more laws the less justice."
and, of course by Mencken:
"Judge, n.: A law student who marks his own paper."

I think that it was always clear that the legislative branch was going to have to step in before anything got better with this administration. This is why thaey are so concerned that Democrats will win subpoena power in Novemver (and couching this fear in talk of impeachment [though even minimal Congressional oversight would IMHO lead very quickly to information that would lead then to the I-word being discussed]).

A good catch, Kevin! I don't read Slate regularly, I would have missed this important article. And it's awesome how Lenman builds up his story, avoiding brouhaha, but focussing on the important issues, especially here:

"In other words, in addition to relying on the state secrets doctrine to an unprecedented degree, the administration is now well on its way to transforming it from a narrow evidentiary privilege into something that looks like a doctrine of broad government immunity."

YES! Exactly! This sentence should be printed in bold and with bigger letters. THIS is why US citizen should be VERY concerned. The important issue is not that some foreigner had some bad luck with the CIA and doesn't even have a chance to fight for a compensation at court, it is about the stealthy trend to get rid of judicial review that is alarming here. I'm sure this case will be used by the Bushies as a precedent to block even more abuse of power from any attempts at accountability.

A must read, again, thx Kevin!

shorter A-Hawk: If Bush does it, I loves it!

Shorter American Hawk: relativism is the new black.

Whatever happened to the good ol absolutist Republicans?

I hope AH isn't a lawyer -- clearly he doesn't have a clue about common law or constitutional law.

On the bright side we can do without a shitload of lawyers.

For surely it follows that...' when laws are outlawed then only outlaws will have laws?'

What happened to the Dems' "Culture of Corruption" mantra??

What happened to the Dems' "Culture of Corruption" mantra??

Foggo, Abramoff, Libby, Scanlon, Nay, Colyandro, Wade, Cunningham, Pombo, Johnson, DeLay, Sherwood, etc..

your turn

Nazi. Germany. Gestapo. Concentration Camps. Shameful.

Soviet. Russia. KGB. Gulags. Shameful.

Communist. China. [?]. Reeducation Camps. Shameful.

Totalitarian. BushAmerica. CIA. Kidnapping. Torture. Murder. False Imprisonment. Operation Outside the Law. Operation Without Oversight. Shameful.

Bill's Fridge: What happened to the Dems' "Culture of Corruption" mantra??

Alive and well, thanks to the GOP.

The GOP is so scared of what the FBI might find they're defending Democratic congressmen!

Why do GOP congressmen and congresswomen demand warrants for themselves, but not for ordinary Americans?

prof rat: On the bright side we can do without a shitload of lawyers.

But Bushitler can't. He wouldn't be president without a group of corrupt lawyers, some of them judges.

Let's see if I understand the Bush administration's use of the State Secrets Privilege. They start a program they know is violative of somebody's rights. They know that by pursuing the program they are in direct violation of federal law and every norm of civilized conduct. If word of the program gets out they are screwed. Let's say the rights of somebody who is totally innocent are violated by the program. Shit happens. The innocent guy, through some low level act of bravery and kindness, is allowed to live. He is pissed and sues claiming his rights were violated. The Bush administration claims that the fact it is abusing the rights of people via the secret program is a state secret (they don't want people to know they are criminals) and some "deferential" Federal Judge buys the claim, expanding the little used and very narrowly construed State Secrets Privilege far beyond its cold war limits and allowing the administration to keep its criminal activities secret.

Did I go to sleep in 21st century America and wake up in Argentina during the dirty war?

It's good to be king.

Bushitler

unproductive.
$0.02.

Brrraaaazillll!

seriously, Gilliam was prescient.

Conservatives show utter contempt for any moral rule that is inconvenient to them, while demanding rigorous compliance by others with those moral rules that serve the personal, political, social, economic, or religious interests of conservatives.

Cheney: Which Republican is so scared of what the FBI might find, that he or she is defending Democratic congressmen?

Read the news, Cheney, or do I have to do everything for you?

Or are you just feigning ignorance of something that was all over CNN and MS/NBC last night?

cleek: unproductive.

I hear ya.

But I'm entitled to my opinion and it is not my job to serve the best interests of those who want to tone back the rhetoric.

We've been getting that advice from conservatives for five years now, but look at Bush's personal approval ratings, which had been holding steady despite job approval ratings that plummeted, because of those who haven't toned down the rhetoric - they're through the floor.

I'll stick with what has worked and you play good cop.

Teamwork!

Remember, Hitler in good faith believed everything he stood for and never lifted a finger to do the dirty work himself - Hitler's crimes might have been bigger, more horrific, and more widespread, but he's no less nor any more guilty than Bush of crimes against humanity and the justifications he proffered for his actions track the spirit and methodologies employed by Bush and his Bushistas.

You are being silly if you really think there's no corruption on your side of the aisle

and you're a fool if you think i ever said there wasn't.

I'll stick with what has worked and you play good cop

IMO, it doesn't work. it makes you look like you have no appreciation for the scale of what Hitler did - even if you do clarify when pressed. as i see it, the real Bush is bad enough, there's no need for caricature.

anyway. i'll drop it now.

advocate, grow a pair and actually bring some charges against this president. Quit your fucking immature incessant school girl whining and get up out of your moms house and actually do the things that you have been threatening for years now. Is that too fucking much to ask.

You are the festering boil on the buttocks of the left and you're begining to smell.

This "secrecy"clause has been brought up 23 times in 4 years? Are you kidding me, less than 6 times a year and the only other best example is a AT&T? The left is stuck on stupid. Moveon.org.

Cheney - here you go you lazy shitneck:

Republican leaders, who previously sought to focus attention on the Jefferson case as a counterpoint to their party's own ethical scandals, said they are disturbed by the raid. Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist (R-Tenn.) said that he is "very concerned" about the incident and that Senate and House counsels will review it.

House Speaker J. Dennis Hastert (R-Ill.) expressed alarm at the raid. "The actions of the Justice Department in seeking and executing this warrant raise important Constitutional issues that go well beyond the specifics of this case," he said in a lengthy statement released last night.

BONUS:

Former House speaker Newt Gingrich (R-Ga.), in an e-mail to colleagues with the subject line "on the edge of a constitutional confrontation," called the Saturday night raid "the most blatant violation of the Constitutional Separation of Powers in my lifetime." He urged President Bush to discipline or fire "whoever exhibited this extraordinary violation."

LINK:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/05/22/AR2006052201080_pf.html

Whatever. Didn't you tell a certain someone to go f*ck themselves on the Senate floor?

You listed a bunch of Republicans, asking for any Dems - you really want a list?

feel free. but make sure they're from the past 3 or 4 years, as i did.

Cheney: Thanks NSA Mole - you will note I never resort to personal attacks . . .

But only if you define "personal attack" very narrowly to exclude what normal people would consider to be a personal attack.

I've noticed this as a rampant characteristic of conservatives . . . they redefine terms (like "personal attack") in bizzare ways in order to justify outrageous claims or to create strawmen to knock down.

Like Charlie used to define "WMD" as including the "means to produce a WMD", so he could justify his claim that Bush didn't lie when he claimed we'd found WMDs, when at most what we'd found were the means to produce WMDs, and even that wasn't true.

BTW: I pasted some quotes from GOP on the warrantless search of Jefferson's office on the Jefferson thread, Cheney, just so you don't get confused or anything.

cleek - wouldn't the more relevant measure be Democrats during the time that party was in power?

nah. i think i'll leave the goalposts where they are.

The difference between Conservatives (WF Buckley, George Will) and Wingnuts (Al, Chicken Hawk, Cheney) can easily be meausured using the following litmus test. Which is good, because wingnuts truly require overly simple, elementary concepts to interact with the real world.

To wit: "Would you feel just as enthusiastic about the governmental power grabs and judicial restructuring by the Administrative branch were the President named Clinton?"

All the muckracking by the Arkansas Project could have been totally neutralized by simply declaring everything about Whitewater and Monica Lewinsky a state secret, prosecuting all of Mellon-Scaife's investigative-reporters-for-hire for revealing protected information, and shipping Paula Jones off to gitmo for 8 years.

Cheney: P.S. cleek - wouldn't the more relevant measure be Democrats during the time that party was in power?

Not unless you can show that the Democratic caucus is virtually identical or consists of a majority of the same persons who were in the Democratic caucus when the Dems were last in power.

Remember, it's about individuals not party, at the very least according to you.

I love watching the dance going on here trying to prove which party is less corrupt. Remember it was the "culture of corruption" led by Democrat Dan Rostenkowski (House Ways and Means) that Gingrich capitilized on that swept the GOP into Congress with the "Contract with America" in 1994.

Not like he can say a case is secret without 9 trillion leaks and rumors from anonymous sources.... so there's your check and balance right there.

Plus there's always House and Senate reviews and the fact that many apointees pass through Senate
Confirmation.

Do you have an alternative system that still allows secrets to be kept? If not, STFU.

besides can't al-masri sue in Germany?

Jay: Remember it was the "culture of corruption" led by Democrat Dan Rostenkowski (House Ways and Means) that Gingrich capitilized on that swept the GOP into Congress with the "Contract with America" in 1994.

So, one Dem congressman in the early 90's equals a "culture of corruption" while a dozen or more GOP congressmen in 2006 does not equal a "culture of corruption".

Got it.

Do you have an alternative system that still allows secrets to be kept? If not, STFU.

Yes, the one that served us fine throughout all our past wars until the Bush administration needed cover to hide its illegal enterprises.

Are you even a citizen of the United States? If not, STFU.

yup, that's it advocate, just one corrupt democrat swayed the entire country to elect a GOP controlled congress. You might want to revisit the early years of the Clinton admin. to understand why the GOP took control of Congress for the first time in forty years and have yet to relinquish.

And please, unless any of you actually have the cajones to bring charges against this administration, you diatribe of criminal activity is juvenile and embarassing.

I knew it. It's not a coincidence that Charlie is here at the same time as this Hawk thing.

And please, unless any of you actually have the cajones to bring charges against this administration, you diatribe of criminal activity is juvenile and embarassing.

Apparently, I'm not allowed to. National Security, you know.

Poor little victim cragie. playing the martyr going for the pathetic sympathy vote at some perceived non-existent injustices. Much like my teenagers.

McAnus: Do you have an alternative system that still allows secrets to be kept?

Since these are't legitimate secrets, who cares.

Hitler wanted his concentration camps kept secret.

He had neither the right to have such camps nor the right to demand that those who knew about them keep them secret.

Executives have no right to demand that their criminal activities and embarassments, having nothing to do with naitonal security, be kept secret.

But where were you when conservatives were raging about Clinton's far, far, far less frequent claims of national security and executive privilege?

Opposing it every step of the way.

I hope AH isn't a lawyer -- clearly he doesn't have a clue about common law or constitutional law.

Yes, you've clearly humbled me with your in-depth analysis. Seriously. Point out ONE descriptive statement of the legal system I made that's inaccurate. You sound like that other guy a couple threads back who thought that the pardon system was basically on a governor's whim...

you diatribe of criminal activity is juvenile and embarassing

Jay, everything you've ever posted here is juvenile and embarassing.

The boorish men and women that make up the Bush administration are not interested in any rule of law that limits their scope of action. They prefer their own discretion and judgment to law-based government. Again and again they have asserted the right of exception for the executive. Nearly by definition, this is what distinguishes authoritarians (of right and left) from liberals. Unfortunately they did not pay attention in civics class. The test of liberal democracy is for the executive to be constrained by law especially in times of crisis. Claiming state secrets is just another way of claiming exception from the law and due process. It is a time-honored and tested claim in dictatorial nations.

The Founders did not write a great deal about many things we regard as important. Indeed on many modern subjects they are silent. But they were keenly interested in working out an executive whose powers were limited and law-bound in times other than those of peace and prosperity. The 20th century has not been kind to their plan and the Bush administration has been wantonly antithetical. I have begun to think that our old 18th century clock work of checks and balances is not up to politics of the 21st century.

Jay: And please, unless any of you actually have the cajones to bring charges against this administration, you diatribe of criminal activity is juvenile and embarassing.

Since you have no cajones to bring charges against Jefferson, your diatribe must be juvenile and embarassing, according to your own standards!

Puke is flying back in your face just like it is with McAnus.

Wipe it off and try again.

Jay: Much like my teenagers.

A pre-teen with teenagers?

It's a miracle!

Jay: You might want to revisit the early years of the Clinton admin. to understand why the GOP took control of Congress for the first time in forty years and have yet to relinquish.

You mean revisit the program of lies, defamations, and allegations without convictions that was the GOP modus operandi?

Nahhh. Really don't want to visit that again.

It's was revolting enough the first time around.

But how about you revisit Reagan and Bush 41's support for Saddam while he was gassing the Kurds . . .

. . . or their support for Noriega before the media got wind of their conspiracy to import drugs to fund their illegal activities in Panama and Central America . . .

. . . or Nixon's support for the Shah and the prisons where he tortured and murdered his own people . . .

. . . or Nixon's impeachment and Agnews resignation . . .

. . . or Nixon's secret and illegal bombing of a non-belligerent country, Cambodia, killing thousands of innocents . . .

. . . or Reagan's negotiations with terrorists and the arms for hostages deal . . .

. . . or Reagan's support for apartheid . . .

. . . or conservative support for Nazi Germany prior to Pearl Harbor . . .

Yes, let's do revisit the past!

advocate, I have never, not once, posted anything about Jefferson. I have never claimed that he was involved in anything illegal, therefore your analogy is completely baseless. You're a liar (that's a word I know you will understand).

I would think that as criminal as you claim this administration is that you would have a plethora of charges to bring up. Secondly, I would think that your fine representatives in Congress would be leading the way to the courthouse. Or is all of this just a bunch pathetic martyrdom bullshit?

History is that you have lost 8 of the last 11 presidential elections. Ouch.

Jay: I would think that as criminal as you claim this administration is that you would have a plethora of charges to bring up.

I do, but I'm not in the Justice Department or a local prosecutor, so it is not up to me to bring anything.

This is your claim, that anybody who makes a claim that someone is corrupt must bring charges or they don't know what they are talking about.

Since the vast majority of Clinton haters had no authority to bring charges, by your own standard their comments about Clinton, including yours, are juvenile, etc, etc, etc.

advocate, I have never, not once, posted anything about Jefferson.

Which is and was irrelevant to my point, which had nothing to do with whether you've posted or not posted on Jefferson specifically, but about your claims that the corruption exists on both sides.

You claim that Dems are as corrupt as the GOP.

Good, then bring charges against some Dems, Jefferson or any other Dem I don't care, or STFU.

Jay: History is that you have lost 8 of the last 11 presidential elections.

History is that Dems held Congress for most of the last 60 years by a wide amount.

History is that Bush's approval ratings are in the toilet.

HIstory is that the GOP is losing ground fast.

History is that it is the GOP that is in power and is bearing the brunt of criminal investigations and convictions.

History is that Nixon was forced to resign; Clinton was not.

History is that Clinton also had eight years in office, but higher approval ratings than Bush and always will.

Live with it.

SteveK and craigie, you're being juvenile when you bash Kevin for not behaving like other bloggers. You want to hear everyone singing along to your tune, and you're so obsessed with enforcing political correctness you miss the rhetorical moves Kevin regularly employs.

His arguments are effective, in a way that the usual rants are not, because he rarely declares, but leaves the reader with a question. It makes the reader do the mental work, instead of just plastering up something aggressive, which invites resistance. I also note that Josh Mashall and Kevin Drum are far more often in agreement than either are with Duncan, Digby, or Markos

Not everyone has to be in lock-step with Duncan Black to be in opposition to the current administration, you know. Conversely, I can detest the current adminsitration AND think bloggers like Mr. Black are full of it. Volume should not be confused with validity.

fercryinoutloud

Jay: Secondly, I would think that your fine representatives in Congress would be leading the way to the courthouse.

Members of Congress have no authority to bring charges against anybody.

That is in the hands of the Executive Branch through prosecutors.

I knew you were ignorant, but clearly I had no idea that your ignorance was so overwhelming that you do not understand who in our system of government can and cannot bring criminal charges against a person.

Or are you just being a drama queen because your hero is swimming in the cesspool of historic failure?

ah: Bush is being criticized for legal tactics.

even judge michael luttig (right-wing darling) resigned recently because he had had it with the bush admin's legal tactics...

"J. Michael Luttig, the federal appeals court judge who was on President Bush's short list for the Supreme Court but recently clashed with the administration over a terrorism case, has resigned from the bench." - Wash. Post 5/11/06

"The clash, underscores the increasing skepticism among even some conservative jurists toward the Bush administration's sweeping theories of executive power, and culminated yesterday in Judge Luttig's resignation." - Wall Street Journal 5/11/06

ray: this administration has been able to cover their lies and their incompetence

the only visible evidence is:

1. the record american terror death toll

2. the record american federal debt

afg: Bushitler

cleek: unproductive.

"Stop comparing Bush to Hitler. Hitler was a decorated war veteran who saw front line combat." - Bill Maher

Jay: And please, unless any of you actually have the cajones to bring charges against this administration, you diatribe of criminal activity is juvenile and embarassing.

Did I miss something, or has this whole discussion been about the fact that it's increasingly difficult to bring legitimate cases against this administration because of the importance of keeping state secrets? I mean, if you're going to embarrass this president by exposing his wrong-doing, you will destabilize the country, cause an upheaval that may lead to a stock market collapse, numerous indictments, etc. And that will only spur on the terrorists! So, its Bush's duty to suppress legitimate inquiries, if only for the good of the state!! But hey, let's not forget Mr. Bush WANTS to expose the leakers of Plame's identity. He's on our side.

BTW, all of you conservatives who's mantra has fallen back to "press charges or shut up." Do you take us all for constitutional lawyers, or multimilionaires? We're just concerned citizens who want to vent, make sure we're not alone in all this madness we see, and establish a voice that may eventually overwhelm the paid assassins like Judith Miller and Limbaugh. At the very least, the court of the people can rule fairly.

Pathetic liberal victim losers. Put together a platform and actually win an election for once. We're all growing very tired of your immature rants.

Plans, programs, platforms. Got any? Or would you rather just bitch and moan at the latest preceived injustice. It's a lot harder to get up off of your ass and actually do something isn't it? All talk, no walk.

jay: Remember it was the "culture of corruption" led by Democrat Dan Rostenkowski (House Ways and Means) that Gingrich capitilized on that swept the GOP into Congress with the "Contract with America" in 1994.

can you say......irony?

"This is what the tyranny of a one-party state is like, people!" - Rush Limbaugh 1993

It is ironic, and the Dems have an opportunity here. My guess is though they will blow it in the end.

Jay: Pathetic liberal victim losers.

Great comeback, Jay!

Got any?

Yup. What, you can't read?

Thought so.

Get somebody to read them to you then.

And explain them, since you are apparently ignorant about who brings criminal charges, it is clear you will be too ignorant to understand what is being read to you.

It's a lot harder to get up off of your ass and actually do something isn't it?

Who would know better than you.

What are the specifics advocate? Tell me what the left plans to do with the economy, Iraq, Iran, Terrorism, NO reconstruction, Trade agreements, and taxes. I can't wait to hear.

History is that you have lost 8 of the last 11 presidential elections. Ouch.

Wow. Now please compare America in the period 1932-1968, when liberals dominated the discourse, to the period 1968-present, when conservatives have dominated the discourse.

See a difference? America climbed back from the Depression, won a World War, helped returning soldiers with the GI Bill, embarked on a period of prosperity with a vibrant middle class, and saw ever-increasing civil rights for millions of previously marginalized and disenfranchized citizens. Since 1968, America has ... well, it has ...

Help me out here, Jay. I'm trying to compile a list of all the great accomplishments of your glorious conservative backlash revolution.

Jay: My guess is though they will blow it in the end.

They could blow it big time and never blow it as much as Bush blew the sympathy the US had after 9/11, or blew his long-past big approval ratings, or blew the invasion and pacification of Iraq, or blew Social Security reform, or blew the prescription drug program, or blew the Katrina response, or blew the Harriet Miers nomination, etc, etc, etc.

jay: playing the martyr going for the pathetic sympathy vote at some perceived non-existent injustices.

previous posters say:

Conservatism is nothing more than greed wrapped in pseudo-intellectualism.

The entire cult of right-wing Republicanism is all about reveling in self-righteous victim-hood.

fox and in particular bill o'reilly have become rich offering lots of bunkered aggrievement...to

libs? try again...

Jay: What are the specifics advocate? Tell me what the left plans to do with the economy, Iraq, Iran, Terrorism, NO reconstruction, Trade agreements, and taxes. I can't wait to hear.

The specifics are all around you, but . . .

. . . those who will not listen, cannot hear.

You fall into the category of those who will not listen.

jay: actually win an election for once

true...

bush won....

but america lost...

no kidding...

deal with it...

Ended the cold war, made America the only super power in the world with the srongest economy, tore down the Berlin wall, pulled us out of the quagmire that was Vietnam, freed the Iranian hostages, evicted Saddam from Kuwait, deposed Saddam, wiped out Taliban rule in Afghanistan, marginalized Khaddafi, helped broker the current peace accord with Palestine and Israel, helped established an Iraqi constitution, helped establish a new Iraqi military and government, and laid the groundwork for our current historic low unemployment, all time high home ownership and 11 consecutive quarters of economic growth. Just too mention a few.

That's your platform? you didn't say anything. Oh, I get it, it's a stealth platform.

Ended the cold war . . .

Historical revisionism . . .

made America the only super power in the world with the srongest economy

No, Clinton did that. You are confused about your timeline. Highly usual for you.

tore down the Berlin wall

No, the East Germans did that. No American, much less any conservative American, lifted a spade in that effort.

pulled us out of the quagmire that was Vietnam

More historical revisionism.

freed the Iranian hostages

Negotiated with terrorists and gave them arms in return for the hostages. What a coup.

evicted Saddam from Kuwait

No, that was the US military. Why do you disrespect our soldiers like that.

deposed Saddam

And let OBL, the guy who actually attacked us, go free.

wiped out Taliban rule in Afghanistan

Then fled the scene to allow the Taliban to remain a thorn in the side of the Afghanis.

marginalized Khaddafi

Taking credit for something already done.

helped broker the current peace accord with Palestine and Israel

You mean, the Roadmap to Nowhere.

helped established an Iraqi constitution

I thought the Iraqis did that on their own, at least that was your story the other day.

helped establish a new Iraqi military

Ha, ha, ha, ha, ha!

and government

Bush always did like puppets.

and laid the groundwork for our current historic low unemployment, all time high home ownership and 11 consecutive quarters of economic growth.

While reducing real wages, increasing national and individual debt, and cutting back on social services that exacerbate the cutback in real wages.

Whooohooo!

Just too mention a few.

Just to lie about many.

Jay: That's your platform? you didn't say anything. Oh, I get it, it's a stealth platform.

No, you don't get it, but that's not surprising.

As someone with their hands over their ears chanting "nyah, nyah, nyah, nyah" over and over, it's hard for you to hear anything but the little GOP voices in your head.

30% approval.

Live with it.

Yeah, thanks a lot for deposing Saddam for everybody, only 15 years after Bush's revised reason, cough cough, for invading, namely that he gassed his own people, the Kurds. So Jay, using Bush's timeframe, when do you think we'll get around to deposing dictators that are actually still torturing and killing their own people? Bush: "I wanna say to the people of SOO-dan, in 2021 we will liberate you, and remove the threat of nucular war that your goverment had in 2006. I'm the decider!"

Is it any wonder you keep losing elections? That I can live with!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Theft of vets' data kept secret for 19 days

The Bush administration puts vets at risk while attempting to cover up their incompetence.

Next thing you know, the administration will be attempting to cut the troops hazard pay and reduce their medical benefits . . .

. . . oh, wait, they already did that.

Nevermind.

Considering that we have to fight the left as hard as we have to fight the dictators (interesting isn't? Who do you think really wants to end tyranny, hint: it's not the left), we will pick and choose our next dictator to depose carefully.

There's just no end to advocates victimhood. Poor little advo, never had a chance, and never will.

Jay: Is it any wonder you keep losing elections?

Is it any wonder that the GOP has been out of power in Congress for most of the last 60 years?

Is it any wonder the GOP keeps winning battles against the terrorists, but keeps losing the war?

Is it any wonder the GOP can't find OBL?

Is it any wonder why Bush's approval rating is in the toilet?

Is it any wonder why Jay is so desperate that he throws up strawmen, historical revisionism, and lies as quickly as they are knocked down?

Jay: Considering that we have to fight the left as hard as we have to fight the dictators (interesting isn't? Who do you think really wants to end tyranny, hint: it's not the left), we will pick and choose our next dictator to depose carefully.

Interesting that you are more interested in fighting the political segment of America that gave us the economically roaring 1990's and who first embraced nation-building (Bush was against it before he was for it and then he was for it only when it was Iraq and Afghanistan, but nowhere else), instead of America's actual enemies, the terrorists and members of your own political segment, conservatives?

Who do I think really wants to end tyranny?

Well, not the GOP who has funded dictators (Saddam, the Shah, Noriega, Pinochet, Rios Montt, the Taliban, Musharraf, the Saudi monarchy, etc) and given them very public international support even while they were murdering, raping, torturing, and using WMDs against their own populations.

The Right never met a dictator they didn't like, no matter how much killing, raping, and torture that dictator did, as long as the dictator helped the Right win political power for tax cuts.

Jay: we will pick and choose our next dictator to depose carefully.

LOL! 15 years! Yes, that's very carefully!!

Jay: There's just no end to advocates victimhood.

Since I've never claimed to be a victim, this would naturally be one of those lies you like to tell.

So, my alleged victimhood will end (since it never started) long before your drama queen rants will.

Just remember, Jay, liberals have something that trumps anything you can throw at them: conservatives gave Saddam money and international support and called him friend while he was gassing the Kurds and mass murdering his own people. They did the same with Noriega. Getting our soldiers to give up their lives to clean up your own mess, out of spite and vengence for your own political misfortunes, does not even begin to pay the world back for all the misery and death you caused by funding Saddam.

Clinton had 8 long years to address tyranny. What happened? Seems to me he cozied up with the Saudi's, Syria, Yasser, Baptiste and the like as much as you claim the right did. Hmmm..............

btw, the 90's economy was due to the technology boom which was fueled by Reagans Corporate R&D tax cuts in the late 80's. I don't know how many times I have to point that out. And since there was such a great economy in the 90's and a democrat was in the WH, how come there was still poverty? hmmmmm..........

Just a little observation advo; your mentality, and opinions, and those on the left that harbor the same sentiments, are the very reason the left keeps losing elections. I thank you for that.

At this point I'm just curious what it would take to turn die-hard believers like Jay into critics? What kind of infraction by this administration would finally produce that change? And please don't come back with something snide like "to allow another democrat to win a seat in congress" or something like that. If you had posed that question to me during the Clinton years, I venture that I would have said secretly giving arms to terrorists, or recklessly using bad intelligence to rush into war. I'm not being sarcastic, i just want to know... What WOULD it take?

Jay: Clinton had 8 long years to address tyranny. What happened?

The GOP Congress brought endless false allegations against him and manipulated the justice system to engage in an illegal investigation, all of which resulted in nothing meaningfully helpful to the American people.

The GOP funded and supported Saddam Hussein while he was murdering, torturing, and raping his own people.

Trumps everything.

Seems to me he cozied up with the Saudi's, Syria, Yasser, Baptiste and the like as much as you claim the right did.

He didn't fund Arafat; he didn't call him friend; he didn't give him any international support beyond what was required due to his leaderhip of the Palestinians. He didn't cover up any of Arafat's crimes or deny his role in terrorism.

Clinton didn't fund Syria.

Clinton didn't fund the Saudi monarchs.

Clinton didn't fund any other dictator who was murdering his own people.

Clinton didn't give any of them the technology to produce WMDs.

Bush and Reagan funded Saddam. They gave him the technological resources to start WMD programs. They called him friend. They praised him and intervened internationally on his behalf, covering up for his crimes.

I repeat with relish:

Are you just being a drama queen because your hero is swimming in the cesspool of historic failure?

Just a little observation advo; your mentality, and opinions, and those on the left that harbor the same sentiments, are the very reason the left keeps losing elections. I thank you for that.

Your lies and mental deviancy is why the GOP's fortunes are falling like ballast in the ocean cut loose from a ship.

30% approval.

Choke on it.

Jay: At this point I'm just curious what it would take to turn die-hard believers like Jay into critics?

Jay is a little brownshirt.

He will worship Bush, just like the brownshirts worshipped Hitler, long after Bush is dead, buried, and relegated to the cesspool of historical failure.

Arrogance, racism, mendacity, greed, self-centeredness, and religious and political intolerance are the driving forces of conservatives like Jay and these are so embedded into the fabric of their character that these characteristics will only die when the body dies.

One more time before I go, the trump card:

Bush and Reagan funded Saddam. They gave him the technological resources to start WMD programs. They called him friend. They praised him and intervened internationally on his behalf, covering up for his crimes. They let him gas the Kurds and the Iranians and they looked the other way. They could have stopped him in his tracks before he ever got going, but they funded him instead and helped him to build his little Iraqi empire. All out of hate of the Iranians who were driven to their extremes by Nixon's and Ford's support for the murdering and torturing Shah. Conservatives don't believe in democracy; they believe in despotism. The will implement it here if allowed. Fight the hate. Fight the power. Fight the greed. But most of all, fight the utter immorality and vileness of conservative rule.

...we will pick and choose our next dictator to depose carefully.

Posted by: Jay on May 23, 2006 at 1:46 PM | PERMALINK

Well, you certainly did pick and choose this present one. And you are being really careful about deposing him.

I just wonder what sort of overwhelming evidence it would take. Obviously comparison between his behavior and that of all the previous presidents in living memory, including real "war presidents" isn't enough. All the presidents have had faults but only Nixon bears comparison to the immorality of this administration.

The Republican policy is torture and abuseiveness. It's their only policy.

The Constitution is in a shambles and the Courts, our supposed third branch continue to ignore the violations of the Law and Constitution out of fear. Or is it hubris?

Too bad there isn't anyone with enough intellectual capacity, enough legal acumen, and enough sense (really) to just put an injunction against the entire Administrations efforts to torture and kill people not charged with any crime. Where are the checks and balances? What happened to rule by law not men?

Perhaps it went down the tubes when the rich beget their sons and send them to Ivy League schools. When they ignore, nay do not care at all, about their fellow citizens, have no concern whatsoever to the commonweal. The United States is floundering on the rocks in these guys heads.

Clinton had 8 long years to address tyranny. What happened? Seems to me he cozied up with the Saudi's, Syria, Yasser, Baptiste and the like as much as you claim the right did

Seems to me he ousted Milosevich with very little loss of life while the Republican Congress howled in protest.

notthere,

Not "war president" but "war criminal". It's about not following the law but doing what you want and doing it to whomever you want. The fact is that these guys sit around and laugh about what they are doing to other human beings...as if it's just a game and that people are not deserving of human dignity because "they don't like them". I think it's very simple in one respect. Bringing war criminals to justice, however, is very difficult given the fact that they happen to be running "the most powerful nation on Earth".

Perhaps "war criminals" is too strong a term? I hope so...because the fact that one is continuallyl violating the human dignity of so many people...with impunity...begs the question of who will decide who and what a war criminal is. I'm sure that makes the Bushites and their fellow travellers blush with undeserved pride. But I am also hopeful that enough good and decent folks remain in the judiciary, in the Congress, and in the world-writ-large to make sure that they don't just get away with this sad exercise in megalomania.

Jay, what would it take? I assume you are a reasonable person, maybe you have a family, you might work down the street from me, but regardless we both have the same interest in preserving this country, its constitution, our own security, etc. There's been a lot of rhetoric in this discussion, and while it allows release, we're not closer to bridging the gap between our thinking. I want something more concrete. And I presume that the reason you came to this site in the first place is to express your views and perhaps allow the other side to understand you better. So do that. What would it take? If you don't think about it or ever decide where you might draw the line, how will you ever know what is enough? Would your answer be the same as it was 8 years ago? Four?

Pathetic liberal victim losers. ... We're all growing very tired of your immature rants.

I think you're growing tired of defending your atrocious fuck-up of a president from the relentless assault of the facts.

Damn you, facts!

Seems to me he ousted Milosevich with very little loss of life while the Republican Congress howled in protest.

And pushed out a dictator in Haiti.

Back onto the main thread (for a second). The State Secrets Privilege looks like something that would make a good law review note. Maybe a good critique of the decision in U.S. v. Reynolds. Without looking at the original opinion (I quit practicing law 8 years ago, and I don't have the patience anymore), a possible thesis could be that the SCOTUS made a mistake, and should have given the government the choice between in camera inspection of the disputed document, and redaction thereof, or allowing the plaintiff to proceed with her case, with the plaintiff being allowed to argue that there was a document that reported on the cause of the crash, and that the government, for its own reasons, refused to turn it over, and that the only possible presumption is that the document would be tantamount to an admission of negligence. And if the state secret is so sensitive that the government honestly believes that the case cannot go forward, then the trial court should enter a default judgment, and proceed to hear evidence on damages.

But that isn't what the court did, so we have to deal with the consequences these many years later, at the hands of an administration that parses terms much more finely than even the worst excesses in the Clinton administration.

Are you even a citizen of the United States? If not, STFU.

Posted by: Animal Control on May 23, 2006 at 11:09 AM | PERMALINK

Why, are you a Citizen of Iraq? If not, STFU until the elected parliment asks you yanks to go.

Fight the hate. Fight the power. Fight the greed. But most of all, fight the utter immorality and vileness of conservative rule.

Posted by: Advocate for God on May 23, 2006 at 2:27 PM | PERMALINK

Join the leftie's and there dreams of Siberan Labour camps instead!

map
map
map
map
map
map
map
map
map
map
map
map
map
map
map
map
map
map
map
map
map
map
map
map
map
map
map
map
map
map
map
map
map
map
map
map
map
map
map
map
map
map
map
map
map
map
map
map
map
map
map
map
map
map
map
map
map
map
map
map
map
map
map
map
map
map
map
map
map
map
map
map
map
map
map
map
map
map
map
map
map
map
map
map
map
map
map
map
map
map
map
map