Topic: I don't understand. (Read 5367 times)

MISTER MASSACRE · « **on:** June 09, 2004, 11:49:01 PM »

Biden: Give us memo.

Ashcroft: No.

Biden: You realize this is Congress, right?

Ashcroft: Yes.

Biden: Do you understand the way the Constitution works?

Ashcroft: The what now?

Biden: Sigh. Why aren't you giving us the memo?

Ashcroft: Iunno.

Biden: SOMEONE SHOOT ME IN THE HEAD

http://bellaciao.org/en/article.php3?id_article=1284

How. HOW? HOOOWWWW?

gorgeous_si · « **Reply #1 on:** June 10, 2004, 05:18:59 AM »

Quote from: Ashcroft

"We believe that to provide this kind of information would impair the ability of advice-giving in the executive branch to be candid, forthright, thorough and accurate at all times," Ashcroft said.

Sounds like their advice wasn't very accurate in the first place!

Edit:

Quote from: The memo

The Justice Department memo, addressed to White House Counsel Alberto Gonzalez, reportedly said torturing a suspect in captivity "may be justified" if it would "prevent further attacks on the United States by the al-Qaeda terrorist network."

That's possibly the stupidest thing they could have said! There's no way you could prove that each case prevented terrorist attacks (in fact the news of the torture seemed to increase terrorist activity). That statements reminds me of this link that Pb posted on HN.

Demosthenes · « **Reply #2 on:** June 10, 2004, 08:20:07 AM »

(from the article)

Quote

"This administration rejects torture," Ashcroft said, insisting the White House did nothing to contravene the Geneva Conventions or US law.

"Congress has the right to ask whatever questions it wants," he said.

But he added: "There are certain things that, in the interest of the executive branch operating effectively, that I think it's inappropriate for the attorney general to say."

He added that "some of these memos may be classified in some ways for some purposes."

Law · « **Reply #3 on:** June 10, 2004, 08:20:11 AM »

The temper tantrum Ashcroft threw in the hearing room yesterday was priceless. My favorites were: (in summation)

Congress: Give us the memo
Ashcroft: No
C: Are you invoking executive privilege?
A: No
C: What are you invoking?
A: I'm not invoking anything
C: Then give us the memo
A: No
C: Why?
A: I DON'T WANT TO!

Yes, Mr. Attorney General, that is an overwhelmingly valid reason and is definitely one that would stand up in court or a Congressional Hearing.

^10000000000

Binoboy · « **Reply #4 on:** June 10, 2004, 08:28:39 AM »

Joycelyn Elders shoulda gotten up and beaten him senseless. God knows she probably had the strongest hands of any Attorney General thus far (and that includes Janet Reno).

Demosthenes · « **Reply #5 on:** June 10, 2004, 09:04:44 AM »

We're at war. Torture is acceptable.

Can't they just torture the memos out of him?

hackess · « **Reply #6 on:** June 10, 2004, 09:23:23 AM »

Quote from: Demosthenes

We're at war. Torture is acceptable.

Can't they just torture the memos out of him?

They try that and then he'll claim executive privilege.

reimero · « **Reply #7 on:** June 10, 2004, 09:46:55 AM »

Ah, executive privilege. That's actually quite a valid point. I'm not sure Congress can demand that sort of thing from him without a subpoena, and even that would probably be challenged in the federal courts.

What's important here is to distinguish the policy from the man: does Congress have the right to demand a memo suspected of detailing certain "black ops"? Do they have the right to demand other sensitive closed-door advice offered by presidential advisors, particularly pertaining to issues of national security?

The whole point what happens behind closed doors is so that the political BS can be sidestepped and things can be discussed in an open and direct manner. These memos were never intended for public consumption. Congress, by contrast, is a very public institution.

Of course, none of this changes the fact that Rumsfeld and Ashcroft are ... ummm... will I get banned for using the term "asshat"? Anyway, they're not very nice people

gorgeous_si · « **Reply #8 on:** June 10, 2004, 10:04:21 AM »

Quote from: reimero

What's important here is to distinguish the policy from the man: does Congress have the right to demand a memo suspected of detailing certain "black ops"? Do they have the right to demand other sensitive closed-door advice offered by presidential advisors, particularly pertaining to issues of national security?

Black ops are very different to the torture of prisoners of war. What kind of things should the government be allowed to do without you ever finding out about it? I'd much rather live in a country where we could see exactly what our government was up to.

reimero · « **Reply #9 on:** June 10, 2004, 10:46:30 AM »

Quote from: gorgeous_si

Black ops are very different to the torture of prisoners of war. What kind of things should the government be allowed to do without you ever finding out about it? I'd much rather live in a country where we could see exactly what our government was up to.

I think there's a certain balance that needs to be maintained. It is important that the President be able to act on best available information quickly and decisively without wondering what the opinion poll du jour says. That's why there are elections and, in extreme cases, an impeachment process.

I'm not minimizing the importance of the issue of torturing POWs, but when it comes to internal memos within the White House, there's no practical difference between a memo on the treatment of prisoners and a memo detailing a proposed black op: both are "eyes only" documents intended for a very, very limited audience.

The notion that everything should be open and on the table is extremely disturbing to me. On the surface it seems like a good idea, but ultimately you end up with a leadership that is a slave to opinion polls. More importantly, when dealing with rogue states or terrorist entities, you're effectively giving them extremely valuable intelligence about your strengths and weaknesses. I mean, honestly, can you imagine the implications if a memo about presidential security during a state visit were to fall into the hands of a would-be assassin? And what about our CIA operatives and handlers, and those they've recruited? Do we really want to risk exposing them to almost certain death?

Don't get me wrong, I abhor torture and I'm very concerned about what I'm seeing. I'm also starting to believe that Rumsfeld not only knew more than he said earlier than he said, but that he's very much behind it. I want to see this resolved, very much so. But the more we open up the White House, the more vulnerable we make ourselves and the more we hamper our national security.

Every nation needs a certain number of secrets and mysteries.

Demosthenes · « **Reply #10 on:** June 10, 2004, 10:58:32 AM »

Well I don't think that every communique should be "open to the public" either in the White House.

However, that said, I do think that that private communication channel should be open to outside inspection if sufficient cause or suspicion of wrongdoing is apparent.

And I think that in light of mounting evidence that the administration knowingly engaged in encouraging pretty despicable conduct against detainees, this falls well into that category.

Note well the precidents set in the Watergate investigation, particularly where internal memos, tapes, and other communications were used as evidence when it became clear that the president knew what was going on.

Now, granted, Congress simply telling Ashcroft to turn over a memo or two does not a subpoena make... but I've got the distinct impression here that that may not be too far down the road.

reimero · « **Reply #11 on:** June 10, 2004, 11:13:38 AM »

Exactly. I think that in such cases, if Congress has reason to believe a particular memo of a particular nature exists, then they should be able to subpoena it and follow established legal procedure (which will guarantee, among other things, that sensitive information won't reach the general public.)

I don't have a problem following our system of checks and balances. I do have a problem with the notion that internal memos should simply be handed over upon Congressional request. If the memo is subpoenaed, that's an entirely different matter.

Demosthenes · « **Reply #12 on:** June 10, 2004, 11:19:29 AM »

I totally agree with that.

Er.... I mean, I 2TALY AGRE WIT TAHT111! Weird Tingly Feeling LOL

gorgeous_si · « **Reply #13 on:** June 10, 2004, 11:41:50 AM »

Quote from: Demosthenes

However, that said, I do think that that private communication channel should be open to outside inspection if sufficient cause or suspicion of wrongdoing is apparent.

That's what I meant ... although I didn't make it clear:

Quote from: me

I'd much rather live in a country where we could see exactly what our government was up to.

Just becuase the communications aren't all made public, they should be made public if required by the investigation prcoess. If it's a matter of national importance, the government shouldn't be able to hide it.

And what's wrong with the government fawning to opinion polls? Wouldn't that just mean that they actually did what the ppopulation wanted?

Demosthenes · « **Reply #14 on:** June 10, 2004, 11:44:39 AM »

Quote from: gorgeous_si

And what's wrong with the government fawning to opinion polls? Wouldn't that just mean that they actually did what the ppopulation wanted?

That's not always a good thing. I think adherence to the Constitution is more important than swaying every which way over popular opinion.

I mean, the majority opinion may think that blacks shouldn't be able to marry whites, or the majority may think that the PATRIOT Act is just fine... but that doesn't mean that those things should actually be reality.

I have a lot more respect for a politician who sticks to the Constitution than one that just follows what the herd wants.

gorgeous_si · « **Reply #15 on:** June 10, 2004, 11:55:22 AM »

Quote from: Demosthenes

That's not always a good thing. I think adherence to the Constitution is more important than swaying every which way over popular opinion.

I don't actually think that either (hence the

) ... The majority of people are dumb anyway, if the government did everything the masses wanted we'd probably be in a right state!

reimero · « **Reply #16 on:** June 10, 2004, 12:02:44 PM »

Quote from: Demosthenes

Quote from: gorgeous_si
And what's wrong with the government fawning to opinion polls? Wouldn't that just mean that they actually did what the ppopulation wanted?

That's not always a good thing. I think adherence to the Constitution is more important than swaying every which way over popular opinion.

I mean, the majority opinion may think that blacks shouldn't be able to marry whites, or the majority may think that the PATRIOT Act is just fine... but that doesn't mean that those things should actually be reality.

I have a lot more respect for a politician who sticks to the Constitution than one that just follows what the herd wants.

I agree. It's also important to note that there's no such thing as truly unbiased media, and a lot of the information that sways opinion polls is based on media reports, not necessarily the whole picture. There comes a point where we have to have a certain degree of faith that governmental leaders have access that we don't have access to.

Let's take a historical situation: during WWII, England had cracked Germany's Enigma code. With that code, they got intelligence that Coventry was to be bombed. Churchill was faced with a dire choice: evacuate Coventry, effectively letting Germany know that Enigma had been cracked, or sacrifice Coventry and keep the secret?
Coventry was wiped out. The death toll was extremely high. And the decrypting of Enigma played a central role in the Allied victory.

I'm not saying Churchill made the right choice, but there's no doubt that the decision shortened the war significantly and probably saved thousands or tens of thousands of lives. Yet I find it highly unlikely that the public would have gone along with it, had they known.

As an aside, the Coventry/Enigma issue is a classic lose-lose situation. I don't think there was a "right" answer, given the amount of time they had to prepare. But in modern terms, it's the equivalent of shooting down a passenger airliner with suspected terrorists aboard. Not a decision I'd want to have to make. Or live with for the rest of my life.

MISTER MASSACRE · « **Reply #17 on:** June 10, 2004, 12:04:57 PM »

Why didn't Ashcroft just invoke executive priviledge or the Fifth or something if it was so goddamned important? I don't even live in the States and I'm getting exhausted with the stupid little games this administration is playing.

Law · « **Reply #18 on:** June 10, 2004, 12:09:52 PM »

Quote from: Lacerda

Why didn't Ashcroft just invoke executive priviledge or the Fifth or something if it was so goddamned important? I don't even live in the States and I'm getting exhausted with the stupid little games this administration is playing.

That was the whole issue yesterday, not whether the memos should be withheld or not (they are not classified BTW), but why they were being withheld. Ashcroft can withhold any document that goes to the President at any time, but he has to invoke the President's executive privilege.

The issue yesterday was that he insisted he was not invoking EP, nor was he citing any law or regulation that allowed him to withhold the documents, he simply wasn't going to give them to Congress. He had the subpoena from the Committee, he knew that was why he was there, he just decided it would be better to invoke the 3 year old mentality of "MINE!" rather than make a real legal argument (of which he is incapable on his own...).

MISTER MASSACRE · « **Reply #19 on:** June 10, 2004, 12:11:16 PM »

Why are these jackholes running the country?

Demosthenes · « **Reply #20 on:** June 10, 2004, 12:19:53 PM »

OMG1!!1! OMG Weird Tingly Feeling LOL IMM IN CHARGE OF DA COUNTRY1!111111 OMG LOL IMM TEH ATORNAY G3NARAL OR SOM3THNG AND I DONT HAEV 2 GIEV U MAH MAMOS CUZ U AL R TEH SUX0R

Law · « **Reply #21 on:** June 10, 2004, 12:36:01 PM »

Quote from: Demosthenes

OMG1!!1! OMG Weird Tingly Feeling LOL IMM IN CHARGE OF DA COUNTRY1!111111 OMG LOL IMM TEH ATORNAY G3NARAL OR SOM3THNG AND I DONT HAEV 2 GIEV U MAH MAMOS CUZ U AL R TEH SUX0R

He actually would have sounded more intelligent if he had said that...

reimero · « **Reply #22 on:** June 10, 2004, 02:37:53 PM »

Quote from: Demosthenes

OMG1!!1! OMG Weird Tingly Feeling LOL IMM IN CHARGE OF DA COUNTRY1!111111 OMG LOL IMM TEH ATORNAY G3NARAL OR SOM3THNG AND I DONT HAEV 2 GIEV U MAH MAMOS CUZ U AL R TEH SUX0R

pwnt

News:

Recent Forum Posts

Shout Box

Author Topic: I don't understand. (Read 5367 times)