Memeorandum


Powered by TypePad

« Rough Riders | Main | Bill Richardson, Moving Up »

June 29, 2007

Comments

clarice

You can find the pacer cites on the Libby thread, TM.

cathyf

link to pdf

Ralph

Clarice, Anyone else,


Do you want this in HTML?

I'm going to be tied up teaching a class for the next 5 hours(it's nearly 1:00PM Moutain Time), but if you need it converted, I'll be glad to tackle it this evening.

Rick Ballard

Ralph,

It's a copiable PDF - no need for HTML version.

clarice

I blogged this a couple of hours ago in the midst of mass confusion in my house and it's still not up!URGH

Sue

Also, though Libby now claims
not to remember Cheney telling him to discuss Plame’s
employment, he told the FBI during a preliminary interview that
it was “possible” that he received such instructions. (

How odd. I wonder if Tatel would have found it memorable that Russert also claimed it was "possible" (scare quotes included) he had the conversation with Libby.

Sue

Fleischer recalled that Libby “added something along the lines
of, you know, this is hush-hush, nobody knows about this. This
is on the q.t.” (II-546-47.) Though Libby remembers the lunch
meeting, and even says he thanked Fleischer for making a
statement about the Niger issue, he denies discussing Wilson’s
wife.

This has always bothered me. I assumed Fleischer's testimony was unimpeachable. With that assumption I convicted Libby in my own mind. But Fleischer's testimony was anything but unimpeachable. And it was at that point I started giving Libby the benefit of the doubt. How do we know Ari wasn't lying? He had ample reasons to lie too and there is at least circumstantial evidence that he was doing so. As much as they had against Libby.

Sue

I don't know if I remember reading the original redacted opinion, but I can say that now that I have read this one, these judges aren't going to reverse the trial judge. Libby's going to jail, unless Bush intervenes.

Looking_For_a_Way_out

"How do we know Ari wasn't lying? He had ample reasons to lie too and there is at least circumstantial evidence that he was doing so."

Great question I think. The defense never called Dickerson, and I always thought he would have helped Libby immensely, particularly since he had even gone public with his claim that Fleischer never told him about Mrs. Wilson. The defense even had some idea of how he could help Libby. If you really think Ari had motivation to lie how do those motivations reconcile with Libby's defense's choice to not try to impeach his testimony? It doesn't make sense to me, but the only reason it seems to me that Ari would lie about this is to set up Scooter. Ari already had his immunity deal, but he still chose to hang Scooter. If he lied was it to protect somebody else?

clarice

He had another reason to lie"Protect his friend Dan Bartlett which from the timing alone seems to have been his actual source.
Do you really think this guy sat on what Libby "told" him for five days and then blabbed by coincidence right after Bartlett read aloud the INR ?

clarice

Sue, I'm afraid I don't quite follow your thinking.

Looking_For_a_Way_out

"He had another reason to lie"Protect his friend Dan Bartlett"

If that was Ari's motivation why didn't Libby's defense team go after Ari's testimony? I'm trying to remember what the penalty the defense saw if they demonstrated that Ari lied.

Sue

Sue, I'm afraid I don't quite follow your thinking.

::grin:: You won't be the first one that doesn't follow my thinking.

Their tone. Especially when they discuss the SC issuing subpoenas to reporters.

clarice

Well, I don't see it as a harbinger of anything, frankly.Altogether different issues.

Sue

Looking,

How do you prove a negative? Besides, I think they were loathe to completely discredit Fleischer because they wanted the Gregory connection to Russert/Mitchell.

Sue

Well, I don't see it as a harbinger of anything, frankly.Altogether different issues.

I see it as a harbinger but I've been wrong before.

PatrickR

TM sez;

'...it does appear that the judges understood they were ordering Ms. Miller to jail in pursuit of a perjury case.'

Yes, but Tatel is very clear that he thinks it's perjury to cover up an IIPA violation:

'...if Libby mentioned Plame's covert status in either conversation, charges under the... [IIPA]currently off the table for lack of evidence...might become viable.'

And later:

'...perjury in this context is itself a crime with national security implications....because the charges contemplated here relate to false denials of responsibility for Plame's exposure, prosecuting perjury or false statements would be tantamount to punishing the leak.'

I think Tatel might be open to being convinced that Fitzgerald played him for a sucker.

cboldt

Tatel opinion discussed in this JOM thread circa May 2006, in particular whether perjury alone would have been sufficient to compel testimony.

clarice

I agree, that two judges on the panel believed an investigation into perjury was enough to warrant compelling the journalists' testimony. But unless Tatel was just playing to some audience by sexing up the issue, he does seem to be saying the possibility of a security breach tipped his view of the matter.
Now he's on the bond appeal where he's learned from Libby's brief that Fitz had nothing more behind that tap dance in his affidavit than a letter from someone in the Agency saying Plame was "covert"--no opinion that she was covert or covered under the IIPA at all.

He looks the fool. It may not bother him, but it should.

Pal2Pal (Sara)

Any comments on this section??:

In their final argument for reversal of the District Court’s contempt finding, appellants contend that the Special Counsel did not comply with the Department of Justice guidelines for issuing subpoenas to news media and that such failure provides an independent basis for reversal. The District Court expressed its doubt that the DOJ guidelines were enforceable, but found that even if they were, Special Counsel had fully complied with the guidelines. Because we conclude that the guidelines create no enforceable right, we need not reach the question of the Special Counsel’s compliance. The guidelines in question are set forth in 28 C.F.R. § 50.10 and the United States Attorney’s Manual, § 9-2.161. Those guidelines provide that subpoenas for testimony by news media must be approved by the Attorney General, a requirement not pertinent in the present case as the Special Counsel had received delegation of all the Attorney General’s authority, and should meet the following standards:
clarice

The parties never directly argued the appointments issue so this is dicta.

SDangerfield

Clarice: "The parties never directly argued the appointments issue so this is dicta."

Um, no. The parties directly joined the question whether Fitzgerald followed the DoJ Guidelines in subpoenaing journalists, so this ruling was essential and thus not dicta. Indeed it will be issue-preclusive in any other proceeding. So you can give up on your dream that the court will find that Fitzgerald did not follow those guidelines and thus must be an all-powerful Superior Officer (an argumet that borders on the frivolous, even if Fitzgerald did not follow the non-binding subpoena guidelines).

Tom: "it does appear that the judges understood they were ordering Ms. Miller to jail in pursuit of a perjury case."

You're just realizing this. You really ought to come up for air once in a while.

Sue

an argumet that borders on the frivolous

Well that sucks. I had so hoped the Magnificent 12 weren't total tools and sort of knew something about constitutional law. I should have just asked you.

clarice

I don't recall Libby arguing that Fitz didn't follow the guidelines on subpoenaing journos. Have a cite?
He does argue that he failed to follow the statuttory laanguage on CIPA.
I don't recall Miller arguing the appointment was invalid and constitutional. Have any cites?

windansea

c'mon Sue

Dangerfield is a famous authority at an obscure blog

Sue

And I'm a famous authority at a not-so obscure blog. Just ask H&R and Clarice. I was duly appointed. I just can't remember my title at the moment. ::grin::

SDangerfield

Yes, you should have, but the Amicus Illuminati were making a different argument -- a bad one, too but different.

What I was addressing above is the narrower argument that proceeds from the premise that if you can find an instance or two of Fitzgerald having departed from a regulation or DoJ guideline, you can reason backward from that to assume that the delegation necessarily contemplated the flouting of DoJ rules and that therefore the delegation created a constitutional Superior Officer. I think that this "by his deeds ye shall kow the nature of the office" argument to be dreck.

The Dirty Dozen's legal argument is not that argument but is deeply flawed. They attempt to wish away Morrison v. Olson with the sophistry that unless Fitzgerald's appointment was identical in every respect to a appointment under the Ethics in Government Act, nothing in Morrison is relevant, and instead the court should treat a case not about independent prosecutors but about -- drumroll please -- Coast Guard judges should be controlling.

PatrickR

Touche:

'Those guidelines provide that subpoenas for testimony by news media must be approved by the Attorney General, a requirement not pertinent in the present case as the Special Counsel had received delegation of all the Attorney General’s authority...'

Pal2Pal (Sara)

As a layperson, it seems to me that the close call issue is a close call or should be just based on how much confusion the Applets and the trial judges seem to be having deciding whether Fitz was guided by DOJ guidelines or not and whether he was actually covered or not.

But then what do I know?

Poppy

"""Those guidelines provide that subpoenas for testimony by news media must be approved by the PRESIDENT, a requirement not pertinent in the present case as the Special Counsel had received delegation of all the PRESIDENT’s authority.

((Just thought I'd throw in a different office and see how it sounds))

And you thought there was a rule of law in this country.

So when the Constitution says only Congress can declare war, we will just delegate that authority to the janitor, and POOF! war it is.

clarice

TOuche, indeed, PatrickR.
Having persuaded the appellate court in Miller that he been delegated all the AG's authority, it will be interesting to see how this court will find he was NOT delegated all that authority.

lurker9876

When do you think this 3-judge panel will rule on Libby's emergency appeal?

Other Tom

"They attempt to wish away Morrison v. Olson with the sophistry..."

I always knew there was something a bit off about Dershowitz and Bork. Now it hits me: they're sophists! Of course!

Other Tom

"I think that this 'by his deeds ye shall kow the nature of the office' argument to be dreck."

Is that dreck written in English?

Other Tom

"They attempt to wish away Morrison v. Olson with the sophistry that unless Fitzgerald's appointment was identical in every respect to a appointment under the Ethics in Government Act, nothing in Morrison is relevant, and instead the court should treat a case not about independent prosecutors but about -- drumroll please -- Coast Guard judges should be controlling."

Again: is the quoted sentence written in English? (Start with "the court should treat," and tell me where it all leads.)

chch16

The 3 judge panel will rule on Libby's appeal in time to get his ass into his BOP assignment before he tries to reverse it with a request for an en banc

The entire trial can be summed up in thee words as cases go for trial lawyers:

Hail Frigging Mary for Scootie

chch16

Day 600 of the Pristine Bancroft Wall Street Journal--a damsal in distress, (who is shyly giving it up to Murdoch).

WSJ is controlling the news content to make sure no Libby news is reported on the hail Mary trial or the hail Mary appeal.

This is in marked contrast to the breathless obsession on the slow meltdown of Libby's freedom on the base blogs.

Other Tom

"Ground control to Major Chch:
"Your circuit's dead, there's something wrong.
"Can you hear me Major Chch?
"Can you hear me Major Chch?
"Can you hear me Major Chch? Can you ...

"Here am I floating round my tin can, far above the moon
Planet Earth is blue and there's nothing I can do..."

clarice

S Dangerfield seems to have vanished as quickly as his stupid argument.

centralcal

Re: "Ground control to Major Chch.."

Gawd! Whenever I need a really good laugh (as in guffaw), I know I can count on the intrepid posters here! You go, OT!

BobS

Wow, Clarice. That was unusually hostile. Normally you have more patience for those Demleftys that show up in here. And using the great Rodney Dangerfield's name ta boot.

SunnyDay

Hostile? Nahhhhh. Clarice is never hostile. It's just that she is usally so kind.

MikeS

is the quoted sentence written in English?

 The words are English, the syntax is Klingon, and the logic is Troll
 

BobS

No Offense intended, SunnyDay.

(Is a Clarice Groupie)

Pal2Pal (Sara)

The words are English, the syntax is Klingon, and the logic is Troll

Nominate as the "line of the day."

Sue

I don't understand the spelling monitor's obsession with the WSJ, but if I were in charge at the WSJ, I would check my fired employees to see just what one in particular might be up to. Postal comes to mind.

Other Tom

Concerned about this little dust-up in London? Not to worry: these guys were losers; the bombs were rudimentary; and after all, they didn't go off, did they? Just fear-mongering by Gordon Brown and a bit of mass hysteria.

Remember, this whole thing is just a bumper sticker.

Sue

OT,

This is what I don't understand. The left wants terrorism treated as a law enforcement problem. Yet everytime law enforcement foils a plot, they poo-poo it. The exact same things they are saying today about the plots that have been uncovered would have been said about the 9/11 hijackers. "Box cutters? You think they could hijack a plane with box cutters? And fly them into buildings?" The unimaginable became imaginable. And today's foiled plot was not due to investigative work but dumb luck. I admit I am at the end of understanding the left's desire to jump off a cliff with radical Islam.

clarice

There's little need for ngo's, social workers, paper pushers in a real war on terror..ergo it is a "law enforcement" problem of no great consequence being hyped by Bushitler and his fascist minions to take our attention off the real threats (global warming' the reemergence of the patriarchy; transfats; third hand ciagette smoking; video game addiction;rampant racism;children being forced to tell their parents when they are getting abortions; pet overpopulation--pick one or more of your choosing)

clarice

re the bomb attempts in London--A Scottish newspaper is reporting that the police are hunting for an Iraqi who went on the lamb just before the bombs were found.(Sounds like WTC all over again--doesn't it? Probably had some dopes sign papers for the cars and supplies and return TWICE to get their deposits back--only the Brits aren't as stupid as the FBI was.)

chch16

I don't know what "the left" wants and I think you oversimplify to draw a common denominator just as people oversimplify in characterizing the right.

I know that the political campaign tone is to say the left wants to coddle terrorists but in truth someone would be psychotic or a terrorist advocate to believe that. We all hear that as common rhetoric.

If you're on either campaign "debate dias" where there are no real debates but sound byte insertions--(notice also that some candidates rarely get to say anything in these things)
it's in vogue to pound your chest and say you're gonna get 'em.

What most sensible people are for is to be effective (personally I don't think the Fran Townsend show (ex US Attorney who is White House Liason to Chertoff) and Chertoff's approach is that effective. I don't think wire tapping all domestic US calls and secretly trying to insert Trojans via the ISP onto people's pcs or Macs is effective and my conern is this data is shared with an awful lot of data bases and the US gov has been far from secure loosing many CDs and DVDs with socials, etc. on it.

In this vein not too long ago at an Ohio Nuclear Power plant a guy with information on his laptop that is vital to detonating nukes decides he wants to take games home and play with his grandson.

He forgets and goes outside the security encryption perimeters with the laptop that was not supposed to leave. He's hacked in minutes--under 20.

The reactors happened to be off line at the time.

To your point:

From my point of view, any of these alphabet agencies, DOJ, NSA, CIA, DIA, and on and on are charged with protecting people. They are going to err on the side of caution, but they often sweep with a ridiculously wide net. And it's only too bad when it's not someone you know. We now have perfectly innocent people who have been rendered and tortured, who have and are suing the gov and often the defense used by the AUSA is the case must be dismissed because of security considerations whatever the onpoint phrase is escapes me at the momentnow I have it--DOJ or CIA counsel reflexly will invoke the "State Secrets Privelege" in their heavily redacted briefs. It's being used a ton.

The individual caught up in the net has a horror story for a life as does their family who often hasn't contacted them because they can't and vice versa--they can be rendered and beaten and tortured etc.

So take Gitmo and other prisons. After 911 there was understandable passion to get the people "who did this and stop people who would do anything like it."

The problem is that the chaos was huge. Money was paid, and much like the scenes in Syriana, people could claim they delivered terrorists when they might just be innocent swept up bystanders. So to foreclose on IDing who they are accurately is Kafkaesque to say the least. The legal analysis of these Military Tribunals reveals absurd situations with no discovery, no chance to cross witness, etc. That's one reason why there were 4 cert. votes yesterday to take the Gitmo detainee case.

So I don't think the left or anyone with a brain wants to jump off a cliff with radical Islam. I do think the court system should try all of them, and that the Military Commissions Act 10/17/06 of 2006 violated the constitution and that Congress should void it.

I think other countries watch the abolition of habeas for these people and the manuevering of the military to get the result they want and the lack of basic federal rules which are far from a picnic for anyone embarked on defense closer than many of us think.

I haven't had a chance to look closely at what's known on the London terrorist bombs in the cars at Picadilly--a place with a huge confluence of cameras that I saw many times, but I understand the mindset when any of these near miss plots happens.

Keep in mind I'm saying that we have to be pre-emptive and vigilant, but law is gone or I could have said Rule of Law when a lot of fish are swept up in the net and nothing is done to distinguish real bad guys from people who aren't.

Other Tom

Attention! Attention! Major Chch signals arriving...origin appears to be vicinity of Pluto...stay by your radios for further developments...this is not a drill...this is not a drill...

Sue

I do think the court system should try all of them

We can't. They didn't get their Miranda rights read to them.

The enemy combatants being held at Gitmo have more rights than any other enemy combatant in the history of the world.

JM Hanes

PatrickR:

"Those guidelines provide that subpoenas for testimony by news media must be approved by the Attorney General,"

In the Libby case, however, it is a statute, not a guideline, which specifies the Atty Gen.'s CIPA role and explicitly prohibits delegation of that authority to anyone but a defined set of officers.

Sue

I think other countries watch the abolition of habeas for these people and the manuevering of the military to get the result they want and the lack of basic federal rules which are far from a picnic for anyone embarked on defense closer than many of us think.

This makes no sense.

VIMH: I'm actually conversing with the spelling monitor and I expect it to make sense?

or I could have said Rule of Law

What rule of law? There are not a lot of rules of law that deal with enemy combatants. Most are instant death. Which, IMO, would solve the problem of worryign about what to do with them.

Other Tom

"There are not a lot of rules of law that deal with enemy combatants. Most are instant death."

Throughout most of human history, the rule was summary execution, in recent centuries by hanging. This was the standard and accepted procedure for pirates on the high seas.

clarice

The "rule of law" which means one must always assume common sense and national preservation must be somehow wrong, the "rule of law" which persuades the weak minded that we can eliminate poverty and obesity and gasoline use by autos if we mandate it but we cannot allow charter schools, educational standards and a damned border fence. The "rule of law" that says the government can continue to do nothing to secure our borders and deport illegals but employers' fines and amnesty will make the problem vanish.In other words just shit pulled out of the air to satisty some point of view that is devoid of reason.

JM Hanes

SDangerfield:

"The Dirty Dozen's legal argument is not that argument but is deeply flawed. They attempt to wish away Morrison v. Olson with the sophistry that unless Fitzgerald's appointment was identical in every respect to a appointment under the Ethics in Government Act, nothing in Morrison is relevant, and instead the court should treat a case not about independent prosecutors but about -- drumroll please -- Coast Guard judges should be controlling."

Actually, that strawman is what Fitzgerald tried to claim the Defense was arguing in order to avoid having to address the points they really raised. Walton loved it too, because it allowed him to ignore a plain reading of the Edmond decision, in favor of basing his opinion on the fact that Fitzgerald wears suits.

chch16

In your dreams--they have few rights--they aren't all guilty you would do poorly in that environment if you weren't guilty--the S. Ct. Bush's stacked S. Ct. with his last two picks in his life will tell him he can't run the Military Commissions Act Denying Habeas. Congress will void it; and when the Congress gets Democratic increases House and Senate 2008 there won't be these assaults on the constitution. I know it's hard to realize that some people accused aren't guilty; there are several cases of people who have been rendered and tortured who aren't.

I guess the cars in Hyde Park and in Picadilly Circus shoot Bush's stupid fiction that every CIA officer interviewed has called stupid "we're fightin' 'em over theah so we don't have to fight 'em heah" are one of several cases that show Bush's wild and crazy assertion is false.

The INS DHS has no control whatsoever over immigration. Again, Again, if you are an immigrant that tries legally the bureaucracy pisses on you; it takes 10-15 years; they couldn't be more rude--I've seen how they operate. Like most federal officials they have pressure points and they are all afraid of someone.

Many of their judges are fully incompetent and were vetted according to their loyalty to Bush by DOJ's Queen of the Hop Monica Idiot Goodling.

I like DOJ's style; a major resignation every Friday after the news cycle. I'll have to look and see who followed Mercer into the run like a chicken paradigm.

JM Hanes

Sue:

"This makes no sense."

With regard to "federal rules" or anything else. Interestingly enough, on the international front, England has explicitly suspended more civil rights than we have, and the single most common infraction of the EU Convention is....justice delayed!

chch16

A lot of people didn't believe that many provisions of the proposed Immigration legislation could possibly logistically work, and I'm one of them besides the border considerations that galvanized so many people to oppose it.

A lot of large employers of undocumented illegals now see a bleak landscape of raids and more raids. One possible help and I don't know what percentage this would be would be to streamline the bogdown applications of the people who are pending in this legally and clear them instead of dragging their pathway out for years.

chch16

Sue--

The problem is that some of the people labled "enemy combatants" aren't correctly labled. The military prosecutors are basically saying "trust us--we know" when they don't know and their lawyers can't even get access to purported evidence.

And because of that, and the failure to investigate whether they are enemy combatants, there should be the due process for them that any prisoner has.

There have been American citizens mistakenly picked up on US soil who have been lumped into this group as well and some released without a scintilla of an apology and when the lawsuit comes it's always the "States Secret" defense which is English for "We screwed up and now we want to cover it up."

chch16

Let me help you with this for clarity.

Swooping people up and playing the games that the Military Tribunals have played with continuing to reconvene repeat tribunals until they get the result they want, denying discovery, denying access to their attorneys is pissing off other countries and it's not making you safer.

Their have been some excellent JAG defense attorneys and often their reward has been to discharge them.

clarice

It's war, chichi not small claims court..

clarice

"raids and more raids"? I Doubt it. My spidey sense tells me those raids which seemed to have picked up in the last month were no more than the usual bureaucratic shennanigans designed to create the impression that the immigration service was doing its job in a vain effort to curry favor with a Preisdent who needed to make that (false) point to get this Bill passed.

O the other hand since the Senate and Feds have basically told us we're on our own, I am seeing state and municipal governments increasingly doing just that--making their places unfriendly for illegals in the hope that they will leave.

vnjagvet

Chichi:

We meet again. I know you are not impressed with my experience, but part of that 42 years of practice was as a rEserve JAG officer on active duty during the height of the Vietnam war (1966-1970). I served a tour in II Corps during 1967-1968 which, to refresh your recollection, included the Tet Offensive and the sad chapter of the so called My Lai Massacre.

As reserve JAG officers, many of us were called upon to defend military personnel accused of crimes. We also had to advise the various commanders under whom we served as to appropriate procedures to deal with Viet Cong irregulars captured on the battlefield. Many of them were not obviously combatants. They sometimes were turned over to the Vietnamese Government for "disposition". Generally, once that was done, our military had nothing more to do with them. But frequently, they were confined in a separate wing of the military stockade in Long Binh and held indefinitely for periodic questioning by Vietnamese and US Intelligence. They were generally treated the same as our own military personnel who were confined under the UCMJ.

I suspect the confinees at Gitmo are, in many ways, treated as well or better than those of our military who have run afoul of the UCMJ in Iraq and are therefore confined in the stockade there.

BTW, the JAG Officers who you claim have been "discharged" have generally reached the end of their tours or have been passed over for promotion and riffed out having reached the end of their careers. Field Grade officers generally are expected to occupy management or military judge slots befitting their rank.

Most of the trial work is done by more junior officers (of the rank 03 or sometimes 04). Rarely do 05s regularly occupy Assistant SJA slots who do the lion's share of the prosecution and defense work.

BTW, it was not uncommon when I was on active duty for one to defend one month and prosecute the next. I suspect that has not changed, although I don't know that for sure.

Some are happier about it than others.

Poppy

""Chch16: Again, if you are an immigrant that tries legally the bureaucracy pisses on you; it takes 10-15 years; they couldn't be more rude--"""""

So your saying other countries have much more lack immigration laws? Can I just walk across the border and set up shop in Mexico?

Please list the countries that make it easier then us to get into and stay in the country as a foriegner?? Mind you, millions just walk across our border and take up residence. Millions more just ignore their VISAs and stay and we do not pursue them..so just what country do you believe is this immigration utopia??

Maybe the process take 10-15 years because we actually put a LIMIT on the number of immigrants per year..like every Nation state does.

But I certyainly understand your logic ; EVERYTHING, EVERYTHING IS AMERICAS FAULT. That somehow we are just expected to take in every immgrant who wants to show up, immediately, and give them a job, or welfare and free heaklthcare, etc. etc. If we don't somehow, were the bad guys.

Somehow I doubt you treat your own property like you think we should treat our borders.

Poppy

"""chch16: denying discovery, denying access to their attorneys is pissing off other countries and it's not making you safer."""

I notice whenever liberals make this statement, they fail to list those other countries that we are pissing off so we have an opportunity to review just how those countries treat and have treated terrorist enemy illgeal combatants.

Now would be a great opportunity for chch16 to list those countries that have such higher moral standards then us when treating illegal combatants.

I also notice the same argument ITS ALL AMERICAS FAULT. ITS AMERICAN SOLDIERS THAT ENJOY SWEEPING UP INNOCENT PEOPLE WHO JUST HAPPEN TO BE CAUGHT IN THE MIDDLE OF A FIREFIGHT.

If you could list those countries it would be a big help for us to see just which legal system you hold in such high esteem. Thanks

Poppy

""chch16: I think other countries watch the abolition of habeas """

Ohh come now, millions of people in WWII were imprisoned and denied HABEAS, by a liberal Democrat no less. I don't remember the lefts crocidile tears for all those swept up in our March across Europe.

What you are truly arguing for is an end to the war against Islamic trrorists, you want it to be treated as a law enforcement issue, otherwise you wouldn't demand Habeas Corpus for every enemy picked up on the battlefield. I don't recall England giving Habeas rights to Nazis, but I may be fuzzy on that.

Poppy

Chch16, you need to make a motion to have FDR thrown out of the lefts book of Saints. Afterall, he actually swept up and imprisoned actual Americans. No Habeas for them!

then he tuirned around and had illegal combatants executed, that's right, actaully hung.

And he is a herioc icon of the left to this day. So maybe you'll love Bush in 40 years....

""long-standing, well-grounded, unanimous Supreme Court decision, Ex Parte Quirin (1942).

The key to understanding the prisoners' status is the phrase, "illegal combatants."

Quirin, which is short, unanimous and written in plain English, virtues lacking in most modern Supreme Court decisions. Laymen and lawyers can understand this decision, which applies to the Guantanamo prisoners. (

That case concerned eight German saboteurs who entered the United States from submarines off Florida and New York. One of the Germans turned states' evidence, so they were captured before they could blow up various facilities -- for which they had been trained and funded in Germany.

Because they were illegal combatants, the Supreme Court upheld the trial of the saboteurs before a military tribunal, created by executive order of President Roosevelt. All were convicted; six were EXECUTED. Roosevelt's order was similar to the one just issued by President Bush.

Poppy

The opinion in Quirin was unanimous, 8-0. Justice Murphy disqualified himself; Chief Justice Stone wrote the opinion.

All the defendants had been born in Germany and had lived in the United States. One claimed U.S. citizenship, but the court found that even if he was a citizen, his trial was legal and constitutional because the acts he was charged with "renounced his citizenship" under U.S. law. The Bush administration could have taken the same position concerning John Walker Lindh, the "American Taliban," but did not do that. Therefore, his trial will be held in an ordinary federal criminal court.

President Roosevelt's executive order creating a military tribunal was issued July 2, 1942. The court concluded this was legal, under both the U.S. Constitution and international law, for four basic reasons.

birdseye

Please, no more talk about immigration/immigrants cos I'm sensitive being an illegal. Try to get back on the topic "Miller Subpoena Decision Unsealed". Is the timing of this release a precursor of something bad that's going to happen to Libby, yet again? The Legal Illuminati here seem a bit subdued about the unredacted information. It's that bad ? I'll pray for Libby whom I think has received a very long sentence from a poor judge for something that didn't hurt anyone. Lying is OK in America and the best example of someone who is an unusually good liar is the President that everyone loves - Bill Clinton. God bless America.

Jane

Poppy, vnjagvet,

It's refreshing to wake up to both of your words.

Birdseye,

Best high tail it home and come back the right way.

Rocco

Good Morning

Jeralyn wrote

Then on page 39:

"Thus, given the compelling showing of need and exhaustion, plus the sharply tilted balance between harm and news value, the special counsel may overcome the reporters’ qualified privilege, even if his only purpose—at least at this stage of his investigation—is to shore up perjury charges against leading suspects such as Libby and Rove."

The unredaction there is the last two words: "and Rove."

It appears as if Plan A was scrapped when Rove's name was removed. Is this when Armitage fessed up?

Sue

LOL. Scary was on Keith Olbermann last night and I missed it. Two kooks laughing at the "non event" in London.

http://hotair.com/archives/2007/06/30/video-olby-and-larry-johnson-shrug-at-the-non-event-in-london/>Hot Air

cathyf
It appears as if Plan A was scrapped when Rove's name was removed. Is this when Armitage fessed up?
You're losing the timeline, Rocco -- Armitage fessed up first -- he seems to have been almost the first person that the FBI interviewed. Before Libby or Rove, months before Fitzgerald was appointed, years before the legal actions at issue there.
PeterUK.

"Keep in mind I'm saying that we have to be pre-emptive and vigilant,"

Preemptive as is Iraq/Invasion?

(preemptive - note spelling)

Poppy

I think chch16 is like John Kerry when he proclaimed he had talked to alot of 'world leaders' who told him Bush had to go. Whenever soemone on the left, include the lamestream media proclaim 'everyone belives' etc., its usually just a throw away talking point to try to make them sound
normal.

And I have found many on the left somehow think Europe is some bastion of civil liberties that everyone sits around and eats baguettes and croissants all day and noone violates the left wing vision of the US Constitution.

chch16 would never guess that France has Warrantless wiretaps, warrantless searches, hearsay evidence allowed in court, Suspects can be held and questioned by authorities for up to 96 hours without judicial supervision or the notification of third parties. French officials commonly boast of having a "spy in every mosque." No wall of separation between intelligence and law enforcement agencies? France's domestic and foreign intelligence bureaus work hand-in-glove. Authorities can detain suspects in "investigative" detentions for up to a year. In the U.S., France's activities would amount to one long violation of the First, Fourth, Fifth, Sixth and Eighth Amendments to the Constitution.

And what exactly do they wisper to John kerry during those New York dinners:
"Every single attempt to bomb France since 1995 has been stopped before execution," notes a former Interior Ministry senior official. "The French policy has been [to] make sure no terrorist hits at home. We know perfectly well that foreign-policy triangulation is not sufficient for that, [even if] it helps us go down a notch or two in the order of priority [jihadist] targets. So we've complemented our anti-U.S. foreign policy with ruthless domestic measures."

That's something that U.S. civil libertarians, who frequently argue that the Bush administration should follow the "European model" of treating terrorism as a law-enforcement issue instead of a military one, might usefully keep in mind.

Liberal reference:
http://www.opinionjournal.com/wsj/?id=110009712


Other Tom

Mornin'.

Couldn't bring myself to click on the link to Olbermann and the Scary One, but I can sure picture it. It does not appear that they are laughing in London.

In essence, the M.O. of these clowns is to scoff at every failed effort as the work of hopeless amateurs, then to pounce on any successful terrorist attack as a demonstration of the government's ineptitude. Profiles in real courage.

Poppy

Anyone keeping track on how many times Fitz or some Judge has told us that Fitz committed just another 'Harmless error'. Just how many 'harless errors' does he get?

When does Libby get off on 'harmless error'.

Bush should comute Libby's sentence based on the 'harmless error' rule.

Sue

OT,

It's safe. Hot Air has an embed to the video but you have to actually click it to watch it. I would never link to something that actually required watching Scary. There is a still shot of his lard ass self, though. ::grin::

Other Tom

Perusing the material from after my bed-time last night, I am reinforced in my view that Major Chch is well below that level of sophistication and insight necessary to warrant substantive responses.

As for Scary and Olbermann, keep in mind that their combined experience with explosives is the Big Squadoosh.

windansea

anyone read The Prince of Darkness by Novak yet?

supposedly has previously unreported details on Plame outing.

PeterUK.

The problem is that some of the people labled "enemy combatants" aren't correctly labled.
(labelled)

It's their own faults,they were all told to report for bar coding.

PeterUK.

"So I don't think the left or anyone with a brain wants to jump off a cliff with radical Islam."

Good of you to confirm the left are indeed brainless.

Sue

Another non-event just happened in Great Britain. Glascow Airport, to be precise.

windansea

Car on fire crashes into airport

The car was ablaze before crashing into the building
A car on fire has been driven at the main terminal building at Glasgow Airport before exploding, police have confirmed.
Eyewitnesses have described a Jeep Cherokee being driven at speed towards the building with flames coming out from underneath.

They have also described seeing two Asian men, one of whom was on fire, who had been in the car.

The airport has been evacuated and all flights suspended

Sue

Poor Scary. He just can't buy a break.

Jeff Dobbs

Sue:
Poor Scary. He just can't buy a break.


Well, whatever funds he currently possesses should be used to buy a clue. Breaks be damned.

Sue

Police, however, said two cars had collided outside the airport around 3:15 p.m., with one of them bursting into flames.

Maybe not a terrorist attack.

RichatUF

...also described seeing two Asian men, one of whom was on fire...

Just turned on the TV and they have a picture of the Jeep on fire. Looks like it crashed into a barrier in front of the terminal...

4 arrested so far...gas cylinder

also "Asian" is that code for Pakistani

RichatUF

PeterUK.

That can't be "Scary" Larry surely? "They can afford a Mercedes,but they can't afford lessons in bomb making",that's pure Rosie O'Donnell in drag.

As for not being a "Shrapnel device",what were the nails for,this creature is a fuckchump of the first water.

Sue

Strathclyde Police spokeswoman Lisa O'Neil did not confirm media reports saying the motorist tried to drive into the terminal building.

From the video, the burning car is inside the terminal, though not very far. Now, whether or not it was deliberate, I guess we'll just have to wait for Scary to weigh in.

Jeff Dobbs

Sue:
I guess we'll just have to wait for Scary to weigh in

That was on purpose, wasn't it?

I say 285.

Lbs

windansea

I think the mercedes and the other bomb car had Scotland plates, and if you were in an accident why would you drive your burning car at speed into the terminal

clarice

SCAM is making a big ad buy for airtime on Hardball and Olberman--it's our kind of audience.

Sue

That was on purpose, wasn't it?

Yes. ::grin::

if you were in an accident why would you drive your burning car at speed into the terminal

I could think of reasons why you would do that. Unable to control your car, for one. They are reporting 4 have been arrested. At this point, it could go either way. Terorrist or accident.

Jeff Dobbs

BEFORE I TAKE LEAVE: The chicken mole last night was stupendous, mrs hit and run and I truly outdid ourselves, if I do say so myself. Sitting out on the deck as the day passed to evening and evening to night, chatting away about the most frivilous topics, drinking enough beer to come within a hair of being too much ... I could get used to this.

[VIMH: Too much? Beer? You?]
Heh, of course not. They don't call me a hyperbolist for nothing.

[VIMH: Who's "they"?]
A senior administration official said that before hit and run's claim of too much beer, two top White House officials called at least six Washington journalists and disclosed the amount of beer consumed ... Clearly, it was meant purely and simply for revenge.


ON DECK: Tonight brother hit and run and wife with homemade pizzas and the inner hit and run arsonist is loosed with a bonfire. Now, where's my ax?

PeterUK.

So far there are confused reports concerning the Glasgow Airport incident,police say two cars collided,other reports that one car rammed the other.If the latter it is possible that it was to foil an attack.
I'm sure that lard faced loon Chubby Larry will set us straight.

clarice

To those who say this is Blair's fault, Ibiza airport in Spain was just bombed, apparently by ETA to whom that govt had caved in some time ago.

The comments to this entry are closed.

Wilson/Plame