|
Banned
|
Another example for why I don't expect change to come "through the system", dc_dux. If it comes at all, it will be in spite of "the system", not via it. It's reduced to something of no more consequence, that would actually benefit most of us....than say....NASCAR, only it has much poorer ratings and lower viewer, share.....
Complicit enablers, or idiot enablers.....and it doesn't really matter which.....SHEESH !
Background:
Quote:
http://thenexthurrah.typepad.com/the...ag-who-ap.html
Update, Correction: I've checked with a committee staffer, and the issue is not rejection of a nomination (Bradbury's nomination was returned, as happens at the end of a Congress, not rejected). The issue is timing. He has served longer than the 210 day limit, so can no longer serve as Acting AAG.
Senate meets briefly to block Bush appointment - USATODAY.com
Democrats wanted to block one such recess appointment in particular: Steven Bradbury, acting chief of the Justice Department's Office of Legislative Counsel ...
http://www.usatoday.com/news/washing...k-senate_N.htm
|
Quote:
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/24/wa...erland&emc=rss
January 24, 2008
Justice Nomination Seen as Snub to Democrats
By PHILIP SHENON and ERIC LICHTBLAU
WASHINGTON — The Justice Department lawyer who wrote a series of classified legal opinions in 2005 authorizing harsh C.I.A. interrogation techniques was renominated by the White House on Wednesday to a senior department post, a move that was seen as a snub to Senate Democrats who have long opposed his appointment.
The lawyer, Steven G. Bradbury, who has run the department’s Office of Legal Counsel without Senate confirmation for more than two years, has been repeatedly nominated to the job of assistant attorney general for legal counsel.
But the earlier nominations stalled in the Senate because of a dispute with the Justice Department over its failure to provide Congress with copies of legal opinions on a variety of terrorism issues. Under Senate rules that place a time limit on nominations, Mr. Bradbury’s earlier nominations expired.
Late last year, Democrats urged the White House to withdraw Mr. Bradbury’s name once and for all and find a new candidate for the post after it was disclosed in news reports in October that he was the author of classified memorandums that gave approval to harsh interrogation techniques, including head slapping, exposure to cold and simulated drowning, even when used in combination.
Mr. Bradbury’s memorandums were described by Democrats as an effort by the Bush administration to circumvent laws prohibiting torture and to undermine a public legal opinion issued by the Justice Department in 2004 that declared torture to be “abhorrent.”
The department and the White House have insisted that there are no contradictions between Mr. Bradbury’s legal opinions, which are still secret, and laws and rules governing interrogation techniques. A department spokesman, Peter A. Carr, said Wednesday that the department remained eager to see Mr. Bradbury confirmed.
“Steve Bradbury is a dedicated public servant and a superb lawyer, who has led with distinction the department’s Office of Legal Counsel,” Mr. Carr said. “He has proven invaluable to the department, and we will continue to work with the Senate to get him confirmed.”
Joe Shoemaker, a spokesman for Senator Richard J. Durbin of Illinois, the No. 2 Democrat in the Senate, said that by putting Mr. Bradbury’s name forward again as a nominee, “the president has thumbed his nose at Congress and chosen an individual who has been involved in authorizing some of the most controversial policies of this administration.”
Mr. Durbin led the previous efforts to reject Mr. Bradbury’s nomination and sits on the Judiciary Committee, which would have to approve the nomination.
Mr. Bradbury’s new nomination is almost certain to be a focus of questions next week when Attorney General Michael B. Mukasey is scheduled to appear before the Judiciary Committee for his first public hearing since his confirmation to the job in November....
TheHill.com - GAO sides with White House on DOJ lawyer
GAO sides with White House on DOJ lawyer
By Manu Raju
Posted: 06/17/08 07:05 PM [ET]
The Government Accountability Office (GAO) has backed the Bush administration in a partisan spat over a controversial Justice Department lawyer.
Gary Kepplinger, general counsel for the nonpartisan GAO, sent Democrats a June 13 letter saying Steven Bradbury has not violated federal law by running the Office of Legal Counsel for three years without Senate confirmation. The decision virtually ensures that the administration will keep Bradbury in the position through the end of President Bush’s term.
The office provides legal advice to the president and attorney general. Bradbury was first nominated to head the office in June 2005, but his confirmation stalled in the Senate after it was revealed that he might have played a crucial role in authorizing memos outlining tough interrogation tactics on terrorism detainees....
U.S. GAO - B-310780, Federal Vacancies Reform Act of 1998 - Assistant Attorney General for the Office of Legal Counsel, U.S. Department of Justice, June 13, 2008
B-310780, Federal Vacancies Reform Act of 1998 - Assistant Attorney General for the Office of Legal Counsel, U.S. Department of Justice, June 13, 2008
[Select for PDF file]
B-310780
June 13, 2008
The Honorable Richard J. Durbin
United States Senate
The Honorable Russell D. Feingold
United States Senate
The Honorable Edward M. Kennedy
United States Senate
Subject: Federal Vacancies Reform Act of 1998 - Assistant Attorney General for the Office of Legal Counsel, U.S. Department of Justice
By letter dated April 16, 2008, you requested our opinion whether the service of Steven G. Bradbury as the senior official in the Office of Legal Counsel, U.S. Department of Justice, is in violation of the Federal Vacancies Reform Act of 1998.[1] For the reasons stated below, we conclude that Mr. Bradbury’s service has not violated the Federal Vacancies Reform Act of 1998....
In response to our request for their views,[6] the Department of Justice advises that Mr. Bradbury did not serve as the Acting Assistant Attorney General during the period from February 15, 2005 (the expiration of 210 days after the vacancy began) to June 23, 2005 (prior to his first nomination) and has not served as the Acting Assistant Attorney General since April 27, 2007. In fact, the Department advises that no one (Mr. Bradbury or anyone else) may serve as the Acting Assistant Attorney General for the Office of Legal Counsel for the remainder of this Administration. Letter of April 29, 2008. Rather, Mr. Bradbury is serving as the Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General, a position he has held continuously since April 2004. The Department advises that this is the position Mr. Bradbury occupied under the previous Assistant Attorney General, Jack L. Goldsmith, and under the Acting Assistant Attorney General, Daniel Levin. The Department concludes that Mr. Bradbury is performing the duties of his position and that there are no duties that only the Assistant Attorney General for OLC may perform....
|
Last edited by host; 08-31-2008 at 04:45 PM..
|