Articles of Impeachment against Dick Cheney - Page 7 - Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community

loquitur · 05-15-2007, 10:06 AM

Roachboy, I would need to do some review of what I was reading some time ago about Iran. You might recall that the revolution wasn't entirely Islamic, and that Khomeini ended up doing purges. There were reports fairly recently of strife in Azeri and Kurdish regions of Iran - I'd need to take the time to dig them out.

The US has been self-correcting, but only over time, as I said. Separation of powers and some of the other fine structural features of our constitution go a long way (it was that insight that I was congratulating H&M on). I don't see any breakdown - didn't see it even during the four years that the Repubs controlled the White House and both houses of Congress. Of course, what you think is a "breakdown" can be disputed.

host · 05-15-2007, 10:16 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by loquitur

Roachboy, I would need to do some review of what I was reading some time ago about Iran. You might recall that the revolution wasn't entirely Islamic, and that Khomeini ended up doing purges. There were reports fairly recently of strife in Azeri and Kurdish regions of Iran - I'd need to take the time to dig them out.

The US has been self-correcting, but only over time, as I said. Separation of powers and some of the other fine structural features of our constitution go a long way (it was that insight that I was congratulating H&M on). I don't see any breakdown - didn't see it even during the four years that the Repubs controlled the White House and both houses of Congress. Of course, what you think is a "breakdown" can be disputed.

It's a slooooowwwww, process, loquitur. I'm not a lawyer, but I could have predicted that the following, and much, much more negative backlash to the actions of Mr, Bush and his consigliere, needed to be delivered. It was obvious that it was justified, even when Bush cut down the time he devoted to death warrant review, from 30 minutes to 15 minutes each, more than ten years ago, with Gonzales at his side....in a state where it was known that legal aid for indigent condemned prisoners was so lacking, that one lawyer was known to have slept through parts of his clients capital murder trial. C'mon....you are a lawyer, why do you stress "under reacting", so often, with so many signs that it is an inadeqaute response that short changes our rule of law and secular society?

Quote:

http://newsblogs.chicagotribune.com/...ssma.html#more
Originally posted: May 15, 2007
Harvard classmates diss Gonzales

Posted by Andrew Zajac at 12:40 p.m. CDT

Sometimes that old school tie chafes.

More than 50 of Alberto Gonzales' Harvard Law School classmates have taken the unusual step of buying a quarter page ad in today's Washington Post to publicly woodshed him for "your cavalier handling of our freedoms time and again" as White House counsel and AG.

The ad lists Gonzales authorship of memos questioning the relevance of the Geneva Conventions, support for warrantless domestic spying and limits on habeas corpus protections and the politicized firings of U.S. attorneys as evidence of a dismissive approach to the rule of law.

Chicago attorney and Harvard Law Class of '82 secretary Jeff Smith offered some details of the effort in a statement_and_followon_email.

loquitur · 05-15-2007, 11:38 AM

see? self correcting.
And that's why the First Amendment is wonderful.

powerclown · 05-17-2007, 09:16 AM

"War-making powers with Iran"? Does Mr. Cheney know something we don't? Curious that there is even legislation dealing with this matter at all. Couple this with ongoing low-level diplomatic relations being carried out with Iran, this legislation seems discordant. Is this Mr. Bush and Mr. Cheney barking at Iran once again, but through Congress? "Look Iran, we are in fact having a serious debate over whether to attack you..."

--

Dems fail to rein in Bush’s war-making powers with Iran
By Roxana Tiron
May 17, 2007

House Democrats failed by a narrow margin to pass legislation that would rein in the president’s war-making powers with Iran, despite showing more unity on the controversial issue.

An amendment to the defense authorization bill, introduced by Rep. Robert Andrews (D-N.J.), a member of the armed services panel, failed Wednesday night by a vote of 216-202 with six Republicans voting in favor of the amendment together with 196 Democrats.

Andrews’ amendment, which had strong support from House Armed Services Committee chairman Ike Skelton (D-Mo.), would have prevented funds authorized in the bill for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan from being used to plan a contingency operation in Iran.
Among the Republicans voting for the amendment were Roscoe Bartlett (Md.), Ron Paul (Texas) and Walter Jones (N.C.).

An amendment introduced by Rep. Peter DeFazio (D-Ore.) was met with more opposition by Democrats and Republicans alike and failed by a vote of 288-136. DeFazio sought to clarify that no previously enacted law authorizes military action against Iran. It also sought to prohibit funding authorized by the bill or in any other legislation from being used to take military action against Iran without specific authorization from Congress unless there is a “national emergency created by an attack by Iran upon the United States, its territories or possessions or its armed forces.”

Among the 129 Democrats who voted against the amendment were Skelton and Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (Md.), who both voted in favor of the Andrews amendment.

House Democratic leaders initially attempted to insert Iran language in their now-vetoed Iraq supplemental bill but abandoned the plan after some New York Democrats, including Reps. Eliot Engel and Gary Ackerman, balked at the language.

DeFazio has attempted several times over the course of the past two years to pass legislation that would reassert Congress’ constitutional war-making powers.

In a statement of administration policy released Wednesday, the White House threatened to veto the 2008 defense authorization bill if it contained “provisions that would prevent the president from protecting America and allied and cooperating nations from threats posed by Iran.”

host · 05-17-2007, 09:28 AM

why powerclown, dintcha know? Cheney can do anything that he wants. After all, this guy is his chief of staff:

Quote:

http://www.usnews.com/usnews/news/ar...ddington_8.htm
Cheney's Guy
He's barely known outside Washington's corridors of power, but David Addington is the most powerful man you've never heard of. Here's why:
By Chitra Ragavan
Posted 5/21/06

......In August 2002, the head of OLC, Jay Bybee, signed a memo interpreting the U.S. law prohibiting torture and implementing the U.N. Convention Against Torture. Addington helped shape the Bybee memo, which was authored by Yoo. Once again, the State Department--which has the lead role in monitoring implementation of the treaty--was left out of the discussions.

Bybee, Yoo, and Addington saw the torture statute, unsurprisingly, as an unwarranted infringement on executive-branch power. Their goal was to interpret it as narrowly as possible, and their memo, consequently, explored the outer limits of the interrogation methods the statute allowed. The three lawyers agreed that the president could override or ignore the statute, as needed, to protect national security. And they concluded that those who engaged in conduct that might violate the law might nevertheless have an appropriate legal defense based on "self-defense" or "necessity."

The Bybee memo caused a storm of protest in the legal community, including among many conservative lawyers inside the Justice Department. "From the beginning, no one has ever said we would violate the torture statute," says a former Justice Department official. "So why would you write a memo writing all the ways we could violate the statute? It's just dumb."

In October 2003, Bybee's replacement as the head of OLC, Jack Goldsmith, began reviewing all the "war on terror" memos the office had generated and later told the Pentagon not to use the Bybee memo. Deputy Attorney General James Comey soon ordered the memo withdrawn, and another OLC attorney, Daniel Levin, then wrote a more limited opinion that scrapped whole sections of the Bybee memo. Unlike Bybee, Levin circulated his draft memo widely and made revisions, according to Justice Department officials, after lawyers at the State Department and other agencies had commented on it.

As with the incarceration and interrogation issues, President Bush's decision, within days of the 9/11 attacks, to authorize the National Security Agency to conduct electronic surveillance inside the United States, without review by the secret Justice Department intelligence court, had David Addington's handwriting all over it. Bush, Addington and others in the small coterie of conservative administration lawyers argued, had the authority to order the secret surveillance under his constitutional authority as commander in chief and by the authority granted to him by Congress's use-of-force resolution before the invasion of Afghanistan. Goldsmith and Patrick Philbin weren't so sure. In March 2004, the two Justice Department lawyers expressed their doubts about the program to Comey, the deputy attorney general. Like Addington, Goldsmith and Philbin are extremely conservative and pro-presidential power. But according to former Justice Department attorneys who know both men, they are also careful lawyers who found Addington and Yoo's legal analysis and opinions to be sloppy and overreaching. By reviewing all the "war on terror" memos, says a former Justice Department attorney, "part of what Jack was doing was returning OLC more to its traditional role." Addington excoriated Goldsmith over what he viewed as his betrayal, administration officials say, and his response, several individuals who know him say, was entirely in keeping with his character. People in the front lines of the war on terrorism "were relying on these memos," says one former Justice Department official. "People felt like you're changing the rules on us; you're running for the hills." That, says Cheney adviser Matalin, is antithetical to Addington's makeup: "Once he's disaggregated the problem and reaggregated the solution," Matalin says, "he can stand his ground.....

loquitur · 05-18-2007, 12:41 PM

I just thought it was interesting that Ashcroft (#1 villain for a while) and his deputy, Comey, were ready to resign if DOJ was overruled by Card and Gonzalez. Looks like they really did care about the rule of law, despite all the clamor about them being brutes.

roachboy · 05-18-2007, 01:46 PM

loquitor: its kinda hard to say anything like that, really, until those of us who float around out here in the public know something about what the situation was exactly that managed to cross the line insofar as ashcroft was concerned, isn't it? there is a gaping hole at the center of this bit of theater and it is known as the plotline.

of course, nothing stops you from tossing popcorn about.
maybe this is more like rocky horror that i (for one) might think, and maybe you have already seen the movie so you know what's coming. i havent. if you have seen it, though, please, by all means post a spoiler.

loquitur · 05-18-2007, 03:42 PM

Well, I was working off the Balkin guys' analysis. It's a bunch of left-leaning law professors, mainly at Yale I think. The person who wrote the blog post I was thinking of is Marty Lederman.Here is an example. Here is an extract:

Quote:

The Justice Department is the part of the government that defines the law for the executive branch. For the White House counsel to defy its judgment on an important legal question is to put the rawest power ahead of the law.

The must-derided John Ashcroft, on the other hand, showed himself when it counted to be a man of courage and substance whom history will surely treat more kindly than did contemporary commentary. Few attorneys general get tested as Ashcroft did that night in 2004. One can disagree with him about a lot of things and still recognize the fact that ultimately, he passed the hardest test: From a hospital bed in intensive care, he stood up for the rule of law. More broadly, the Justice Department seems to have performed admirably across the board--from the OLC having taken its job seriously, to the willingness on the part of the department brass and Mueller to lose their jobs to defend the department's ability to determine the law for the executive branch.

So, to that observer, at least in this case Gonzalez was the villain, and the DOJ guys the good guys. Lederman, Balkin, Tamanaha and the others at that site have some pretty good insights. I don't always agree (which is true of just about any site I read) but they're always good, and more important, they are SANE. Not horrendously partisan and always thoughtful.

roachboy · 05-18-2007, 03:50 PM

thanks loquitor...i had run across takes like the one you posted as well after i put up that last one.
still dont know the plotline though: i am really curious about what the violation was exactly, where the line is for a guy like ashcroft. i dont buy his transformation into hero of observance of the law any more than i bought the transformation of jacques chirac into some pacifist a few years ago--except is chirac's case i knew alot about what was actually going on and here i dont.

the hermeneutics of suspicion they call it.

but thanks.

loquitur · 05-19-2007, 01:57 PM

As I understand the sequence of events, there was a change of personnel at the Office of Legal Counsel in the DOJ. Before that, based on advice of the OLC, DOJ had been certifying the NSA program pursuant to the direction of the executive order from Bush that authorized the program, which required recertification every 45 days that the program complied with applicable law. The new head of OLC, Jack Goldsmith, had a new review done of the program as it was being actually run and evolving, and his research indicated that there had to be changes before the DOJ could continue giving the certification. In the meantime, the 45 days was running out. Ashcroft was in the hospital and had authorized Comey to act as AG while he was out. Comey wouldn't sign the certification if Goldsmith told him that there ha to be changes in order to bring the program into compliance. Gonzalez and Card then decided to go around Comey and Ashcroft wouldn't let them. That was the hospital scene and it was followed by Comey's insistence that Olson leave his dinner party to be a witness to his meeting with Card and Gonzalez, with Bush finally intervening to order that the changes be instituted and the program continue.

That's the story as I understand it. Most of the details are classified, obviously, so we don't know precisely what the problem was that required changes, or what the changes were. But it sure looks like the DOJ people took their jobs seriously and that Gonzalez and Card were acting like political hacks.

host · 05-25-2007, 11:41 PM

How many more avoidable, pointless deaths will this colossally disturbed egoist and his "boss", the worst US president in our history, end up causing, before "we, the people" arouse ourselves from our slumber?

Quote:

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpag...pagewanted=all
Winds of War

By JACOB HEILBRUNN
Published: October 15, 2006

......Far more interesting is Isikoff and Corn's exploration of the mental world that the administration inhabits. They recount that in December 2001, Scooter Libby read aloud to a visiting journalist a famous passage from Winston Churchill's memoirs about being named prime minister: ''I felt as if I were walking with destiny, and that all my past life had been but a preparation for this hour and for this trial.'' Libby declared that these words could be applied to Cheney after Sept. 11. Hubris? Megalomania may be more like it.

I think that we know who was the "driving force" behind the US Navy suddenly deciding to send a second aircraft carrier into the Persian Gulf:

Quote:

http://www.reuters.com/article/topNe...3?feedType=RSS
Nine U.S. warships in Gulf for show of force
Wed May 23, 2007 8:41AM EDT

By Mohammed Abbas

ABOARD USS JOHN C. STENNIS (Reuters) - The largest daytime assembly of U.S. warships in the Gulf since the 2003 Iraq war prepared on Wednesday to hold drills off Iran's coast in a major U.S. show of force that unnerved oil markets.

U.S. Navy officials said Iran was not notified of plans to sail nine ships, including two aircraft carriers, through the Straits of Hormuz, a narrow channel in international waters off Iran's coast and a major artery for global oil shipments.

The maneuver raises pressure on the Islamic Republic, coinciding with a report by the U.N. atomic watchdog on Iran's nuclear program, which could lead to tougher sanctions.

Oil climbed towards $70 as the U.S. ships sailed into the straits, through which 40 percent of globally traded oil passes.

Rear Admiral Kevin Quinn, who is leading the group, said the ships would conduct exercises as part of a long-planned effort to reassure regional allies of U.S. commitment to Gulf security.

"There's always the threat of any state or non-state actor that might decide to close one of the international straits, and the biggest one is the Straits of Hormuz," he told reporters on board the USS John C. Stennis aircraft carrier.

Tension with the United States over Tehran's nuclear ambitions has raised regional fears of a military confrontation.

Highlighting the dangers of accidental escalation, a Navy official said the USS Stennis had received nine enquiries from nearby countries, two from Oman and seven from Iran, including one from an Iranian vessel that sailed close by.

Iran's defense minister Mostafa Mohammad Najjar said the Islamic Republic would resist any threat by its enemies.

Most U.S. ships pass through the straits at night so as not to attract attention, and rarely move in such large numbers.

<h3>Navy officials said the decision to send a second aircraft carrier was made at the last minute, without giving a reason.</h3>

The group of ships, carrying about 17,000 personnel and 140 aircraft scheduled to participate in the exercises that will take place over the next few weeks, crossed at roughly 0355 GMT.

SHOW OF FORCE

The maneuver comes less than two weeks after U.S. Vice President Dick Cheney, speaking aboard the Stennis during a tour of the Gulf, said Washington would stand with others to prevent Iran gaining nuclear weapons and "dominating the region".

On a visit to Abu Dhabi a few days later, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad threatened "severe" retaliation if the United States attacked his country.

He also urged Gulf countries to "get rid of" foreign forces, blaming them for insecurity in the region.

The United States accuses Iran of trying to produce nuclear weapons, and has sought tougher U.N. sanctions against Iran. Iran says its nuclear ambitions are for energy purposes only.

U.S. and Iranian ambassadors are due to meet on Monday in Baghdad to discuss security in Iraq, where the United States has accused the Islamic Republic of fomenting violence by backing Shi'ite militia there. Iran has denied the accusations.

On the way to the straits, a public announcement called on crew to witness "some of the most powerful ships in the world", whose tight formation against a backdrop of the setting sun created a dramatic image of American naval might.

Last month, the U.S. Fifth Fleet base in Bahrain conducted its biggest crisis response drill and in March, the U.S. navy conducted its biggest war drills in the Gulf since 2003.

Naval officials said the latest training would include air defense exercises and boarding ships posing as suspect vessels.

"If the Straits of Hormuz were to be closed or there were to be some conflict there, the shipping rates would go sky high," Quinn said.

Is the "shadow president" going to completely sweep aside the "pretender"?

Quote:

http://www.thewashingtonnote.com/archives/002146.php
May 25, 2007
More on Bush-Cheney White House Intrigue on US-Iran Policy

Joe Klein adds some important contextual material to the question of what Cheney may be cooking up on Iran on Time's <a href="http://time-blog.com/swampland/2007/05/cheneys_iran_fantasy.html">Swampland blog</a>.

Klein links to my post and writes in <a href="http://time-blog.com/swampland/2007/05/cheneys_iran_fantasy.html">"Cheney's Iran Fantasy"</a>:

I can confirm, through military and intelligence sources, part of Steve Clemons' account of Cheney's crazed bellicosity regarding Iran. In fact, having just received a second-source confirmation of the following story, I was intending to post it today:

Last December, as Rumsfeld was leaving, President Bush met with the Joint Chiefs of Staff in "The Tank," the secure room in the Pentagon where the Joint Chiefs discuss classified matters of national security. Bush asked the Chiefs about the wisdom of a troop "surge" in Iraq. They were unanimously opposed. Then Bush asked about the possibility of a successful attack on Iran's nuclear capability.

He was told that the U.S. could launch a devastating air attack on Iran's government and military, wiping out the Iranian air force, the command and control structure and some of the more obvious nuclear facilities. But the Chiefs were -- once again -- unanimously opposed to taking that course of action.

Why? Because our intelligence inside Iran is very sketchy. There was no way to be sure that we could take out all of Iran's nuclear facilities. Furthermore, the Chiefs warned, the Iranian response in Iraq and, quite possibly, in terrorist attacks on the U.S. could be devastating. Bush apparently took this advice to heart and went to Plan B - - a covert destabilization campaign reported earlier this week by ABC News.

If Clemons is right, and I'm pretty sure he is, Cheney is still pushing Plan A.

On the blog, Sic Semper Tyrannis, Col. Pat Lang <a href="http://turcopolier.typepad.com/sic_semper_tyrannis/2007/05/cheney_attempti.html">shares his thoughts</a> on Cheney's team and the games underway.

Many have asked me if I think that Israel is that easy for Cheney and his team to animate. If one reads the Winograd report carefully on the Lebanon-Israel war, my answer would be "no." It's clear that Israeli Foreign Minister Livni and Prime Minister Olmert told Bush NSC official Elliott Abrams a firm "no" when he suggested that the theater of operations be expanded to include Syria.

But that doesn't mean that one can shrug off Cheney's aide's commentary. In tense times, only a small match or trigger is needed to get a dangerous escalation going.

But the bigger issue remains Cheney's alleged effort to constrain his boss, George W. Bush. if Cheney's aide is lying to the people he is speaking to -- then he should be dismissed or sidelined. If Cheney is animating his spear-carrier's views and comments, then Bush should and must clip Cheney's wings.

-- Steve Clemons
Posted by steve at 04:57 PM | Comments (18)

http://www.thewashingtonnote.com/archives/002145.php

May 24, 2007
Cheney Attempting to Constrain Bush's Choices on Iran Conflict: Staff Engaged in Insubordination Against President Bush

There is a race currently underway between different flanks of the administration to determine the future course of US-Iran policy.

On one flank are the diplomats, and on the other is Vice President Cheney's team and acolytes -- who populate quite a wide swath throughout the American national security bureaucracy.

The Pentagon and the intelligence establishment are providing support to add muscle and nuance to the diplomatic effort led by Condi Rice, her deputy John Negroponte, Under Secretary of State R. Nicholas Burns, and Legal Adviser John Bellinger. The support that Director of National Intelligence Mike McConnell, Secretary of Defense Robert Gates, and CIA Director Michael Hayden are providing Rice's efforts are a complete, 180 degree contrast to the dysfunction that characterized relations between these institutions before the recent reshuffle of top personnel.

However, the Department of Defense and national intelligence sector are also preparing for hot conflict. They believe that they need to in order to convince Iran's various power centers that the military option does exist.

But this is worrisome. The person in the Bush administration who most wants a hot conflict with Iran is Vice President Cheney. The person in Iran who most wants a conflict is Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. Iran's Revolutionary Guard Quds Force would be big winners in a conflict as well -- as the political support that both have inside Iran has been flagging.

Multiple sources have reported that a senior aide on Vice President Cheney's national security team has been meeting with policy hands of the American Enterprise Institute, one other think tank, and more than one national security consulting house and explicitly stating that Vice President Cheney does not support President Bush's tack towards Condoleezza Rice's diplomatic efforts and fears that the President is taking diplomacy with Iran too seriously.

This White House official has stated to several Washington insiders that Cheney is planning to deploy an "end run strategy" around the President if he and his team lose the policy argument.

The thinking on Cheney's team is to collude with Israel, nudging Israel at some key moment in the ongoing standoff between Iran's nuclear activities and international frustration over this to mount a small-scale conventional strike against Natanz using cruise missiles (i.e., not ballistic missiles).

This strategy would sidestep controversies over bomber aircraft and overflight rights over other Middle East nations and could be expected to trigger a sufficient Iranian counter-strike against US forces in the Gulf -- which just <a href="http://www.reuters.com/article/topNews/idUSL2360749620070523?feedType=RSS">became significantly larger</a> -- as to compel Bush to forgo the diplomatic track that the administration realists are advocating and engage in another war.

There are many other components of the complex game plan that this Cheney official has been kicking around Washington. The official has offered this commentary to senior staff at AEI and in lunch and dinner gatherings which were to be considered strictly off-the-record, but there can be little doubt that the official actually hopes that hawkish conservatives and neoconservatives share this information and then rally to this point of view. This official is beating the brush and doing what Joshua Muravchik has <a href="http://www.thewashingtonnote.com/archives/001721.php">previously suggested</a> -- which is to help establish the policy and political pathway to bombing Iran.

The zinger of this information is the admission by this Cheney aide that Cheney himself is frustrated with President Bush and believes, much like Richard Perle, that Bush is making a disastrous mistake by aligning himself with the policy course that Condoleezza Rice, Bob Gates, Michael Hayden and McConnell have sculpted.

According to this official, Cheney believes that Bush can not be counted on to make the "right decision" when it comes to dealing with Iran and thus Cheney believes that he must tie the President's hands.

On Tuesday evening, i spoke with a former top national intelligence official in this Bush administration who told me that what I was investigating and planned to report on regarding Cheney and the commentary of his aide was "potentially criminal insubordination" against the President. I don't believe that the White House would take official action against Cheney for this agenda-mongering around Washington -- but I do believe that the White House must either shut Cheney and his team down and give them all garden view offices so that they can spend their days staring out their windows with not much to do or expect some to begin to think that Bush has no control over his Vice President.

It is not that Cheney wants to bomb Iran and Bush doesn't, it is that Cheney is saying that Bush is making a mistake and thus needs to have the choices before him narrowed.

-- Steve Clemons

05-18-2007, 01:46 PM	#247 (permalink)
roachboy Super Moderator Location: essex ma	loquitor: its kinda hard to say anything like that, really, until those of us who float around out here in the public know something about what the situation was exactly that managed to cross the line insofar as ashcroft was concerned, isn't it? there is a gaping hole at the center of this bit of theater and it is known as the plotline. of course, nothing stops you from tossing popcorn about. maybe this is more like rocky horror that i (for one) might think, and maybe you have already seen the movie so you know what's coming. i havent. if you have seen it, though, please, by all means post a spoiler. __________________ a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear it make you sick. -kamau brathwaite

05-18-2007, 03:50 PM	#249 (permalink)
roachboy Super Moderator Location: essex ma	thanks loquitor...i had run across takes like the one you posted as well after i put up that last one. still dont know the plotline though: i am really curious about what the violation was exactly, where the line is for a guy like ashcroft. i dont buy his transformation into hero of observance of the law any more than i bought the transformation of jacques chirac into some pacifist a few years ago--except is chirac's case i knew alot about what was actually going on and here i dont. the hermeneutics of suspicion they call it. but thanks. __________________ a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear it make you sick. -kamau brathwaite

05-15-2007, 10:06 AM	#241 (permalink)
loquitur Junkie Location: NYC	Roachboy, I would need to do some review of what I was reading some time ago about Iran. You might recall that the revolution wasn't entirely Islamic, and that Khomeini ended up doing purges. There were reports fairly recently of strife in Azeri and Kurdish regions of Iran - I'd need to take the time to dig them out. The US has been self-correcting, but only over time, as I said. Separation of powers and some of the other fine structural features of our constitution go a long way (it was that insight that I was congratulating H&M on). I don't see any breakdown - didn't see it even during the four years that the Repubs controlled the White House and both houses of Congress. Of course, what you think is a "breakdown" can be disputed.

05-15-2007, 11:38 AM	#243 (permalink)
loquitur Junkie Location: NYC	see? self correcting. And that's why the First Amendment is wonderful.

05-17-2007, 09:16 AM	#244 (permalink)
powerclown Junkie Location: Detroit, MI	"War-making powers with Iran"? Does Mr. Cheney know something we don't? Curious that there is even legislation dealing with this matter at all. Couple this with ongoing low-level diplomatic relations being carried out with Iran, this legislation seems discordant. Is this Mr. Bush and Mr. Cheney barking at Iran once again, but through Congress? "Look Iran, we are in fact having a serious debate over whether to attack you..." -- Dems fail to rein in Bush’s war-making powers with Iran By Roxana Tiron May 17, 2007 House Democrats failed by a narrow margin to pass legislation that would rein in the president’s war-making powers with Iran, despite showing more unity on the controversial issue. An amendment to the defense authorization bill, introduced by Rep. Robert Andrews (D-N.J.), a member of the armed services panel, failed Wednesday night by a vote of 216-202 with six Republicans voting in favor of the amendment together with 196 Democrats. Andrews’ amendment, which had strong support from House Armed Services Committee chairman Ike Skelton (D-Mo.), would have prevented funds authorized in the bill for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan from being used to plan a contingency operation in Iran. Among the Republicans voting for the amendment were Roscoe Bartlett (Md.), Ron Paul (Texas) and Walter Jones (N.C.). An amendment introduced by Rep. Peter DeFazio (D-Ore.) was met with more opposition by Democrats and Republicans alike and failed by a vote of 288-136. DeFazio sought to clarify that no previously enacted law authorizes military action against Iran. It also sought to prohibit funding authorized by the bill or in any other legislation from being used to take military action against Iran without specific authorization from Congress unless there is a “national emergency created by an attack by Iran upon the United States, its territories or possessions or its armed forces.” Among the 129 Democrats who voted against the amendment were Skelton and Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (Md.), who both voted in favor of the Andrews amendment. House Democratic leaders initially attempted to insert Iran language in their now-vetoed Iraq supplemental bill but abandoned the plan after some New York Democrats, including Reps. Eliot Engel and Gary Ackerman, balked at the language. DeFazio has attempted several times over the course of the past two years to pass legislation that would reassert Congress’ constitutional war-making powers. In a statement of administration policy released Wednesday, the White House threatened to veto the 2008 defense authorization bill if it contained “provisions that would prevent the president from protecting America and allied and cooperating nations from threats posed by Iran.”

05-18-2007, 12:41 PM	#246 (permalink)
loquitur Junkie Location: NYC	I just thought it was interesting that Ashcroft (#1 villain for a while) and his deputy, Comey, were ready to resign if DOJ was overruled by Card and Gonzalez. Looks like they really did care about the rule of law, despite all the clamor about them being brutes.

05-19-2007, 01:57 PM	#250 (permalink)
loquitur Junkie Location: NYC	As I understand the sequence of events, there was a change of personnel at the Office of Legal Counsel in the DOJ. Before that, based on advice of the OLC, DOJ had been certifying the NSA program pursuant to the direction of the executive order from Bush that authorized the program, which required recertification every 45 days that the program complied with applicable law. The new head of OLC, Jack Goldsmith, had a new review done of the program as it was being actually run and evolving, and his research indicated that there had to be changes before the DOJ could continue giving the certification. In the meantime, the 45 days was running out. Ashcroft was in the hospital and had authorized Comey to act as AG while he was out. Comey wouldn't sign the certification if Goldsmith told him that there ha to be changes in order to bring the program into compliance. Gonzalez and Card then decided to go around Comey and Ashcroft wouldn't let them. That was the hospital scene and it was followed by Comey's insistence that Olson leave his dinner party to be a witness to his meeting with Card and Gonzalez, with Bush finally intervening to order that the changes be instituted and the program continue. That's the story as I understand it. Most of the details are classified, obviously, so we don't know precisely what the problem was that required changes, or what the changes were. But it sure looks like the DOJ people took their jobs seriously and that Gonzalez and Card were acting like political hacks.