The place to start, ideally, is on the same page, as it were.
For purposes of discussion, here, it’s called the Constitution of the United States.

Try reading it, why don’t you?

Specifically, the Bill of Rights. It speaks for all, and includes the States Rights through the 10th Amendment.

Our precious document applies to all branches of government
- the Judicial, the Legislative, and the Executive, including
the Military acting under its (‘lawful’) Order.

He did a press release today calling for the appointment of one.

I hope Professor Turley will make at least brief comment.

Of current interest also is Senator Whitehouse’s recent speech concerning the declassified Office of Legal Council’s opinion concerning whether the Executive is bound by its own previous Executive Orders. That is worthy of some comment since it bears tangentially on this whole mess.

Thank you for your legal work, many public appearances before our courts, and your fine legal writing and scholarship. In 2000 you wrote, “Pillar to Post” about how a sitting President could be prosecuted, outside Congress, outside impeachment. [ Cite: Jonathan Turley, “From Pillar to Post”: The Prosecution of American Presidents, 37 American Criminal Law Review 1049, 1064-66 (2000). ]
 
You wrote above, “Yet, there are many in Congress — including some Democrats — that want to give the appearance of an investigation while allowing the matter to die with time.”

Congress does not appear serious about putting pressure on either DoD, CIA, or DOJ to get to the bottom of these alleged offenses: How the data was collected; who destroyed the tapes; and who within DoJ-CIA-DoD have copies/transcripts of the allegedly destroyed tapes.

What is your view of applying your “Pillar to Post”-model — that of prosecuting Federal officials outside impeachment, through the State AG-level — as a means to wake up Members of Congress, not permit this investigation to die away, and really have some oversight?

I appreciate any comments you may have in [a] how your “Pillar to Post”-article may or may not shed light on [b] how these issues which the DNC-GOP have agreed to “do nothing about” might awaken the Congress: There are options outside Congress, outside impeachment that can prosecute a sitting President, VP, or Member of Congress for alleged misconduct/criminal conduct while in office. Thank you.

A. “Federal preemption” does not appear to oblige the states to assent to refusals of the US government officials to enforce the law. Rather, as with the FISA litigation issues, State AGs can enforce State (privacy) law, regardless the decision of US government officials to block enforcement of the FISA.

B. In this case with the CIA tape destruction, a state-led prosecution of the President/VP/Member of Congress would ensure that the President could not block a DoJ investigation; or that if Members of Congress attempted to enforce a contempt citation, that the threatened inaction of a US Atty would have any bearing. The state-level AG effort could be supplemented by a state-level-effort to impanel grand juries, outside the US Government ability to block/interfere.

On these tapes: Normally, there’s a DoJ contractor who provides translation services at GTMO. Let’s assume CIA “Destroyed” the tapes. Has anyone considered asking for the transcription-tape sent to the contractors who translated the audio. And where is the transcript of the tape?

Taping Procedures Failed To Include Protection of CIA Agent?

This isn’t adding up. There are too many transcriptions floating around, the chance the contractors have a copy (or a transcription). Or are we to believe they “were” following procedures to destroy the tape; but they created procedures — before they shot the video/interrogation — that would not include protecting the CIA agent identity? It doesn’t make sense they’d have written procedures to “destroy” the tape; but “no” procedures — before the videotaking occurred — to ensure the CIA agent-interrogator identity was protected.

Unless it was all done digitally, in which case there’s either a hard drive or simcard with the info on it, or someone went through one hell of an effort to remove all traces of the tapes’ existence.

I just can’t fathom this being SOP, which would indicate a desire to destroy evidence of criminal activity (or, in more ominous terms, specific intent).

I left another comment at that previous post discussing Sibel Edmonds that perhaps you didn’t see (in blog parlance, perhaps it was EPU’d.)

Would you be willing to do a phone interview discussing Sibel’s case and the abuse of the SSP?

Thanks.

—

Joy, Yep, Waxman’s behaviour regarding Sibel’s case is appalling.

Indeed a spooky report. The deaths of the principles in short order IS frightening.
The content would indeed be damaging.

Patty C,

Yes, you are right. It would be very surprising if a backup didn’t exist somewhere.

I’ve learned through bitter past experience, just because THEY say
it, doesn’t make it true!

I have little doubt that if it suddenly became in the interest of ’someone important enough’ to have those tapes surface, they would somehow be miraculaously resurrected from the abyss of abuses.

As to this destruction of the tapes, evidently this is more about what was found out from the torture – or more accurately after the torture, more than the torture itself. Check out this : http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2007/12/7/183319/766/707/419308

This is spooky!

So noted.

I have lost almost all hope that the current majority party is going to do anything toward substantive action against the Executive.

It is baffling, infuriating, and pitiful by turns this inaction.

Waxman (Henry not Seth) spoke of denying the nation its civic lesson because it would instead be a “political disaster” for the Democrats were they to try impeachment and it would be ultimately unsuccessful to boot.

I thought the oath he swore was to uphold the Constitution and not the mere success of his political faction.

It matters not a whit that impeachment be successful or not. The issue is to follow the law and uphold the Constitution.

My question to the Congressional Democrats is simply this: At this point, what conceivable crime of the Administration would warrant you ignoring the short time left in office of the criminals and the fact that you would not likely get your Senate votes? How many laws must be broken, how many Constitutional freedoms circumvented, how many public lies have to be told, how many offenses against the separation of powers have to be committed—-
to get you to act? What would it take?