Re Ken Starr – I’d kinda like to hear what he thinks of bringing back the Independent Counsel Act…

“Water-boarding is torture, Holder says.

“I agree with you Mr. Chairman, water-boarding is torture,” Holder just told committee chairman Sen. Patrick Leahy, D-Vt.

And, Holder said, “the president does not have the power” to authorize torture.”

“Have you seen the decision today in HERRING v. UNITED STATES (No. 07-513), 492 F. 3d 1212? It’s a 4th Amendment case wherein Roberts further erodes the exclusionary rule by immunizing it from errors committed by court clerks which are “reasonably relied upon” by police officers executing an arrest warrant.”

Ginsberg: … “Others have described “a more majestic conception” of the Fourth Amendment and its adjunct, the exclusionary rule. Evans, 514 U. S., at 18 (Stevens, J., dissenting). Protective of the fundamental “right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects,” THE AMENDMENT “IS A CONSTRAINT ON THE POWER OF THE SOVEREIGN, NOT MERELY SOME OF ITS AGENTS.” (EMPHASIS ADDED) …. I share that vision of the Amendment.”

Rights confer power; not vice versa!

Alexander Hamilton: “I go further, and affirm that bills of rights, in the sense and to the extent in which they are contended for, are not only unnecessary in the proposed Constitution, but would even be dangerous. They would contain various exceptions to powers not granted; and, on this very account, would afford a colorable pretext to claim more than were granted. For WHY DECLARE THAT THINGS SHALL NOT BE DONE WHICH THERE IS NO POWER TO DO? Why, for instance, should it be said that the liberty of the press shall not be restrained, when no power is given by which restrictions may be imposed? I will not contend that such a provision would confer a regulating power; BUT IT IS EVIDENT THAT IT WOULD FURNISH, TO MEN DISPOSED TO USURP, A PLAUSIBLE PRETENSE FOR CLAIMING THAT POWER. THEY MIGHT URGE WITH A SEMBLANCE OF REASON, THAT THE CONSTITUTION OUGHT NOT TO BE CHARGED WITH THE ABSURDITY OF PROVIDING AGAINST THE ABUSE OF AN AUTHORITY WHICH WAS NOT GIVEN, AND THAT THE PROVISION AGAINST RESTRAINING THE LIBERTY OF THE PRESS AFFORDED A CLEAR IMPLICATION, THAT A POWER TO PRESCRIBE PROPER REGULATIONS CONCERNING IT WAS INTENDED TO BE VESTED IN THE NATIONAL GOVERNMENT. (Emphasis added) This may serve as a specimen of the numerous handles which would be given to the doctrine of constructive powers, by the indulgence of an injudicious zeal for bills of rights.” (Federalist 84)

“Without the rule of law, there is nothing but tyranny….”

J. Locke: “AS usurpation is the exercise of power, which another hath a right to; so tyranny is the exercise of power beyond right, which no body can have a right to. And this is making use of the power any one has in his hands, not for the good of those who are under it, but for his own private separate advantage. When the governor, however intitled, makes not the law, but his will, the rule; and his commands and actions are not directed to the preservation of the properties of his people, but the satisfaction of his own ambition, revenge, covetousness, or any other irregular passion.”

…

“Where-ever law ends, tyranny begins, if the law be transgressed to another’s harm; and whosoever in authority exceeds the power given him by the law, and makes use of the force he has under his command, to compass that upon the subject, which the law allows not, ceases in that to be a magistrate; and, acting without authority, may be opposed, as any other man, who by force invades the right of another.”

Washington Post

By Evan Wallach
Sunday, November 4, 2007

…

“After World War II, we convicted several Japanese soldiers for waterboarding American and Allied prisoners of war. At the trial of his captors, then-Lt. Chase J. Nielsen, one of the 1942 Army Air Forces officers who flew in the Doolittle Raid and was captured by the Japanese, testified: “I was given several types of torture. . . . I was given what they call the water cure.” He was asked what he felt when the Japanese soldiers poured the water. “Well, I felt more or less like I was drowning,” he replied, “just gasping between life and death.”

Nielsen’s experience was not unique. Nor was the prosecution of his captors. After Japan surrendered, the United States organized and participated in the International Military Tribunal for the Far East, generally called the Tokyo War Crimes Trials. Leading members of Japan’s military and government elite were charged, among their many other crimes, with torturing Allied military personnel and civilians. The principal proof upon which their torture convictions were based was conduct that we would now call waterboarding.”

…

http://tinyurl.com/22vvrc

posted at 6:18 pm on January 14, 2009

Remember at the debate when he vowed, “We will kill Bin Laden, we will crush al-Qaeda”? He’s stressed the importance of taking out Osama on other occasions, but never quite as forcefully as that. Why, enter the quote in Google and you’ll find it immortalized in the very first hit .

Anyway, change of plans:

COURIC: How important do you think it is, Mr. President-elect, to apprehend Osama bin Laden?

OBAMA: I think that we have to so weaken his infrastructure that, whether he is technically alive or not, he is so pinned down that he cannot function. My preference obviously would be to capture or kill him. But if we have so tightened the noose that he’s in a cave somewhere and can’t even communicate with his operatives then we will meet our goal of protecting America.

This is the counterterror equivalent of The One promising that he’ll save three million jobs: He “succeeds” merely by maintaining the status quo. If pinning down Osama so that he can’t function is the goal, the goal was met literally years ago.

“I may have misread a few threads ago, but I think Bob,Esq is now bobfrog.”

***************
As usual you are correct. I forgot about the change in moniker. If we don’t get that name right, we won’t be able to conjure up that genie. I am rubbing the lamp now. bobfrog are you there?

Missed JT on Olbermann. Will catch the replay at 10:00 pm

I may have misread a few threads ago, but I think Bob,Esq is now bobfrog.

Correct me if I’m wrong.

Anyway, a good thread topic here and I agree with many of the points made by all. Just caught JT on Keith-O. Please let our Dept. of Justice begin the healing process …

Have you seen the decision today in HERRING v. UNITED STATES (No. 07-513), 492 F. 3d 1212? It’s a 4th Amendment case wherein Roberts further erodes the exclusionary rule by immunizing it from errors committed by court clerks which are “reasonably relied upon” by police officers executing an arrest warrant. Ginsberg’s dissent is must reading. The facts stink here as the defendant had made allegations of misconduct against the arresting officer who went to great pains to find some warrant, any warrant, to arrest Herring on. You can read the opinion here:

http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/07-513.ZD.html

We need to get Bob,Esq on this one.

citizensbriefingbook.change.gov/ideas/viewIdea.apexp?id=087800000004mLL&srPos=3&srKp=087

Torture and War Crimes (440 yes votes to hold Bush et al. accountable)

You need a Change.gov account to vote or submit an idea.

citizensbriefingbook.change.gov/ideas/viewIdea.apexp?id=087800000004oxG&srPos=1&srKp=087
____________________________________

Other topics on the same change.gov site regarding the Bush Administration’s war crimes

citizensbriefingbook.change.gov/search/SearchResults?str=torture+trial

” Every incoming president back to George Washington has spoken the 37 words in the oath of office:

“I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.”

But where does the oath come from?

“It’s actually written into the Constitution.’”

For a document that lays out general principles and avoids getting into too much detail — which is why Pinkert says we’ve been able to argue about it ever since — the oath is the one section that’s really specific…

“It’s the only sentence in quotes in the entire Constitution,” Pinkert tells NPR’s Steve Inskeep.
This ensures that the Constitution is supreme and that the president executes laws accordingly…

That the president is treated as a citizen under the Constitution rather than as the supreme authority of the land says something special about the nature of the U.S. government and the foresight of the founding fathers…”

{Quote} “After the Supreme Court ruled in the 2006 Hamdan v. Rumsfeld case that the original military commission system for Guantanamo Bay violated the Constitution and the Geneva Conventions, Congress rewrote the rules and passed the Military Commissions Act, creating a new structure for trials by commissions. The act bans torture but permits “coercive” testimony.

Crawford said she believes that coerced testimony should not be allowed. “You don’t allow it in a regular court,” said Crawford, who served as a judge of the United States Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces from 1991 to 2006” {End Quote}

I have written–and could write more–volumes about state and federal agents/LEOs who violated the very laws, rules, and regulations that they swore an oath to protect, defend, and enforce. Principle means everything to the rule of law.

The propaganda wars are in full swing. The left is being villified when in fact there are many people of conscience, such as Republicans Ms. Crawford and Mr. Fine, who do believe torture and other violations of the law occurred. Mr. Taylor even claimed that liberal groups such as Moveon.org had the power to push people before Congress where they will commit perjury. I’m not certain how the left wing forces perjured testimony.

If cheneybush are keeping our liberties safe then they have burned down the house to “save” them. If the govt. can torture, perform renditions and spy on our own populace without warrents, exactly what liberties is this govt. protecting?

It is vital to push back against this propaganda, showing it for the lie it is.

“Crawford, a retired judge who served as general counsel for the Army during the Reagan administration and as Pentagon inspector general when Dick Cheney was secretary of defense, is the first senior Bush administration official responsible for reviewing practices at Guantanamo to publicly state that a detainee was tortured.”