It goes without saying that, where there is a story of constitutional or human rights abuse, Dick Cheney cannot be far behind. It is therefore little surprise to learn this week that, according to sources in the recent disclosure of a hidden counterterrorism program, the prior concealment from Congress was allegedly ordered by Cheney.
The Central Intelligence Agency reportedly withheld information about program for eight years on orders from Cheney, who continually fought any disclosures on a host of subjects to either Congress or the courts.
As I discussed on this segment of MSNBC Countdown, it is a crime to withhold such information from Congress — yet another crime that is not being investigated by the Obama Administration.
While covert operations can be limited to disclosures to the Gang of Eight, the National Security Act of 1947 requires such disclosure.
It was previously known that Cheney’s legal adviser, David S. Addington, (another dark character in these scandals) was involved in this matter as well.
Once again, it is astonishing that Attorney General Eric Holder continues to refuse to appoint a special prosecutor to deal with the mounting allegations of criminal acts by the Bush Administration. The blocking of such investigations by the Obama Administration reaffirms the view that our intelligence services live beyond the reach of the law and that our leaders are unaccountable under the criminal laws that they apply to average citizens. While Obama insists that no one is above the law, he has ensured that we have two separate systems of justice for the powerful and the plebes.
In another story, Gen. Michael Hayden who carried out many of the presumptively unlawful programs during the Bush Administration insists that Congress was informed of this particular program, here.
For the full story, click here
Mike S again you are wrong in your assumption about me. I’m not bob n and weaving. There are other things I HAVE TO DO in my day. I come back to the computer as often as I can. If you notice the majority of my post are early morning and back again late afternoon. Your previuos assumption of me is 100% wrong. I have stated my beliefs from everything from Bush let 9-11 happen to have a reason to start a war to being a birther as you like to call people who take up my position. You guys can get as detailed as you want about facts, evidence and the rule of law, but I can smell a rat a mile away. I am a man of color so don’t tell me about not wanting a black man in office. Been called nigger more Fn times than you thought it. Do you know what it’s like to be called nigger and then spit on. F you. I could care a less whether the man that sits there is a republican or democrat. I’m about what that man stands for and what he does.
Mike S., I think you’re right. The following is an absolutely true story. Many years ago a man came into my office to discuss the filing of an action under the Federal Tort Claims Act. He sat with me for an hour and argued strenuously that the CIA had implanted devices in his teeth which permitted the agency to monitor his movements and his communications. He offered various explanations for why this had occurred, none of which made any particular sense.
When I began to press the gentleman for certain details, he became agitated, as though I were questioning his truthfulness. This made me a bit nervous to be honest, because I had no idea what he might be contemplating should he not be taken seriously. I eventually convinced him that I had no reason to doubt what he told me, but that in order to really blow the case open, we would need a set of dental X-rays. I requested that he schedule an immediate dental appointment to have that done, arrange to have the results sent to my office and then have a follow-up meeting with me to discuss litigation strategy. He was very agreeable to that suggestion and left my office as a man on a mission. I never heard from him again.
Mike Spindell,
Do you have any other conspiracy theories?
bdaman posted the first info about Taitz at 7:02 AM on July 14th
followed by BVM at 7:46 AM.
I didn’t join the discussion until 11:22 AM.
I think your the one playing games.
Jim Byrne, I have never seen my original birth certificate. I doubt that you have ever seen your original birth certificate. That is not because we try to “hide” them from public view, but because the original documents are maintained by those agencies of government charged with maintaining them. Forensics experts are typically retained by people when they have reasonable grounds to question the authenticity of a document. The phrase “reasonable grounds” means a well-founded belief, which in turn means a belief grounded in fact. Let me repeat what I’ve said in earlier posts on this subject. Aside from the understandable opposition to an illegitimate president serving as commander in chief of an “army of slaves,” as the current situation has been described in legal filings, what FACTS support the allegation that Pres. Obama’s birth records are false and fraudulent?
If I decide for whatever reason that you were stealing money from me, I could file an action against you for civil theft. But I can assure you that no court could enter an order sustainable on appeal requiring you to produce all of your financial and banking records based solely on a statement in a complaint that you stole money from me.
Vince and Mike A.,
You two have done your usual yeoman work, proved the case over and over and yet make no headway in this. Why is that. I believe it stems from the fact that some here like to play with people rather than discuss, or debate. When nailed down they simply go onto another point. Jim proclaims all he was doing was innocently asking a question about how the Obama’s met and when called on it backs off to go onto another point. He even analogizes Cook’s gameplaying to the work of an undercover Narc. IS and bdaman are playing his wingmen in this thread, threading in and out with little jabs, ducking and weaving.
The original article initiating this thread gets hijacked because none of the three would want to continue to discuss the possibility of Cheney breaking the law and possible hit squads reporting to him, because it is so much more important that we figure out the existence of a seal on the President’s birth certificate.
The fact is that if there was a movie shot of the President’s Mother giving birth to him, under a sign saying Honolulu Hospital with a wall calendar giving the date, the birther movement would discredit it saying that it either wasn’t him, or it was a phony sign for a birth taking place in Kenya. Our three amigos would then chime in with supposedly serious objections as to how the movie had been faked.
They are hardly serious, but merely enjoy playing rhetorical games, with people like us who take these things far too seriously. I’m damned if I know why this is such fun to them, but the existential evidence is that they’re having a ball. I find it sad that the ability to discuss issues has deteriorated so much in the last fifty years, but it has. The curse of Ruppert Murdoch, that began with the purchase of the NY Post has taken control of the media and of the minds of many, who take governance with so little seriousness that they prefer to be governed by the propaganda of disharmony and
rhetorical phoniness.
IS, I don’t think it makes any difference, but my undergraduate degree was in philosophy. Therefore, I had no choice but to go to law school if I wished to secure gainful employment.
Mike A.,
“When I request certified copies of documents, they frequently do not contain raised seals.”
You didn’t request the reported Certification. President Obama did. He apparently did so in 2008. However, the reported Certification has a 2007 stamp on it.
“However, we cannot function effectively as a society if we are unable to rely upon certifications from the official custodians of records.”
We don’t know if that document came from the custodian of records. No custodian has ever stated that the document presented is the document sent by the custodian of records.
“If the bill were accompanied by a certificate from the U.S. Treasurer attesting to its validity, however, that would be acceptable everywhere.”
Fine. I’ll print out a certificate from the Treasury to accompany the bill. Does that make it valid, and not subject to fraud?
–We believe what we want to believe…as long as we believe the source. If you didn’t put your hands on it, you’re relying on others.
“The first inquiry is to whom is it an issue and why?”
It is an issue because it is a qualification laid out in the Constitution. It is the only office that requires such qualification. Unfortunately, the Framers considered that an honorable man would present proof. —Hell, I’ll even print up the request, and pay an fees….all the President would need to do is sign it.
I’m sorry, but President Obama has been far less than transparent.
With all the claims against Major Cook, we must recognize that President Obama has spent over a million dollars to hide the vault copy of his birth certificate. –Why? What doesn’t he want people to know? –If that isn’t a reasonable question, I don’t know what is.
“I would feel confident resting my case based upon the certified copy, affidavits from the Hawaiian officials and an authenticated copy of the newspaper birth announcement.”
Make that certified copy available to forensic experts. -You submit the evidence, and then we’ll get a chance to challenge its validity. -The officials from Hawaii have never stated that the information presented to the public is the same information contained in the vault copy. -Never.
This may all be moot today, but someone with standing will come forward.
Mike Appleton:
Vince makes a valid point, what was your undergraduate degree?
“After all, think of the publicity a win would generate.”
That is just the problem. There is NO chance of a win.
BTW, posters, tangle with Mike Appleton on matters of epistemology and logic at your own risk.
Thanks for the update, Vince. One would think that if the birthers had a rational position to litigate, they would be able to locate a competent, rational attorney to handle the case. After all, think of the publicity a win would generate.
On Orly, the kid stays in the case:
Jim Byrne linked above to Orly’s APPLICATION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION [it is not a “petition”]:
QUOTE (38) Plaintiff points out that there was another time in United States history when officers of the military were forced to make a choice whether to follow the central government or their consciences. That time in United States history was in 1861 when some of the finest officers of the United States Army felt that they and their constitution had been betrayed by the central government, and that is how Mexican War heroes Jefferson Davis and Robert E. Lee, among so many others, became the leaders of the Confederate States of America.
(39) There were no lawsuits filed at that time—5 U.S.C. §702 and 42 U.S.C. §§1983-1988 had not yet been enacted. But the public interest is served by permitting Army officers to seek judicial protection and assistance when they question the legitimacy and authority of the commander-in-chief with regard to moral and constitutional issues.
(40) There are no “competing” governments now—no seceding states, however over 30 states have either passed or considered the bills of Sovereignty lately, which can be a step towards secession and a sign of vast dissatisfaction with the Federal government and the President.
(41) In historical hindsight it is easy to say the Jefferson Davis and Robert E. Lee hurt their own states of Mississippi and Virginia by supporting secession.
(42) In historical hindsight it is easy to say that even the pro-slavery cause might have been better served by acquiescence under Abraham Lincoln, who (absent secession and civil war) lacked any realistic legal power, as President in 1861, to interfere with slavery in any state or territory where it already existed. UNQUOTE
Huh? WTF?
Orly is in this thing. Look at her complaint. She asked for a writ of quo warranto to be issued by the Distict Court in D.C.
In a California federal court!
Why?
Judge Robinson would not admit her pro hac vice, and she could not find ANY DC Bar member to join with her. DC has tens of thousands of members because it is so easy to waive in. As an unaccredited law school grad, she cannot waive in or even take the DC bar.
And that is just one paragraph of the complaint.
It is truly the gift of laughter that keeps on giving.
It is all over for Cook. Case dismissed as moot. It was predicted here that the court would not find standing. It did not.
http://www.ledger-enquirer.com/292/story/779031.html
QUOTE Posted on Thu, Jul. 16, 2009
Federal judge dismisses reservist’s suit questioning Obama’s presidency
BY LILY GORDON
A federal judge this morning dismissed the suit filed here by a U.S. Army reservist who says he shouldn’t have to go to Afghanistan because he believes Barack Obama was never eligible to be president.
Judge Clay Land sided with the defense, which claimed in its response to Maj. Stefan Frederick Cook’s suit, filed July 8 with the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Georgia, that Cook’s suit is “moot” in that he already has been told he doesn’t have to go to Afghanistan, so the relief he is seeking has been granted.
“Federal court only has authority of actual cases and controversies,” Land said. “The entire action is dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.”
Cook arrived at the federal courthouse in uniform this morning for his hearing.
Outside the courthouse, before the hearing, Cook defended his controversial position and declared his devotion to the military.
“I love the Army and I want to continue to serve in the Army,” Cook said. “If we can establish that he is in fact president of the United States legally, I’m on the airplane the next day over to Afghanistan… if they cut my deployment orders, so I can do the job that I want to do.”
Cook said following orders made by an illegitimate superior could ultimately lead to his prosecution, or worse.
“If one cannot establish the validity and legality of the order … we would be following illegal orders and subject to prosecution,” he said. “I could be prosecuted by the Uniform Code of Military Justice and if captured I would not be privy to protections under the Geneva Convention.”
Other soldiers have been supportive of his position, Cook said.
“I’ve received quite a bit of popular support from officers in my grade and some officers a grade above and some officers a grade below,” he said. “Thus far, I’d say about 90 percent positive.”
Cook was accompanied by his attorney, Orly Taitz, who has challenged the legitimacy of Obama’s presidency in other courts. Two similar suits have previously been thrown out of federal court.
Ledger-enquirer.com will have more on this breaking story later this afternoon. UNQUOTE
You can get an injunction against your neighbor to stop him from chopping down your tree.
You just can’t get an injunction against yourself to stop yourself from chopping down your own tree.
When I request certified copies of documents, they frequently do not contain raised seals. Indeed, with the growth of efiling we will see fewer and fewer raised seals on anything. There is nothing magical about embossing. However, we cannot function effectively as a society if we are unable to rely upon certifications from the official custodians of records. That is precisely why such documents are considered self-authenticating. There is a substantive difference between what I am talking about and the printing of a $100.00 bill. If the bill were accompanied by a certificate from the U.S. Treasurer attesting to its validity, however, that would be acceptable everywhere.
The bottom line is that the birther controversy exists because the skeptics are requiring proof beyond what is necessary in a courtroom. It is not an answer to say, “If only the president would furnish this or that, it would resolve the issue.” The first inquiry is to whom is it an issue and why? If we were in trial, I would feel confident resting my case based upon the certified copy, affidavits from the Hawaiian officials and an authenticated copy of the newspaper birth announcement. If there were no competent rebuttal, I would win. Despite my repeated requests, I have yet to see any rebuttal, competent or otherwise. And I have certainly not seen anything substantive in any of Orly Taitz’ pleadings. In fact, I have not even seen a proffer from her as to what evidence she proposes to use to support any of her claims.
I am also bothered by your statement that we should keep Orly Taitz out of this. I strongly disagree. My experience has taught me that credibility is everything for a lawyer. When I make a representation to a court, the court is entitled to rely on that representation. If I have a habit of tossing out wild allegations, I am doing a disservice to the law and to my own reputation. I do not believe that her filings reflect well on the profession.
Mike A.,
“A certified copy of a birth record is all that is required to establish the date and location of one’s birth.
what was originally reported to be President Obama’s Certification of Live Birth did not display the embossed state seal. The date (seen in reverse) was long before the date that the document was said to have been requested.
If I print up a $100 dollar bill, and it states that this document is legal tender…does that make it so? We don’t just accept money on face value. I don’t think the highest office should accept “because I claim such”. -Remember…to the best of both of our knowledge, the Presidents qualifications have never been filed with any legally recognized entity.
I’m not saying he is or is not qualified. All I’m saying is that, I think there is enough reason to question such, and the ability to validate the same is so easy that it makes no sense to avoid it.
I think President Obama is a gazillion times smarter than President G.W. Bush…I also know that smart people think they can pull the wool over the eyes of the average citizen. I also know that people don’t question those that they voted for…an inherent fault of being human.
–I did address the statements made by the Hawaiian officials. I don’t have enough info about the newspaper headlines to determine their validity.
“Finally, what documentation does the law require a candidate to submit as part of the process of qualifying to run for the presidency? Does it require anything?”
Unfortunately, and to the best of my knowledge…None. The requirements to be on the ballot are not the same as the qualifications to hold the office. -The Twentieth Amendment, Section 3, seems to acknowledge that a president who lacks the qualifications can still be elected.
“Did Sen. McCain file his original long-form birth certificate with the House of Representatives or with the clerk of some federal district court?”
Irrelevant….but I doubt it.
As far as McCain’s qualifications go; people don’t discuss things that are not currently relevant. If he had won, I would have been challenging his qualifications too….And I think McCain is as patriotic a man who has ever ran for president. (political beliefs have nothing to do with patriotism)
Jim Byrne, your questions assume that the issues that have been raised are reasonable. I contend that they are not. A certified copy of a birth record is all that is required to establish the date and location of one’s birth. I note also that you choose to ignore the contemporaneous announcement of the president’s birth in his hometown newspaper, as well as the statements by the appropriate Hawaiian officials. Do you truly believe that it is reasonable to postulate a conspiracy involving state and federal officials and old newspaper archives? Finally, what documentation does the law require a candidate to submit as part of the process of qualifying to run for the presidency? Does it require anything? Were the requirements met by Mr. Obama, by Mr. McCain? Did Sen. McCain file his original long-form birth certificate with the House of Representatives or with the clerk of some federal district court?
I would also reiterate what Vince Treacy stated about Sen. McCain’s qualifications. It’s not something that I would ever lose sleep over, but there has been legitimate debate concerning whether he actually became a U.S. citizen until a statutory revision in 1937, a year after his birth. See, e.g., Spiro, Peter J., McCain’s Citizenship and Constitutional Method, 107 Mich. L. Rev. First Impressions 42 (2008). I’ve never seen any debate over this issue in any conservative journals or web sites. My only reason for mentioning this is that I do not think that all of the fuss is related to preserving the purity of the Constitution as much as it is to preventing a black man from serving in the office. (BTW, I’m not suggesting that that is your motive, or even that you have any motive.)
Vince,
“Does he still think Americans could not travel to Pakistan in 1961? He hasn’t gotten back on that one.”
I don’t know. I don’t have the dates trveled, nor any information from Pakistan. -To simplify the argument, I’ll say no, as it is irrelevant.
“Does he still think the COLB is a forgery?”
I think it is suspect.
“Note also that I have maintained on this site that McCain was a natural born citizen.”
Our Constitution permits Congress to “establish a uniform rule of naturalization”. The non-binding Senate Resolution establishing such is beyond the power granted to Congress. The Panama Canal Zone was not a territory of the United States. As such, I don’t believe John McCain met the natural-born citizen qualification. -I think we need to amend the Constitution in order to address children of military personnel born overseas.
“What is the relevance of his meeting his wife to his natural born citizen status? If he did mispeak, or if the speechwrited mispoke, or he fibbed or lied, then it is certainly a fact to consider if he runs for reelection. But how does it affect his birth 20 odd years earlier?”
One lie means nothing by itself. When combined with evidence of being less than forthright, it begins to establish a need for increased scrutiny.
“How does he know about that microfiche? Does he think it shows that Obama was not born in Hawaii, yes or no?”
On Oct. 31, after being inundated by requests for more details about Obama’s birth records, Department of Health Director Dr. Chiyome Fukino said she and registrar of vital statistics, Alvin Onaka, had personally verified that the Health Department possesses Obama’s original birth certificate.
“Therefore, I as Director of Health for the State of Hawai‘i, along with the Registrar of Vital Statistics who has statutory authority to oversee and maintain these type of vital records, have personally seen and verified that the Hawai‘i State Department of Health has Sen. Obama’s original birth certificate on record in accordance with state policies and procedures,” Fukino said.
The cryptic and carefully-worded statement offered no true details of the “birth certificate,” and leads to more questions than answers among critics. In July, when Barack Obama’s Certification of Live Birth” was first distributed publically on the internet, Hawaiian Department of Health spokeswoman Janice Okubo simply asserted to the St. Petersburg Times, “it’s a valid Hawaii state birth certificate.”
Although officials are on record that there is an original “birth certificate” held by the state, and that it is correctly filed according to Hawaii state directives. However, the specifics of the type of “birth certificate” records on file, with modifications, as well as the details and accounts of witnesses, is still unknown at this time.
“why did Cook seek a TRO or PI for a deployment that HE HIMSELF voluteered for, and which HE HIMSELF could have cancelled at any time? Why?”
The petition was filed in order to ask the court to provide relief from an order that was suspected to be illegitimate. An officer has a duty to ensure that any order is lawful. A rescinded order does not negate the fact that such an order was issued. Much like a drug dealer can’t buy back the drugs he sold to the undercover officer, and make the whole thing go away.
“The reasonable inference is that he wanted to set up a court case.”
I concur. Much like making a case against a drug dealer. One who does not meet the constitutional qualifications would not have the authority to issue that order. At minimum, it would be fraud to issue such an order. -Could it happen again? Yes.
“A student applies for Harvard and is admitted. Then he goes to state court for an injunction barring him from being admitted. Why?”
Irrelevant. Does a student at Harvard act on behalf of the United States Government?
Jim Byrne:
very good last point. I think at this point in time the constitution has pretty much been used for the last 70 years as a document to effect change instead of an unbiased umpire.
Vince I’ve already agreed with you on your analysis of Cook. He was a plant.
Vince he said he didn’t vote for McCain
As for the travel ban, who cares, we wont know where he actually traveled, can’t access his passport records and even if we could they have since been compromised. His selective service card shows forgery even though he didn’t need to file one and that has been authenicated by a retired federal agent with a real name. Where did those records come from? Chicago.
Do I think the COLB is a forgery? yes I do, just like his selective service. You continue to say that World Nut Daily says the COLB is not a forgery, then why do they continue to be the BIGGEST proponet for him to produce the original.
Hawaii has seen and verified that they hold Obamas ORIGINAL birth certificate according to state policy and procedures. He has spent(FACT) over a million dollars when all he has to do as the most powerful person in the United States is tell Hawaii to let forensic examiners examine it, Let them in the vault so they can say we’ve seen his certificate and we verify Hawaii holds it acccording to state policy and procedure. Similar to how they did the Shroud of Turin seeing how Obama is suppose to be the new Messiah. Recent (last six months) investigations have overturned the notion that the Shroud of Turin is from the 14th century.
So there, the most powerful person in the United States, the guy who taught constitutional law and graduated with the highest honors, was president of the Law Review aint smart enough to tell the good ol folks from Hawaii, hey let these independent guys into the vault just like Janice Okubu so they can have a look.