The Obama Administration has once again reaffirmed the new relativism controlling Washington in the nomination of James Comey as the next director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, even as it struggles to put out the controversy over its attack on free press principles. Comey was a critical player in the abuse warrantless surveillance program of the Bush Administration and will now be put in charge of the people carrying out such surveillance. The Administration has been spinning the nomination by pointing out that it was Comey who opposed efforts of the Bush White House in a famous confrontation by the hospital bed of the Attorney General John Ashcroft. However, while that was admirable, Comey did what all officials in his position are duty bound to do (though few in the Bush Administration fulfilled that obligation). Comey however also was critical in other abuses of warrantless surveillance as well as the abusive treatment of Jose Padilla and Plamegate. He is no hero for civil libertarians by any measure.
Of course, this unconstitutional program and Comey’s role were not fully disclosed because the Obama Administration, like the Bush Administration, opposed (successfully) any ability of individuals or public interest groups to challenge the program in federal court.
Then there is Comey’s knowledge and role in the Bush torture program. While he is known to express reservations, he still went along with the torture program. Soon after taking office, President Obama promised CIA employees that they would not be prosecuted for torture and the Obama Justice Department has blocked every effort to hold officials, including Justice Department officials, accountable.
The media is again following the spin and only reporting Comey’s confrontation on the one surveillance program. Stories are only covering opposition from the right as opposed to his opposition among civil libertarians. Comey is an example that in the land of the blind, the one eyed man is King. His opposition to this one program has excused his failure to stand against a host of other violations.
Source: Guardian
I would like to know Comey’s opinion on Maryland v. King:
“Make no mistake about it: As an entirely predictable consequence of today’s decision, your DNA can be taken and entered into a national DNA database if you are ever arrested, rightly or wrongly, and for whatever reason.” – Justice Antonin Scalia, dissenting in Maryland v. King
Maryland v. King and the Total Loss of Our Bodily Integrity
By John W. Whitehead
June 03, 2013
As I document in my new book, A Government of Wolves: The Emerging American Police State, our freedoms—especially the Fourth Amendment—are being choked out by a prevailing view among government bureaucrats that they have the right to search, seize, strip, scan, spy on, probe, pat down, taser, and arrest any individual at any time and for the slightest provocation.
Now, thanks to the U.S. Supreme Court’s devastating decision in Maryland v. King—in which a divided Court determined that a person arrested for a crime who is supposed to be presumed innocent until proven guilty must submit to forcible extraction of their DNA—you can add invasive DNA sampling to the list of abuses being “legally” meted out on the long-suffering American populace.
…
This is what one would call a slow death by a thousand cuts, only it’s the Fourth Amendment being inexorably bled to death. This latest wound proves that there really is nothing standing between the American people and the police state which has slowly grown up around our society.
Any American who thinks they’re safe from the threat of DNA sampling, blood draws, and roadside strip and/or rectal or vaginal searches simply because they’ve “done nothing wrong,” needs to wake up to the new reality in which we’re now living. As the Supreme Court’s ruling in Maryland v. King shows, the mindset of those in the highest seats of power—serving on the courts, in the White House, in Congress—is a utilitarian one that has little regard for the Constitution, let alone the Fourth Amendment. Like Justice Scalia, all I can hope is that “today’s incursion upon the Fourth Amendment” will someday be repudiated.
From: https://www.rutherford.org/publications_resources/john_whiteheads_commentary/maryland_v_king_and_the_total_loss_of_our_bodily_integrity
Darren: The point isn’t to let them really run the place; the point is to return political favors while filling the seat with somebody that will follow directions without thought or question.
The powers above do not want people in charge with their own ideas, experience, morals or any sense of direction. They prefer an empty shell that can be directed by White House staff and won’t deviate from their agenda.
mespo727272 1, June 3, 2013 at 3:30 pm
AP:
I guess you forgot this part of the article: …
——
No, mespo, I didn’t forget it — I posted the link so that people could read the NY Times piece in its entirety, but don’t let that keep you from taking swipes…
anonymously posted 1, June 3, 2013 at 3:41 pm
OT:
SCOTUS: 5-4 decision upholding the DNA testing of arrestees in Maryland v. King
“Antonin Scalia, joined three of his liberal colleagues in a scathing dissent that warns the court’s decision paves the way for the creation of an invasive police state.” -Liz Goodwin, Yahoo
http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/12pdf/12-207_d18e.pdf
ACLU Comment on Supreme Court DNA Swab Ruling
June 3, 2013
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
CONTACT: 212-549-2666
The following can be attributed to Steven R. Shapiro, legal director of the American Civil Liberties Union, in response to the Supreme Court’s 5-4 decision upholding the DNA testing of arrestees in Maryland v. King:
“Today’s decision creates a gaping new exception to the Fourth Amendment. As Justice Scalia’s dissent convincingly demonstrates, DNA testing of arrestees has little to do with identification and everything to do with solving unresolved crimes. While no one disputes the importance of that interest, the Fourth Amendment has long been understood to mean that the police cannot search for evidence of a crime – and all nine justices agreed that DNA testing is a search – without individualized suspicion. Today’s decision eliminates that crucial safeguard. At the same time, it’s important to recognize that other state laws on DNA testing are even broader than Maryland’s and may present issues that were not resolved by today’s ruling.”
http://www.aclu.org/criminal-law-reform-technology-and-liberty/maryland-v-king
OT:
SCOTUS: 5-4 decision upholding the DNA testing of arrestees in Maryland v. King
“Antonin Scalia, joined three of his liberal colleagues in a scathing dissent that warns the court’s decision paves the way for the creation of an invasive police state.” -Liz Goodwin, Yahoo
http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/12pdf/12-207_d18e.pdf
ACLU Comment on Supreme Court DNA Swab Ruling
June 3, 2013
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
CONTACT: 212-549-2666
The following can be attributed to Steven R. Shapiro, legal director of the American Civil Liberties Union, in response to the Supreme Court’s 5-4 decision upholding the DNA testing of arrestees in Maryland v. King:
“Today’s decision creates a gaping new exception to the Fourth Amendment. As Justice Scalia’s dissent convincingly demonstrates, DNA testing of arrestees has little to do with identification and everything to do with solving unresolved crimes. While no one disputes the importance of that interest, the Fourth Amendment has long been understood to mean that the police cannot search for evidence of a crime – and all nine justices agreed that DNA testing is a search – without individualized suspicion. Today’s decision eliminates that crucial safeguard. At the same time, it’s important to recognize that other state laws on DNA testing are even broader than Maryland’s and may present issues that were not resolved by today’s ruling.”
http://www.aclu.org/criminal-law-reform-technology-and-liberty/maryland-v-king
==========
http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/12pdf/12-207_d18e.pdf
OT:
SCOTUS: 5-4 decision upholding the DNA testing of arrestees in Maryland v. King
“Antonin Scalia, joined three of his liberal colleagues in a scathing dissent that warns the court’s decision paves the way for the creation of an invasive police state.” -Liz Goodwin, Yahoo
http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/12pdf/12-207_d18e.pdf
ACLU Comment on Supreme Court DNA Swab Ruling
June 3, 2013
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
CONTACT: 212-549-2666, media@aclu.org
The following can be attributed to Steven R. Shapiro, legal director of the American Civil Liberties Union, in response to the Supreme Court’s 5-4 decision upholding the DNA testing of arrestees in Maryland v. King:
“Today’s decision creates a gaping new exception to the Fourth Amendment. As Justice Scalia’s dissent convincingly demonstrates, DNA testing of arrestees has little to do with identification and everything to do with solving unresolved crimes. While no one disputes the importance of that interest, the Fourth Amendment has long been understood to mean that the police cannot search for evidence of a crime – and all nine justices agreed that DNA testing is a search – without individualized suspicion. Today’s decision eliminates that crucial safeguard. At the same time, it’s important to recognize that other state laws on DNA testing are even broader than Maryland’s and may present issues that were not resolved by today’s ruling.”
http://www.aclu.org/criminal-law-reform-technology-and-liberty/maryland-v-king
==========
http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/12pdf/12-207_d18e.pdf
Sorry, Mike. Sometimes you just have to take one for the team.
“Sorry, Mike. Sometimes you just have to take one for the team.”
Seamus, the guest blogger formerly known as Mike Spindell will soon be living in a land w/o extradition, amply funded by the World Jewish Conspiracy. Finally, I’ll be able to use my real name: Flash Tripper.
AP:
I guess you forgot this part of the article:
While signing off on the techniques, Mr. Comey in his e-mail provided a firsthand account of how he tried unsuccessfully to discourage use of the practices. He made a last-ditch effort to derail the interrogation program, urging Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales to argue at a White House meeting in May 2005 that it was “wrong.”
“In stark terms [Comey] explained to him what this would look like some day and what it would mean for the president and the government,” Mr. Comey wrote in a May 31, 2005, e-mail message to his chief of staff, Chuck Rosenberg. He feared that a case could be made “that some of this stuff was simply awful.”
There is a big difference between a lawyer saying something is legal in his opinion and that something is morally right. If Comey’s legal judgment was that it was legal that involves a distinct question from about whether it was right or prudent to do so.
I have counseled my clients to refrain from what is merely legal in deference to what is right on occasion. I did however explain to them they could proceed according to the law if that is what they saw fit to do. The lawyer’s job is not to stand at the door barring action; it is to provide legal advice.
We can question Jim’s conclusion on the constitutionality of the program, (and I do) but I think it unfair to question his character which seems to come shining through in every account I read about his opinion on the moral rightness of the torture program. He tried to derail it at every point. That should tell you something about the man.
That opinion, giving the green light for the C.I.A. to use all 13 methods in interrogating terrorism suspects, including waterboarding and up to 180 hours of sleep deprivation, “was ready to go out and I concurred,” Mr. Comey wrote to a colleague in an April 27, 2005, e-mail message obtained by The New York Times. James B. Comey
U.S. Lawyers Agreed on Legality of Brutal Tactic
By SCOTT SHANE and DAVID JOHNSTON
Published: June 6, 2009
WASHINGTON — When Justice Department lawyers engaged in a sharp internal debate in 2005 over brutal interrogation techniques, even some who believed that using tough tactics was a serious mistake agreed on a basic point: the methods themselves were legal.
Previously undisclosed Justice Department e-mail messages, interviews and newly declassified documents show that some of the lawyers, including James B. Comey, the deputy attorney general who argued repeatedly that the United States would regret using harsh methods, went along with a 2005 legal opinion asserting that the techniques used by the Central Intelligence Agency were lawful.
That opinion, giving the green light for the C.I.A. to use all 13 methods in interrogating terrorism suspects, including waterboarding and up to 180 hours of sleep deprivation, “was ready to go out and I concurred,” Mr. Comey wrote to a colleague in an April 27, 2005, e-mail message obtained by The New York Times.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/07/us/politics/07lawyers.html?_r=3&ref=global-home&pagewanted=all&
rafflaw:
i don’t know that he didn’t take a stand. Does anyone?
laerhaas:
“Mespo is biased (as his “former–” remarks detail.”
************
One man’s “bias” is another man’s hands-on-experience with the subject at hand. The characterization of the speaker’s experience is less important than the logic of his argument.
I never understood why politicians or people would elect or appoint persons to leadership roles in agencies they have never worked for in a line position. It usually doesn’t work, often it happens were these leaders have no real experience or training to base decisions on and too often it manifests into decisions made upon politics or unsubstantiated personal agendas.
It can be frustrating to work in an organization led by this type of wonk.
“I never understood why politicians or people would elect or appoint persons to leadership roles in agencies they have never worked for in a line position. It usually doesn’t work, often it happens were these leaders have no real experience or training to base decisions on and too often it manifests into decisions made upon politics or unsubstantiated personal agendas.”
Darren,
Very good point. I observed the phenomenon in my career and it was overwhelmingly a case of a clueless manager who couldn’t understand the process they were overseeing.
ACLU Comment on Possible Nomination of James B. Comey as FBI Director
May 30, 2013
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
CONTACT: 212-549-2666, media@aclu.org
WASHINGTON – Below is a statement from Anthony D. Romero, executive director of the American Civil Liberties Union, on President Obama’s reported plan to nominate James B. Comey as the next director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation.
“While the ACLU does not take official positions on nominations to appointed office, there are many questions regarding Comey’s record that deserve careful scrutiny from the Senate Judiciary Committee. As the second-highest ranked Justice Department official under John Ashcroft, Comey approved some of the worst abuses committed by the Bush administration. Specifically, the publicly available evidence indicates Comey signed off on enhanced interrogation techniques that constitute torture, including waterboarding. He also oversaw the indefinite detention without charge or trial of an American citizen picked up in the United States and then held for years in a military brig. Although Comey, despite tremendous pressure from the Bush White House, deserves credit for courageously stopping the reauthorization of a secret National Security Agency program, he reportedly approved programs that struck at the very core of who we all are as Americans.
“It’s critical that the Senate ensures that the men and women of the FBI know that they have a leader who will demand adherence to the rule of law and will hold those accountable who do not, wherever he or she may find them.”
Mespo,
While I agree on your first point, I cannot agree on the second. If he took a stand on the privacy issue, why not take a stand on the torture issue? Not all of us voted for his bosses in either election.
I do think that Comey was a fall back choice for Obama in order to get the appointment approved. If I am correct, what does that say about the appointment process. I am surprised that Obama could not have found a former US Attorney or FBI lifer who is not tainted by torture.
Mespo is biased (as his “former–” remarks detail.
Be that as it may, Comey is better than the quack from MI.
As for me, I’d like to see a shake up of the place. Ron Paul, or Senator Levin or Bernie Sanders.
David Weber (SEC guy) or Rick Convertino (former US Attorney they tried to destroy when he stood tall against USAG Ashcroft).
Or – how about Elizabeth Warren and/or the other JT
James Traficant.
Now – that would put fear into the hearts of evil men!
the dawn is coming…..finally we are stopped drinking the partisan kool-aide!
http://youtu.be/YCm6Rxy1H78
[youtube https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YCm6Rxy1H78&w=560&h=315%5D
Seems that this administration has tainted itself so badly, it is no longer trusted to do the right thing.
As someone who knows Jim Comey as an attorney and a former neighbor, I think JT’s characterization is unfair. Jim was an honorable and effective prosecutor. He is responsible for a program here in Richmond, Project Exile,that removed hundreds of violent felons from the streets and ended Richmond’s drug-fueled gang wars. I know Jim to be an honorable person in the professional and personal interactions I have had with him during his years in Richmond and I recall his courageous stand to protect civil liberties in that Ashcroft-Gonzales hospital bed fiasco.
The two charges JT levels are:
Comey however also was critical in other abuses of warrantless surveillance as well as the abusive treatment of Jose Padilla. He is no hero for civil libertarians by any measure.
(…)
Then there is Comey’s knowledge and role in the Bush torture program. While he is known to express reservations, he still went along with the torture program.
On the first count, JT acknowledges that “Of course, this unconstitutional program and Comey’s role were not fully disclosed because the Obama Administration, like the Bush Administration, opposed (successfully) any ability of individuals or public interest groups to challenge the program in federal court.” It’s hard to convict (figuratively) someone on what might have happened or what could have happened if we only knew more. That we don’t know more should give JIm the benefit of the doubt especially given his known performance in that hospital room.
On the second count, I’m not sure what Jim knew about the torture plan nor what his “role” was in it. Judging by his steadfast defense of Ashcroft who had considerable reservation about parts of it, I can only surmise he was no fan. And if going “along with the torture program” is an indictable offense, we’d better grab our toothbrushes since we’re all culpable as we elected and then re-elected its author.
Bottom line, the only effective, verifiable heroic civil libertarian I recall from the Bush administration was Jim Comey. Guilt by association is a tough case to make with the civil rights street cred he so obviously enjoys.
Just a terrible pick. You know when there will be no filibuster of his nomination.
Change you can believe in. Which in political speak means no change.
I think it is clear what tract this govt. is on. Every action of USGinc. goes in one direction only. It thus becomes a matter of citizens being able to face this reality with intellectual strength and courage.
The commitment to the rule of law should be what guides our actions as citizens. It makes me sad to see even the paid commenters who will betray the rule of law for blood money, or, in the case of true believers, borrowed glory. Surely we own each other much better than this.
It is up to people to help each other. It is up to people to care.