Letters to the Editor
Frankly, my dear, ...
Published Letters: 579
-
Ah, the Saturday Night Massacre
[Read the article: Gonzales' yearlong effort to block Comey's testimony]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I remember it well. The headlines in 96 pt type:
NIXON SACKS COX
(Well, only in my college newspaper, but still...)
-
Another tiny quibble
[Read the article: Gonzales' yearlong effort to block Comey's testimony]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Technically, that sentence is true, but what actually happened, as confirmed today, is that the White House kept going anyway, even without permission from the OLC. The White House continued the "T.S.P." -- without making any concessions to "tougher legal standards" -- even after the USDOJ and OLC had told the White House that the "T.S.P." was illegal.
— sysprogActually, they didn't tell them that it was illegal; what they told them was that they couldn't certify that it was legal. This is a fine distinction that Comey stuck to when Arlen Specter tried to coax out of him an opinion that he considered the program illegal. Comey clearly has a sharp legal mind and I'm sure the distinction exists there between not being able to to certify the program as legal and declaring it illegal. From what Comey implied (but left unstated), any basis for legality was so iffy that it was inadequate as a basis for certification.
-
The statutory requirement for a signature is irrelevant
[Read the article: Comey's testimony raises new and vital questions about the NSA scandal]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]It has been pointed out by one of our trolls who is well known for his lack of analytical skills that Comey pointed out that he was unaware of any statutory requirement for certification of legality by DOJ for "the program" and our troll thinks that no law was broken if "the program" went ahead without this certification.
It is highly unlikely that there would be such a "statutory requirement" since "the program" was not established by statute, but obviously by executive order. That the executive order required DOJ to sign off on the legality of "the program" is just a CYA mechanism allowing the executive to claim that "the program" is legal because the DOJ (supposedly an independent law enforcement body subject to direct congressional oversight) says so. If DOJ refuses to certify "the program", it is a simple matter for the executive to amend the executive order not to require this certification. This allows "the program" to continue, but without the cover of presumptive legality afforded by the DOJ certification.
In any case, the certification does not eo ipso make "the program" legal; it only expresses the opinion of the DOJ on the matter. The courts are the final arbiter of legality, which is why the executive has done everything in its power to keep "the program" from judicial review.
-
Behind closed doors
[Read the article: Comey's testimony raises new and vital questions about the NSA scandal]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]It's my understanding that a closed-door meeting with Comey already has been scheduled by the Senate Judiciary Committee, although I don't recall the date for which it is scheduled.
I'm not sure that this has been scheduled yet, but Specter was anxious to have a closed session to examine the legality issue and I doubt that Leahy would nix it.
SPECTER: Mr. Comey, it's my hope that we will have a closed session with you to pursue the substance of this matter further. Because your standing up to them is very important, but it's also very important what you found on the legal issue on this unnamed subject, which I infer was the terrorist surveillance program. And you're not going to comment about it. I think you could.
I think you could even tell us what the legalisms were. Doesn't involve a matter of your advice or what the president told you, et cetera.
But I'm going to discuss it with Senator Leahy later and see about pursuing that question to try to find out about it.Be sure to read the entire transcript: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/05/15/AR2007051501032.html
-
Re Update II
[Read the article: Comey's testimony raises new and vital questions about the NSA scandal]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I think the lack of reference to NSA officials or operations in Comey's narrative is overblown.
I find it not the least surprising that there is no mention of NSA in the story. Comey details a contretemps between the White House staff and the Department of Justice. NSA is not part of DOJ, but part of the Department of Defense (War). The FBI, which does play a prominent part in the narrative, is, on the other hand, part of DOJ. DOJ does not coordinate with or direct NSA but it does coordinate and direct the FBI. Render unto DOJ that which is DOJ's and render unto DOD that which is DOD's.
-
Re: Other news
[Read the article: What will be done about James Comey's revelations?]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]According to Nattering Nabob, becoming an arsonist and getting involuntarily committed to a mental hospital proves that torture doesn't warp you.
— sysprogYes, marvelous isn't it — Bush's program of kidnapping and torture creates another psychopath with violent tendencies and Nabalnazi is just pleased as punch about it. If I were Masri, I think I'd start a fire just so I could get into a courtroom and tell my story under oath somewhere where no one can gag me under the pretext of "state secrets".