". . . . As the Chicago Tribune put it:

"The government is invoking the privilege in an attempt to wipe out the heart of a lawsuit that seeks to examine rendition, the secretive and controversial practice of sending terrorism suspects to foreign countries where they might be tortured."

When the media uses the word "controversial" concerning the Bushit criminal enterprise, substitute the correct term: illegal.

It isn't the Democrats in Congress who need "balls"; it's the media, which is largely off in a fantasy world of their own, dancing with Bushit, et al., to the tune of "Reality is a Fantasy (If You Want it to Be)".

Don't you often wonder how a preposterous idea gains traction?

Or How an obvious lie is believed? Fred Hiatt, in particular, and the Bush administration in general, operate on the concept of private logic; that is an argument following a logical thought process but one based on a false premise. Sometimes we can spot the flawed premise. But Bush et al have convinced enough people, so far, that his premise is valid and that we should then stay the course. I believe it is very difficult in real life to stand up to generally accepted wisdom. Certainly it is for elected officials.

These letters are critical because they provide support to our leaders to confront the lies being fed to us. We need to be realistic in what we expect from the traditional powers and steadfast in our support of the truth and holding our leaders accountable. Now,more than ever, we see the validity of Jefferson's quote that the price of freedom is eternal vigilence.

Worse people here are working themselves into a snit over things that are absurd, irrelevant, or legal.

Some stoopid azo here thinks that following the laws, respecting the Constitution, and not tortuting people (not to mention being minimally competent and honest) is not something for a good brownshirt wannabee to trouble his tiny cranium about (but strangely enough, thinks that when others take alarm, it has to be that these others do so simply because they want power themselves). Projection, much?

Cheers,

The Bush administration's insistence on secrecy and invocation of executive privilege is all about keeping their nefarious activities - from the questionable to all the ones they've lied about to likely illegalities - from our prying eyes. "National security" and "protecting" us all is just balderdash. Too bad Hiatt falls for it. That or he thinks it's just fine and dandy to keep the American public in the dark.

Cheney is a dangerously secretive VP. He won't even release the even the number of those who work for him, much less their names. What's that all about? Aren't they all on the public payroll? Why doesn't the press hound him about this everyday until it's public knowledge and either embarrass him (hard to do!) or force him into some kind of ridiculous contortion about how he is and is not a member of the executive branch?

See also John Dean's "Worse than Watergate" 2004. And that's saying something.

And to think we mocked Baghdad Bob for so egregiously lying in the face of all evidence to the contrary.....

Get Hiatt and Chesney a couple of cheesy uniforms, maybe with epaulets, and berets, put them on all television channels to spew their nonsense, and we can complete our media transformation into state run propaganda for the Bush Banana Republic.

Wasn't it ruled back during the Clinton impeachment nonsense that government lawyers cannot claim attorney-client privilege?

Yes, ironically is was good old Ken Starr who vitiated the attorney-client privilege for government lawyers. See John Dean's commentary (http://writ.news.findlaw.com/dean/20040604.html) when Bush hired an outside lawyer during the Plame investigation. The presumption was that this was necessary to preserve attorney-client privilege. Attorney-client privilege is also voided if a third person is present during any exchange.

Nevertheless, there still may be areas where Miers and Bush may have some attorney-client privilege left. It depends on the question and individual circumstances surrounding the events. This is why there is no blanket application of privilege and a person subpoenaed must appear in order to claim privilege in individual questions.

Now it is true that the president can claim executive privilege, and in the case of Miers, doubtless attorney-client privilege as well, but Miers has to appear before the committee to claim those privileges with respect to individual questions.

Wasn't it ruled back during the Clinton impeachment nonsense that government lawyers cannot claim attorney-client privilege?

Shooter also has problems with reading comprehension, but this is an a priori assumption that can be made about anyone who still supports the Bush administration (unless, of course, they are just criminals, pathological liars or unindicted co-conspirators).

Sadly, Bucky1 posted section 1505 of US Code Title 18 Part I Chapter 73 in its entirety, and shooter, who seldom reads all of anything, only got as far as "Antitrust Civil Process Act" and decided that this statute didn't apply to Bush. Of course, he didn't pay any attention to the "or" at the end of the paragraph (or perhaps he doesn't understand what "or" means).

Had he read the rest of the statute he would have seen what the law that applies to Bush is:

Whoever corruptly, or by threats or force, or by any threatening letter or communication influences, obstructs, or impedes or endeavors to influence, obstruct, or impede the due and proper administration of the law under which any pending proceeding is being had before any department or agency of the United States, or the due and proper exercise of the power of inquiry under which any inquiry or investigation is being had by either House, or any committee of either House or any joint committee of the Congress—

Shall be fined under this title, imprisoned not more than 5 years or, if the offense involves international or domestic terrorism (as defined in section 2331), imprisoned not more than 8 years, or both.

[Section 1515 of the same statute states: "(b) As used in section 1505, the term “corruptly” means acting with an improper purpose, personally or by influencing another, including making a false or misleading statement, or withholding, concealing, altering, or destroying a document or other information."

Now it is true that the president can claim executive privilege, and in the case of Miers, doubtless attorney-client privilege as well, but Miers has to appear before the committee to claim those privileges with respect to individual questions. If the committee asks her what her name is, she cannot claim privilege not to answer. But the president cannot direct her not to appear before the committee in response to a subpoena, because that violates USC 18 § 1505.

Shooter's lack of legal expertise coupled with his inability to read and comprehend legalistic, but not particularly complicated, English results in his hysterically flopping around trying to exculpate his leader on the basis of patently false claims about his Füh...er-leader's immunity to the law.