Site Presented By
Sunday, Nov 8, 2009
Perhaps you've forgotten the context of this exchange? if so, let me remind you that Ms Johnsen is quoted as saying that her job as OLC will be to "Say 'no' to the President" in those areas where he proposes to act outside of his constitutional authority.
What authority is given in the Constitution for the President to order the US military to intervene in the affairs of another country, as Clinton did in Bosnia?
(hint: none whatsoever)
If GWB's actions in the invasion and destruction of Afghanistan and Iraq, or the torture that accompanied them, or the wiretapping of US citizens, are crimes BECAUSE there is no constitutional authority for them, then so too are the actions of Clinton in Bosnia, and in Sudan, and at Waco.
(Your version of events at Waco is unconvincing. The right to bear arms was explicitly enumerated in your Constitution for the purpose of resisting oppresion by your own government. Constitutionally, the benefit of the doubt rests with the citizenry, who are constitutionally entitled to "fire on federal agents" when those federal agents are involved in criminal trespass. Your doctrine seems to be that federal agents are above the law, and the consequences of breaking it. Yet you also seem to agree with Johnsen that GWB should not be. Strange, neh?)
But don't fret, I understand that almost nobody wants to pay anything more than lip service to the Constitution, which is why neither Glenn nor Ms Johnsen nor you have mentioned the current meetings Mr Obama is having with Congress about stealing another trillion from you all even though there is not one shred of Constitutional authority for doing so, which was my original point.
Every post you make further reinforces Glenn's point about tribalism and the associated blindesses it produces ...
I hope she's honest, as she seems, here's a good test:
Let Dawn Johnsen publish the OLC opinions.
About half of them are secret, including their redacted titles and dates. "List of Department of Justice Office of Legal Counsel Opinions 1998-2007" (DoJ, OLC, FoIA response, October 29 2007, signed by Bradley T. Smith, OLC Attorney-Adviser): http://www.governmentattic.org/docs/DOJ_LegalCounselOpinions_1998-2007.pdf
These are secret laws, secretly interpreting public laws, contrary to what the public and Congress think they mean, as some disclosures demonstrate. These secret opinions are binding on the executive branch, the operatives secretly licensed, by those secret opinions, to wage violent crime on orders, for example.
This simple act, flooding that criminal cockpit with sunlight, that is the only way she can claw back public trust. The public now properly regards her office, the DoJ OLC, to be a violent criminal enterprise.
If Dawn Johnsen starts down the "trust us" path, claiming continued secrecy is necessary, she will explode a justified public fury and plunge the Obama administration straight to the bottom of the GWBush&Co cesspit, and nobody can resurface from that deep trench.
Publishing the secret OLC opinions, this would attract immense talent, from the public, commenting on the opinions. Everybody has special interests, and all of us together, as a group, we are experts, in every topic on that secret list of secret opinions.
We, the experts, will soon expose their defects, or bless them, where they merit it. And, we'll do it for free. High-powered legal talent, free of charge, the biggest and best law firm in the world, working for free, producing a rich harvest for the OLC boss, Assistant Attorney General Dawn Johnsen, and, a bonus, a Wiki law firm commenting on the comments.
And, I want the transcripts, video/audio, memos -- the work product -- which gave birth to these opinions, not only because it's evidence for future criminal prosecutions, some of it, but also, we want to assess the reputation of every voice who participated, their fitness, to hold an office of pubic trust.
Your points are well taken as to DO officers serving as DCIA. But here again
you and Glenn seem to think that one of the most critical intel jobs in
the nation can only be filled by either a political emissary or someone from the
DO. Which of course just doesn't have to be the case, and was my point
in the last post. I mean with what is on the horizon concerning Afghanistan,
Pakistan and Iran and Iraq, are you telling me you want Leon Panetta
at the controls playing catch up, you can't be serious!
Tim Weiner's "Legacy of Ashes" is brilliant in places, but seriously biased and
disingenuous in others. Steve Coll's "Ghost Wars" is vintage Coll and brilliant
as always. Hindsight is always 20/20. I operated in Afghanistan from 1987-89.
Let me assure you that from the NGO's in Peshawar, to the Agency, to the Pakis,
to the USAF pilots that were flying into Kandahar. Yes, the USAF was directly involved
in the war against the Soviets. We all thought we were doing the right thing in
supporting the Hezbi, Jamiat, Massoud and others. Could the radicalization of these
groups have been predicted, at that time it was a coin toss at best. That was
something that occurred much later in the arena. If you doubt this then look at the
seldom mentioned fact that there were no suicide bombings against the Soviets.
And later none by the Taliban against the Northern Alliance. As for the holes in
"Legacy of Ashes" good analysis is given at:
http://tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com/2008/03/20/twist_the_evidence_win_a_prize/
http://www.cqpolitics.com/wmspage.cfm?docid=hsnews-000002688704
I think it's also important to remember that most journalists are analyst at best. In
other words, they don't actually do the jobs they write about. Which, does not
disqualify their opinions, but doing and analyzing are two very different things,
as Strobe Talbott quickly found out.
...but she was ruled out as a candidate in part because of her early support for some Bush administration programs like the domestic eavesdropping program.
Someone may have already pointed this out. I don't have time to read through 267 comments but... ummmm... errr.... wouldn't this standard eliminate Obama from consideration as well? Sure, he spoke against it as a candidate, but he voted for and spoke up in favor of the last FISA bill (which to me rates as a virtual repeal of FISA altogether). So wouldn't this standard eliminate him as well? Or does it only matter when you supported the blatantly felonious program to spy on US citizens as if you were the Kremlin?
-ep
Much of the initial coverage about Fort Hood turned out to be wrong. Is there anything wrong with that?
The accountability imposed by another country for the CIA's kidnapping and torture reveals much about our own.
Fox News' morning show plays to type, talking about whether Muslims in the Army should face "special debriefings"
219 Democrats and one Republican join in favor of the legislation, which passed by a narrow margin
The survivor and author is upset about comparisons some on the right are making to genocide
Salon headlines in your mailbox
