Site Presented By
Sunday, Nov 8, 2009
I like her already!!
The same rationale Obama uses to tamp down criticism of his cabinet picks, that the direction and vision comes from him, must also be used to temper the excitement over those picks too. With everyone witholding judgement until they can see what he actually does, his inauguration speech seems like it will be crucial. Obama's inauguration speech looks like it will be the most scrutinized one ever. I must have heard half a dozen things that different people absolutely need him to say in the speech, to signal what path he intends to take. I hope he comes up with quite a speech for his own sake.
While Bolton is bad enough as an intellectual fraud, to my knowledge he has not committed the crimes that Yoo has in providing legal cover for torture.
Fostering naked wars of aggression is also a war crime.
Cheers,
Thanks for that link--very heartening.
But given that the OLC is all about keeping the president squeaky-clean in his activities (is that correct?), it seems possible that it might have little or nothing to do with going back to review and reveal what Bush's OLC (and other Bush executive shops) actually did. Yes, they might be helpful in producing evidence from OLC files for other investigators, but that would not be OLC's role.
Great clip.
Thanks Glenn for giving us this good news. I just hope Obama sticks by her when our lawless beltway community goes after her.
on getting an "honorable mention in the 20 most annoying liberals" at the Right Wing News. Considering the source, and the good company you're in, it's a compliment.
http://rightwingnews.com/mt331/2009/01/the_7th_annual_20_most_annoyin.php
If he takes Ms Johnsen's counsel to heart and actually follows her advice, we have reason to hope.
OLC does not provide "advice" to the President that he's free to accept or reject. Its legal opinions are binding on the President. If OLC says that "X is illegal," then -- absent some extraordinary actions (such as the President formally rejecting the OLC opinion, which almost never happens) -- then the formal position of the Executive Branch is that "X is illegal."
Conversely, there are certain laws that say that the President can do X only if DOJ (through the OLC) issues an opinion legally authorizing it. If the OLC refuses to do so, then it isn't legal. Relatedly, if the OLC is willing to say that "X is legal," then it becomes much harder to prosecute Executive Branch officials, because then they can argue that they were acting in good faith reliance on the opinions of the Justice Department that what they were doing was fine (as we've seen over the last eight years).
OLC isn't the Superman of the U.S. Government. A President who is determined to break the law can do so even with a hostile OLC. But it's not merely an advisory office. It has formal power, power which can bind the President, and its actions can make presidential lawbreaking much harder or much easier.
Bottom line: if you wanted to appoint some token, loud-mouth, rule-of-law-extremist progressive to placate critics, and you had no intention of listening to what she said, the last place you would put her is as OLC head.
I think we all agree that nobody should assume things are fine because of this appointment. I think we all share your skeptical, wait-and-see attitude. I know I do. But that doesn't mean that the significance of this office should be under-stated.
As Johnsen states in the first minute of the clip, OLC opinion is binding on the President and the Executive Branch, unless it is overruled by the Attorney General or President. I think that many, including Johnsen, have called for Bush era OLC opinions to be reviewed and for those without proper legal foundation to be withdrawn by the Attorney General. She seems quite ready to take on that task.
That would only suggest that Obama intends to play by the rules and be bound by constitutional limitations - that position has NO POWER in terms of assessing penalties for past infractions. And THAT's what I'm interested in.
This is just tremendous news. And thank goodness for the blockquote feature; otherwise, I would be hard-pressed to distinguish Johnsen's writing from yours.
Use blockquotes and/or italics and quotation marks when quoting others. It is hard to remember when the commenting is running hot, but try. On a comment system without Linked Text like this one it is even more important.
One ray of sunshine in a storm of fecal matter is some good news, at least.
How does one use block quotes?
I understand that, and by itself that is great. My point is that the function of the OLC seems to be focused on the behavoir of the present executive, rather than investigating past ones.
If so, then regardless of how squeaky-clean Obama's administration might be, and regardless of how outspoken the head of OLC (Johnsen) has been regarding Bush's past behavior, the foundations for future lawless behavior by an executive--laid by Bush with assistance from others--remain intact. This would be the case even if Johnsen was allowed to review all Bush OLC decisions, and the bad decisions withdrawn/rejected by Obama.
OLC does not provide "advice" to the President that he's free to accept or reject. Its legal opinions are binding on the President. If OLC says that "X is illegal," then -- absent some extraordinary actions (such as the President formally rejecting the OLC opinion, which almost never happens) -- then the formal position of the Executive Branch is that "X is illegal."
In that case, the OLC could conveivably issue an opinion stating that since the Bush OLC issued an opinion that torture (or illegal surveilance) is legal, Johnsen could issue an opinion that would bar the Obama administration from prosecuting those that obeyed Presidential orders which were made legal by that opinion.
Is that correct?
If so, that would give Obama an "out", if he wants it, and keep him from ordering the DoJ from investigating and prosecuting those persons who engaged in illegal activities, including illegal wiretaps and torture among others.
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
