Site Presented By
Sunday, Nov 8, 2009
Does the FBI and the federal prosecutors behind the investigation of Mr. Tamm have a position on these issues, or are they supposed to do what they are told?
The reason I ask is the FBI seems to be one of the main instruments of oppression in this country. case in point, Mr. Tamm. However, there is a large number of people interested in a number of other issues where the FBI comes in and confiscates evidence, for instance, never to have the stuff see the light of day again.
In a new Obama administration will we have a chance to correct these crimes against justice? Will the FBI come clean about what they've done to enable the Bush administration and members of Congress both Democrat and Republican break the law and to, as you have argued, undermine the rule of law?
So, when an agent or some middle level officer of the FBI or some other security related agency is on the trail of some bad guy, and his or her commanders tell them to back off, so that thereafter the bad guy gets to do his crimes, are we going to see those commanders investigated?
That is one if the changes I'm hoping for.
Our pet has said several time that the superpowers are derived from Article II.
Meanwhile (h/t Emptywheel), Marisa Taylor has exposed more legal scholarship from John Yoo in a memo related to Bush's ability to start the Iraq war:
In one lengthy section, Yoo expounds on the meaning of the word “and” and concludes that it should not be construed as a conjunction.
Linked at my name.
Okay, "and" is one letter longer than Clinton's record wrangling over "is", but denying the part of speech is some pretty impressive pretzel logic.
The capitulation doesn't particularly bother me, regarding Reid. What bothers me is why he thought he had any standing whatsoever to block Burris in the first place. Blago, still being governor, had the authority to appoint Burris--and Reid had no authority to block that appointment. Reid once again showed contempt for rule of law, imo. And that is totally unsurprising.
I'm not at all familiar with Buriss, but from what I've seen, he is easily as qualified to his senate seat as Reid is for his. And he will likely be a better senator than either of those from my state of Texas (that's a very low bar, I know).
Reid is one reason I felt the 60-seat majority thing was overblown. Even with a 'filibuster-proof' majority, Reid would have found some way to screw that up.
Really? He's going to put all the information online so people can see where their money is going? After the most secretive presidency in the history of the country, a president who repeatedly invoked executive privilege, classified information, defied congressional subpoenas all in all creating damage to just about everything from the economy to the energy policy to foreign policy and torture, what are we doing to correct that?
Make Congress (the branch charged with deciding how to spend money) more transparent. How about changing the new method of creating legislation that Barney Frank explained during the bailout #1? They write the legislation, we vote on it. When Frank said that, I thought I was listening to Stephen Colbert.
Good to see that after the worst president in history, the new president is going to keep Congress honest. I suspect executive privilege and secret cabinet meetings will still be the order of the day, though. Thomas Tamm will no doubt have company if anyone blows whistles on the new guy, too.
Jinx, Jeb.
What's wrong with earmarks? I agree that the stimulus package should be a nation-wide package that benefits as equally as possible, but to have made "earmarks" a dirty word was the result of McCain and his phony campaign (never mind how ridiculously ironic his running mate, the earmark queen). Plus, if the idiots in Congress dump a bunch of line items that help their specific constituencies, they risk never getting the thing passed.
Earmarks are why we elect officials for the projects, improvements, contracts, etc. they can bring to us. Why else have them? The idea that they are in Washington to play footsie with lobbiests or vote for mostly irrelevant legislation that may not even affect the Average Joe is silly.
The whole "earmark" outrage was faux - created by the media who followed a pseudo-issue originated by John McCain. Judging by Obama's reaction to the argument in the debate (he rolled his eyes, shook his head and laughed), it's clear he doesn't think earmarks are the debbil. On the contrary, he knows what they do.
The transcript makes it pretty clear that his remark was in reference to the stimulus package.
He should be able to keep track of at least that one so it's not outside the rhelm of possibility that he would veto the bill if it contains earmarks and send it back for revision.
Still.....
-- Jebbie
I'm not so sure that the transcript makes it clear that he is referring only to the Stimulus package. But even so, the word "ban" is incorrect, and he must know that. Congress is free to put in as many earmarks as they wish. If Obama chooses to veto the bill that is his choice, earmarks be damned. But Congress can then send it back altered or not altered. Obama is talking out of his ass and he knows it.
“. . . to be verbally abusive . . . It's the sort of thing commonly found when conventional wisdom is challenged and found wanting.”
Which "conventional wisdom" would that be? Yours and everyone else that thinks the rule of law is quaint and not equally applicable to all? And we are only as verbally abusive to you as you are painstakingly obtuse and inane.
“. . . declared Bush and all criminals. The calls for investigation echo round the room on a daily basis, with "rule of law" pontifically intoned at every opportunity. Yet when someone on their "team" is subject to the terms they demand, foul is protested. It's garden variety hypocrisy."
We've declared there is ample evidence to investigate and prosecute if warranted. That is all. Though we might have attributed the commission of criminal acts to him and his underlings. There is ample reason to believe crimes have been perpetrated as they have been admitted to repeatedly. Which person on "our team" have we cried foul about. Seems to me we are equally hard on the enablers and criminals on "our team" which is by defition consistent rather than hypocritical. If there is an "our team" around here it isn't the Dems necessarily but integrity, factual and intellectual rigor, justice, moral proportionality, humanity before nationality, equal application of the rule of law to all regardless of status.
“Moreover . . . it may turn out like the two year investigation into the Plame leakages, where noone was indicted for the leaks . . . including the actual perps, who were known to Fitzgerald even before the investigation began.”
Wasn't Scooter Libby investigated, indicted, prosecuted, and sentence commuted. Lucky for everyone else he didn't "roll over" as the jury was firmly convinced he was covering for many others. Every Prince needs his courtiers willing to fall on their swords eh?
“ . . . legitimate programs like the Swift banking affair were exposed making the tracing of funds impossible. Quite frankly, it's my opinion that adolescent desires for revenge and retribution are at work here . . . “
Do you know for a fact that "tracing of illegal monetary transactions" is now "impossible" or are you just clairvoyantly speculating and pontificating? And I know to you the pursuit of "justice" is equivalent to a desire for revenge and retribution, but that doesn't make it true.
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"
The survivor and author is upset about comparisons some on the right are making to genocide
Once seen as a lunatic fringe, reactionary anti-women groups are courting respectability
Salon headlines in your mailbox
