What’s It Take for Holder to Be Allowed to Do a Sunday Show? Kill Miranda!

The White House press made a bit of a todo over the fact that Eric Holder was finally allowed to go on a Sunday show today (he’s appearing on both ABC and NBC). Given all the somewhat bizarre claims from people like Rahm that Holder botches his public statements, it sort of makes you wonder what he’d have to agree to before he’d be allowed out without a minder.

The answer?

Kill Miranda!

Even in his appearance on ABC, Holder makes a case that Miranda has not impeded any investigation to date:

The system has proven to be effective. …. people have been given Miranda warnings, people have continued to talk, as was the case [with Faisal Shahzad], as was the case with Abdulmutallab in Detroit.

And Holder has made even more passionate defenses of Miranda in the past, notably in Congressional testimony (see some quotes from such testimony here). Nevertheless, Holder effectively uses his Sunday show debut to say, “If it ain’t broke, but fearmongers like Joe Lieberman and Lindsey Graham want to attack it nevertheless, then hell! Let’s break it!”

But gosh. It sure is nice to see the last defender of rule of law allowed to appear on the Sunday shows!

143 replies
    • earlofhuntingdon says:

      Do you need to ask? Probable knowledge of further rule-of-law capitulations from the Harvard Law Review president president, and probable insider knowledge of who Obama’s pick will be to replace Stevens (shepherding that pick through the Senate confirmation process was another of Meltzer’s duties), seem the most likely reasons for Meltzer to get out. If he looks back on the way out the West Wing door, will he turn into a pillar of salt?

  1. DWBartoo says:

    The “… last defender of the rule of law …”

    A holder-out?

    Irony lives!


  2. BoxTurtle says:

    It sure is nice to see the last defender of rule of law

    BawHaHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! *snork* *gasp*

    I’m trying to come up with an operational difference between Abu Gonzo and Holder, and the only thing I can come up with is that Holder is a much sharper dresser.

    Boxturtle (And his memory seems better than Gonzo’s. Currently)

    • DWBartoo says:

      “Memory” is looking “backwards”, BT.

      When Holder is “officially” asked to “testify”, hopey-lookie “forward” will confusulate the sharper dresser, and he will have his “moments” of consarned memory dysfunction.



  3. BoxTurtle says:

    And the only reason he defending Miranda is because his boss doesn’t currently need a loophole there. And because some members of BushCo MIGHT still need it.

    And I’m betting there’s a memo to the military commission reminding them that anything Holder says doesn’t apply to them.

    Boxturtle (And I also note that Holder was not placed under oath before the shows)

  4. skdadl says:

    Amazing. First he makes the illogical argument EW translates above; then he ducks the obvious follow-up question; and that is considered a successful outing for the man who is supposed to be attorney general. These guys really have no shame, eh?

    • DWBartoo says:

      Ah, having no shame is par for the coarse, these days, skdadl.

      Besides, America does not “do” reason OR nuance any longer, we simply make our own reality. And we do it BIGGER and BETTER than anyone else.

      America is run and controlled by “people of the lie”, who are bound by but one “legal” responsibility: To make as much money as they can for their “clients” … (and to gather as much “power” around themselves and their cronies as possible). What is a “Constitution” or “the rule of law” to such as these?

      Mere nuisances, to be treated as such.

      Pragmatic expediency.


        • DWBartoo says:

          You mean the “unpriviledged belligerents” (who could be any one of us, now that American citizens may be assassinated if … their “life patterns” are “suspicious”) who, by definition, have no rights, legal or philosophical, who cannot “legally” defend themselves if we attack their countrty, their home, their loved ones, who dare not suggest that America is a terrorist state, a state which torturres and kills anywhere and anytime it wishes, a nation whose “leaders” can “legally” keep information about any or all of this … “secret” from their own citizens … forever?

          Those “terrorists”, IntelVet?

          9/11 was damned convenient for someone … a whole buch of someones …

          And … it was deliberately “allowed” to happen.

          Yes, “nine-eleven changed everything”.

          Amazing how quickly the “response” was organized (apparent “failure” being part of the “plan”) and “they” only had to lie a little tiny bit to get us into war, a “privitized” and VERY lucrative war … for some.

          Meanwhile the economy … and those who were found to be “too big to …” … but that’s another story … or is it?

          We live, IntelVet, in very interesting times.


  5. fatster says:

    Passing out a little treat to the Far-Right, perhaps? Maybe there was more said in that interview, but what DOJ wants to accomplish by messin’ around with Miranda wasn’t unequivocally stated.

    • Hmmm says:

      Maybe there was more said in that interview, but what DOJ wants to accomplish by messin’ around with Miranda wasn’t unequivocally stated.

      This is exactly what’s been bothering me for days about this. If there is a body of (ill) will against Mirandizing suspects, then what, specifically, is the motivation? What goal are they trying to achieve? There seems to be an unseen or unexamined element in there somewhere that I for one would like to shine a light on.

      • patrickhenrypress says:

        Miranda is a buffer against police overreach and racism.

        Those opposed to “Mirandizing” people originally complained that this was coddling criminals and unfair to victims. There were, and of course still are, many people vehemently opposed to the Bill of Rights. This is one of their battlefronts. Why give a suspect a break? You were guilty when accused, especially if your skin color wasn’t pale enough for the arresting officer.

        From wikipedia:

        Miranda v. Arizona 384 U.S. 436 (1966), was a landmark 5–4 decision of the United States Supreme Court. The Court held that both inculpatory and exculpatory statements made in response to interrogation by a defendant in police custody will be admissible at trial only if the prosecution can show that the defendant was informed of the right to consult with an attorney before and during questioning and of the right against self-incrimination prior to questioning by police, and that the defendant not only understood these rights, but voluntarily waived them. This had a significant impact on law enforcement in the United States, by making what became known as the Miranda Rights a part of routine police procedure to ensure that suspects were informed of their rights. The Supreme Court decided Miranda with three other consolidated cases: Westover v. United States, Vignera v. New York, and California v. Stewart.

        A 5-4 decision by the Warren court. How would the Roberts court rule? Holder’s doing the job his bosses want him to do.

        From the “Modern Romans” album by The Call:

        I don’t believe there are any Russians
        And there ain’t no Yanks
        Just corporate criminals
        Playing with tanks

  6. anwaya says:

    The Villagers’ Round Table were unbelievable on Miranda: they talked about Miranda rules, Miranda regulations, and Miranda laws, but no-one said Miranda rights. They’re rights, not privileges. Why do these people hate America?

    • fatster says:

      Why are these people vigorously misinforming others about Miranda rights?

      BTW, on the Round Table you watched, did anyone bring up an instance where Miranda was abused? That’s the implication, the subterfuge–that somehow people are getting away with crimes because their Miranda rights are read to them. Anybody provide any evidence?

      • BoxTurtle says:

        Actually, the opposite is true. People have gotten away with crimes because they WEREN’T read their Miranda rights. Or because those rights were violated.

        Boxturtle (The reading of the miranda warning is as much for the cop as the suspect)

        • fatster says:

          I know, and when that happens they complain about Miranda being a necessity, instead of complaining that those doing the arresting are required by law to read those few words to the arrestee. I’d still like to know an example where reading someone their Miranda rights actually prevented justice being done. Sorry to keep hammering that point, but it’s one that definitely needs to be front-and-center.

  7. billybugs says:

    There are still some people out there that believe giving a person their Miranda warning somehow conveys rights upon that person.
    And if I’m not mistaken we already have a system in place to revoke citizenship from naturalized people who attack us.
    Joe Lie and my senator Brownie just exploiting the situation for political gain.

    Ain’t they tough on terror !!

  8. spiny says:

    If it wasn’t clear before, it should be certainly clear now: We live in a nation of men and not laws, the Constitution is really just a piece a paper, and Barack Obama is a fraud.

  9. nomolos says:

    I do not get the problem with MIranda. What harm does it do to give people Miranda? A few words to cover the asses of the investigators is what I see.

    I gave up on this administration a long time ago, Jan 22nd 2009 to be precise, and they certainly are reinforcing my decision every day.

    Now back to gardening.

  10. puppethead says:

    Is it Obama’s goal that his legacy is to be a more hated Democratic president than LBJ? Because he’s sure earning my vote. LBJ escalated a GOP war, as has Obama. But LBJ improved civil rights, Obama seems keen on reducing them for everyone.

  11. AZ Matt says:

    The birthers, tenthers, and seccessionistas aren’t going to vote for Obama so why this outreach to them?

  12. Seymour Friendly says:

    I find this thing coming out of the Obama Justice Department very disheartening and disappointing. So many people placed so many hopes for a civic recovery and reform in Obama, after the Bush years.

      • b2020 says:

        Agreed. It’s worse: It is called willful suspension of disbelief.

        The proper posture of citizens towards their president and representatives – any of them, all the time – is one of adversity. Anybody who has the time, resources, connections and ambition to run for office is your enemy, not your peer, not your ally, not your friend, not your savior, and the best you get is the Least Evil. If you cannot bring yourself to acknowledge this, then you are too afraid for democracy to work.

  13. Mary says:

    It’s hard to wrap my head around Glen Beck having a better understanding than Eric Holder of the Consitutional rights that are summarized by the shorthand “Miranda” reference.

    I guess, though, the other approach would be to treat the terrorists as if they were soldiers in a war. We’ve got a pretty clear picture now of how that works in these wars.


    [Pantano]accused of shooting two unarmed Iraqi detainees 60 times in the back and then hanging a sign over their corpses. “No Better Friend, No Worse Enemy,” . . . a Marine major general at Pantano’s home base in North Carolina dismissed the murder charges

    Army Chief Warrant Officer Lewis Welshofer was sentenced to two months’ house arrest and a $6,000 fine for stuffing an Iraqi general into a sleeping bag and straddling his chest, resulting in the man’s death

    Army 1st Lt. Jack Saville and Sgt. 1st Class Tracy Perkins were cleared of manslaughter but convicted of lesser charges for allegedly ordering two Iraqi curfew violators to jump off a ledge into the Tigris River. One of the men reportedly drowned. Saville was sentenced to 45 days in jail; Perkins received a six-month sentence.

    Marine Maj. Clarke Paulus was dismissed from the military but received no prison time in the treatment of an Iraqi detainee found dead with several broken ribs. Marine reservist Sgt. Gary Pittman was sentenced to 60 days in jail for the incident. A third Marine, William Roy, received a reduction in rank but no time in custody on condition of testifying against the other two.

    Army Sgt. Christopher W. Greatorex and Sgt. Darin Broady were acquitted of all charges in the beating of an Afghan detainee who later died in custody.

    I guess if the talking heads really want to argue that we should replace Miranda with military law for “suspected” terrorists they may want to look at what our military signs off on as acceptable behavior and what kind of sentences it gives.

  14. JohnLopresti says:

    There is an interesting justice Stevens review February 10, 2009 of the several varieties of rules and regulations, and psychological pressures, exercised in detainment jurisprudence, in Maryland v Shatzer 08-680 beginning at p.24/35. This, despite the near unanimity elsewise of the Scotus bench in support of prison regs and wiles, and despite the majority opinion*s authorship by the petulant ok to slap em justice of get over it notoriety. I doubt JGRoberts would opt for further erosion of stare decisis in interrogation protocol, but I look for Senate judiciary committee Republicans to bray and posture when O*co finally forwards its nominee for a hearing, to replace Stevens next term.

    I view Stevens as a conservative, simply a thorough one. There is Republican media hype about irresolute liberals fretting about how to obtain approval of a nominee as **liberal** as Stevens; AP published a blurb vainly proposing that thesis and citing Turley last week. But that is a knot of fictions.

    The Republican jabbering now about Miranda 384 U.S. 436, a case which dates from (1966), is much more about Republican attraction for torture lite than about humane jurisprudence.

  15. oldgold says:

    What Holder said was that we need to consider at least modifying the public safety exception for reading a terrorist suspect his rights to ensure law enforcement can act with flexibility and within constitutional bounds.

    Now, that on its face, does not seem to be a proposition that lies so far from where reason resides as to cause one to declare it to be an existential threat to the rule of law.

    It is; however, a proposition that has the potential for becoming, at a minimum, concerning.

    • bmaz says:

      Well, no, when they have already contorted and bastardized the exception beyond all recognition, saying it needs to be further expanded is beyond troubling. This is an exception that can consume the rule easily at the rate it is going. In what situation would the potential for new or continuing crime not be lessened by immediate questioning, without recourse, by arresting officers? The reason for alarm on this issue was reached long ago.

    • Mary says:

      I’d say they need to check into Pilates or Yoga for flexibility – for determining the scope of the public safety exception and whether or not an inability of DOJ to touch its toes would require a new exception they need to check into the JUDICIAL BRANCH determinations.

      OT, but now that Brennan and Obamaco is claiming, after all, that the Pakistani Taliban WAS involved in the failed fertilzer bombing, what does Clinton mean with this:

      Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton said Washington expects more cooperation from Pakistan in fighting terrorism and warned of “severe consequences” if an attack on U.S. soil were successful and traced back to the South Asian country.

      ?? The Pakistani Taliban is behind things and so the US does – – – what, exactly, to the nukes owning Pakistani gov?

      And the Pakistani gov is supposed to prove up its fealty to Clinton how? Torture some people for some false confessions and then it’s all good? What do you accomplish with that kind of rhetoric directed at a gov already teetering bc it disappeared lots of people for the US and allows its children to be bombed by US drones? I don’t get it.

      • BoxTurtle says:

        If this was BushCo, I’d suspect they’d use a successful Pakistan sourced terrorist attack as a justification to put US troops openly into the borderlands on the grounds that Pakistan can’t do the job.

        ObamaLLP doesn’t seem to desire that kind of military adventure and they’re already dropping all the drone bombs they want. And they send special forces across the border when they want and Pakistan looks the other way.

        Perhaps ObamaLLP is seeking a justification for continuing to hit the Pakistan border after we declare victory and withdraw from Afghanistan. Or perhaps he pilots the drones himself via his wii and thinks it’s cool.

        Boxturtle (Girls, put that down! Daddy’s Predator Game is NOT a toy!)

      • PJEvans says:

        I’d say that anyone the WH is backing for election/re-election in the next few years is likely to not get my vote, because I don’t see that I can trust them to even know what’s in the Constitution, never mind upholding it.

      • emptywheel says:

        It means rather than sending Richard Armitage to demand more than a govt can give and maintain stability, we’re sending Hillary.

        Of course, AT THE SAME TIME, they’re also blaming Anwar al-Awlaki, several states away in Yemen.

        • Mary says:

          He’s getting the link on almost all fronts. I guess it will make for that much better press when Obama coordinates his assassination the way Bush used to coordinate the threat levels – for best political effect. Nah, just foolin with ya. Maybe.

          @41 – Holder is saying that DOJ unilaterally or DOJ and Congress can legislate away Constitutional protections that have been explicated by Sup Ct interpretaions, based on an instituation’s self-perceived need that it would be “more flexible” without those Constitutionally mandated protections. Enhanced governmental flexibility has NEVER been a grounds for setting aside well defined Constitutional safeguards and the DOJ adopting the pretense that COngress can legislate away those Constitutional safeguards based on “flexiblity” is really bad – just bad. DOJ should never be in the position of pushing for such blatantly unconstitutional legislation and shouldn’t put such serious matters as terrorism cases and investigations into such legal limbo.

          And given what we have seen infect the military and CIA when it comes to interrogations under “relaxed” and “flexible” approaches, for Holder to now try to drag DOJ into doing away with Miranda whenever someone in DOJ wants to try a bit of downward facing dog – I don’t think it’s hyperbole to say “Bad Holder – badbadbadbadbad” It wasn’t hyperbole to say the Patriot Act was unconstitutional and it’s not hyperbole to say that Holder should not be trying to set aside constitutional protections for increased “flexiblity.”

    • earlofhuntingdon says:

      Painfully obvious from this example is that the exception is already too widely interpreted. It needs to be eliminated or narrowed, not expanded in this Liebermanesque way. The Obama administration’s “exception” would swallow the rule, though this and the prior administration seem to think it quaint that the state must first convict in an open and public court of law those they seek to imprison.

      Miranda is a rule about the admissibility of evidence obtained through police questioning. It does not create rights; it imposes a penalty on the state, by excluding information from evidence, if it was obtained without reminding the person questioned of rights he already has.

      The necessity of imposing that penalty on a too willingly errant executive was obvious 45 years ago; the conservative Justice Rehnquist agreed that was so 30 years ago; it is more necessary now than then.

  16. patrickhenrypress says:

    Don’t make me laugh, Mr. Holder.

    Miranda helps attorneys, whether prosecution or defense. It eliminates wiggle room in court. For the seconds it takes to utter these words, it guarantees one side won’t convict, or acquit, on a technicality based on what was said, or not said, during and after an arrest. It is NOT a “get out of jail free” card. It’s a “shut up that attorney” card.

    The reminders that you have the right to remain silent (except when interrogated under the Patriot Act), that anything you say can and will be used against you in a court of law (except when tried under the Patriot Act where “a court of law” is replaced by “a military tribunal” which used to be referred to as “a kangaroo court”), that you have the right to an attorney (unless you are being prosecuted under the Patriot Act, which perhaps allows for an attorney who is bound, gagged, spied upon and has both hands tied behind his back), and that if you cannot afford one … (Ha ha ha ha ha! Who can afford attorneys?), do protect us. Assuming, of course, that no one in government declares us “enemy combatants.” That’s where the shiny, new “Patriot Act Constitution” replaces our old, useless one. And, also assuming you are not a politician or a banker, for whom the “Super Constitution of No Guilt, Ever!” supersedes all law.

    Miranda is neither a problem for the courts, nor is its evisceration a solution for anything. Holder’s remarks are simply more evidence the government is implementing an agenda contravening our Constitution.

    Can we name the people who wrote the Patriot Act? Anyone? I can’t. I can name the authors of the original Constitution of the United States, but I can’t name one of the authors of the Patriot Act. Who specifically wrote it and why? What was their agenda? When did the authors begin writing it? Who directed them to do so? As an unconstitutional usurp of power, what is its legality based on? Certainly not the Constitution. So, as it is law, what is the basis for our laws now? The whims of politicians? The whims of men appointed by politicians?

    Most interestingly, was there bipartisan agreement to author the replacement Constitution, ushering in the era of eternal war, recasting the original Constitution as “just a piece of paper,” forever?

    • bmaz says:

      The foundation for the Patriot Act was the work of several Federalist Society types of law and order guys and it was not necessarily all about terrorism, it was about creating a police/law and order state. The one who really shepherded the various parts into the cognizable whole for Patriot Act purposes was Viet Dinh.

      • posaune says:

        Yeah, and most folks are already de-sensitized to the new Police State Order, i.e., the front page NYT photo of the city cop in riot gear with assault rifle. “It could happen to you, just remember that all you citizen pests who like the Constitution.”

        p.s. at least the Law & Order Party in Poland (Kaczynski’s bunch) was a joke, just made for TV. Now, of course, they all gone, since Lech took down his whole party with him.

      • patrickhenrypress says:

        Thanks. As in, this Viet Dinh (from wikipedia):

        “Viet D. Dinh (Vietnamese: Đinh Đồng Phụng Việt; born February 22, 1968) is a lawyer and a conservative legal scholar[1] who served as an Assistant Attorney General of the United States from 2001 to 2003, under the presidency of George W. Bush. Born in Saigon,[2] in the former South Vietnam, he was the chief architect of the USA PATRIOT Act.”

        Most folks known as “chief” have underlings. Who, besides this right-wing, non-native born, so-called patriot was re-writing our laws? I understand some Federalist Society people were involved, but other than Dinh, their contributions seem mostly anonymous.

        9/11 was used to trash the Constitution using the excuse of terrorism. This man emigrated in 1978, and spent years in school. He certainly didn’t start writing it 30 years ago, yet this act is gargantuan. I doubt the “chief” pulled out his quill pen and dipped it in the ink well.

        My point is, many folks imagine the act appeared as if it was sprung on a congress in shock. The rumor was that it was passed without being read. My argument is that it was years in the making, was the product of efforts by both major political parties, and is damning proof our government, as currently constituted, is illegitimate.

        Decades ago, right-wing politicians decried the rights bestowed on American citizens. As anyone may now be declared an “enemy combatant” at any time, and extra-judicially executed by any means (including robotic drone missile attack anywhere in the world), I’d say they’ve gotten their wish.

        Do we all feel safe, now? Oh, not the Attorney General. He needs methods to prey on the detained, especially the gullible and the mentally ill. Give him the right to remain silent and the right to an attorney. No citizen needs these antiquated notions with the glorious Patriot Act in place to protect us all! All hail the homeland, ever secure!

        • tjbs says:

          Aren’t we operating under some kind of “continuity of government” resolution passed after 9(the day that changed man-made and natural laws) 11 ?

          I think I read omama is down with this, also.

          • patrickhenrypress says:

            He’s down enough with all of it to extend the Patriot Act for another year.

            The old government had safeguards on its behavior. This one has none. It’s sobering to observe the Obama administration wield near-limitless power over life and death. It will be frightening once the Republicans have the White House again.

            And someday, they will.

        • qweryous says:

          Inquiring minds might perform some follow up on that wiki cite:

          “After graduating from law school, Dinh served as a law clerk to Judge Laurence H. Silberman of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit… ”

          “Dinh has served as Associate Special Counsel to the U.S. Senate Whitewater Committee, as Special Counsel to Senator Pete V. Domenici for the Impeachment Trial of President Bill Clinton…”

          “In late 2003, he was one of a group of prominent U.S. security officials hired by ChoicePoint to advise the company on developing its government homeland security contracts.”

          • patrickhenrypress says:

            He was a Reagan appointee; another of the carrion birds unleashed upon us in our seemingly unstoppable dark descent into fascism.

            So many people are expressing opinions that this battle for the soul of the nation is something new. It’s been going on since long before any of us were born. The only difference now is that the decades spent unraveling the protections afforded us by our unprecedentedly fair legal system and our heretofore revered Constitution and Bill of Rights have left us fair game for exploitation monetarily and politically. Our politicians have steadfastly refused to reform the corrupt crony capitalism that kept Washington afloat in easy money, honorable men that they all are. Enter the corporate state. So long, freedom.

            In an article I read about the attempted terrorist attack in Times Square I noted the government employed electronic surveillance from the air, intercepting cell phone and network communications, including bluetooth and playstation frequencies. One source boasted of tracking the would-be terrorist’s prepaid anonymous cell phone. While it’s commendable the man was caught, think about the price we are paying for the illusion of safety. The only reason there was no explosion was the man was incompetent, not that he was stopped before he could act. He acted. We gave up our rights for absolutely nothing.

            And he was read his Miranda rights. And he kept talking. What’s going on here?

            To really, truly inhibit terrorism, we cannot simply spy ourselves to safety. We cannot fly around the world indiscriminately slaughtering masses of innocent civilians in the demented hope our robotic death machines will kill someone our government decided to kill, law or no law, court or no court. We have to actually address the root causes, including the unpleasant, inconvenient or potentially costly ones (none of which sounds particularly effective in motivating consumption when condensed into corporate-friendly, government-fawning infotainment spots for the MSM).

            On a (Ha, ha!) completely different subject, there are sectors of the economy that are booming despite the recession and are looking great for investment! Counter-terrorism. War. Law enforcement. Prisons. Follow the money.

  17. bobschacht says:

    How convenient. Holder’s statement that he has convincing evidence that the Pakistan Taliban were involved with the Times Square car bomb attempt gives cover to US Military intervention in Pakistan. If it were not true, it would have to be invented.

    Bob in AZ

    • Jeff Kaye says:

      An inept attempt at terrorism, which harmed no one (but didn’t keep Obama from saying that 100s of lives were saved by quick action), means the total mobilization of a monstrously armed state and the continuing occupation (colonization?) of a foreign state, and assassinations and hundreds of innocent civilians dead.

      The health care “debate” and final bill demonstrated that human life is not that sacred in these United States. The projection of military power abroad is not about saving innocent American lives from terrorism, but about making money for a certain small sector of the society. The whole game of electoral politics, once redolent of democracy, social contract, and the expression of public will has finally resolved itself into a mere flim-flam scam, and Barack Obama is the perfect flim-flam man. Clinton was too much the carney. Bush and Cheney, too pushy and obvious. Obama, Holder, Gates, these are smooth avatars of bureaucratic mellowness, pretending at competency, bloodthirsty as any of the Feith/Wolfowitz/Rumsfeld/Cheney crowd ever were, and very well practiced in bureaucratic rule of empire. Too bad their view that they can create their own reality will ultimately be destroyed because of the truth of a first sentence of a forgotten essay by a disgraced thinker whose followers’ demise supposedly heralded the “end of history.”

      Miranda rights? Who below the age of 30 has even heard of them? This debate is for the remnant of the population that remembers that there was once social struggle. When social struggle reappears, how suddenly surprised everyone will be. Then by god it will seem like it was really there all along, but no one reported it.

      And thanks, Mary, for that link to Alex Roth’s story, which also demonstrates that the morals of a colonialist nation is no match for its crimes. And the U.S. dare call “terrorists” those who would oppose such brutality of occupation, such racism! That’s why the Khadr case is so galling: a child who helps his family fight off an attack on their house is supposedly guilty of war crimes!? Then, reporters who dare report some facts in the case are banned from the proceedings? Up-f*cking-side down thinking from a country quickly running off the rails.

      • whattheincorporated says:

        Well yea, but you have to admit that we’ve gotten better at spreading the light of western civilization than the old days of smallpox blankets and conversions at gunpoint.

      • Hmmm says:

        And thanks, Mary, for that link to Alex Roth’s story, which also demonstrates that the morals of a colonialist nation is no match for its crimes. And the U.S. dare call “terrorists” those who would oppose such brutality of occupation, such racism! That’s why the Khadr case is so galling: a child who helps his family fight off an attack on their house is supposedly guilty of war crimes!? Then, reporters who dare report some facts in the case are banned from the proceedings? Up-f*cking-side down thinking from a country quickly running off the rails.

        In cases where the initial military attack is mis-targeted, could we call this the war-criminalization of personal self defense?

  18. doremus35 says:

    If indeed “Brevity is the soul of wit.”(W.S.-Hamlet), I can only say: Sx2,Dx2. Trans: same shit, different day. I think that if W.S. were alive today, that is how he would present what ‘change we can believe in’ would look like in one of his farces. Methinks We are living through a badly scripted and acted farce.

  19. oldgold says:

    I have said this many times here and am generally derided for it.

    The facts are our friend and hyperbole is our enemy.

        • bmaz says:

          Do you actually know what the original “public safety” exception was designed to be? If so, it is pretty much impossible to see how the hell this could be considered hyperbole. Quite frankly, I thought the original exception was a manufactured unconstitutional sick joke; but the way it is already being used now is beyond credulity. Now, Holder wants to expand even upon that, and you think we are engaging in hyperbole? What the fuck?

  20. goedel says:

    Politicians like Holder talk about what is constitutional as if we are a nation of laws under a constitution. Our Constitution, highly flawed as it was, is no longer a force in limiting what our executive branch may do with a modicum of cunning and deception: torturing, even executing without due process of law – simply on presidential order.

    Officials, such as Holder, appear and in respectable garb and grooming, as if they are gentlemen rather than corrupted spokesmen for authoritarianism, and make their cases for the unitary executive. They and President Obama use the fear of terrorism – created as blowback from US imperial power projections – to advance their power grab. The increasingly rotting and already rotten Congress sits back with a deaf ear while the Schütz-Stafel among them clamor for destruction of what is left of the Bill of Rights and the rest of the filigreed Constitution.

    All these continue making wars of necessity, but no one in the media or the congressional cesspool asks, “What, pray tell, is the f**king necessity!”

    Well, I’ll tell you what it is. It is the necessity of justifying for a naive, undereducated polis, spending about a trillion dollars (mostly borrowed) a year on a state security establishment in the Pentagon and in the intelligence “community”; for maintaining about 1,000 military installations over the globe, 37 on the island of Okinawa alone; for active warfare in about five countries, either by our armed forces or by mercenaries and CIA operatives. The maintenance of this huge establishment in the necessity, because our major export in the 21st century is death and destruction wherever US corporate interests are challenged or threatened. Yes, fascism, the use of military power, state secrecy, authoritarian government in the service of an industrial, elite ruling-class. Fascism, with a more kindly face than its early 20th century precursors! We have come a long way.

  21. librty says:

    Our AG does a nice job justifying the encroachment of Fascism along with mapping out to all of us how they’re planning on implementing the next tiny step.

    Nice Job Eric.

  22. whattheincorporated says:

    Would it really be so bad if we had a full blown economic collapse like the soviets had when their empire fell?

    It’d probably end our imperial war march, we wouldn’t have the money to jet overseas and kill people who disagree with us, no more predator striking civilians and turning their families into our enemies…

    It’d suck for us, but not for the rest of the world, it sure as hell stopped Soviet d**kishness back then so it’ll do the same for us.

    Ps. Obama isn’t an illegal immigrant from Kenya, he’s an illegal immigrant from a novel set in a dystopian future where america became a hyper militarized police state that only enforces corporate law.

  23. tanbark says:

    Let’s see if I’ve got this right, now:

    Eric Holder has taken over the reins of government from Barack Obama and has decided that we need to amend the policy of telling some people of their rights, as they’re arrested.

    And this is ALLLL Holder’s fault. Obama was out on the back lawn, playing basketball and being a good “centrist” while it happened, which is why Marcy could put up that thread complaining about this, without mentioning Obama’s name.

    The industry of some progressives covering Obama’s feckless ass, has moved from a cottage industry to becoming more like Wal-Mart.

    When we hit the mid-term wall, they’re going to be as busy as a cat covering shit on a tin room.

  24. doggid says:

    Earlier this week Holder gave a response to all the Right Winger talk about Mirandizing people that I thought put a great perspective on the issue. His response was Mirandizing someone makes it more likely to get a conviction in court.

    I just about spilled my coffee when I was listening to him on Meet the Press boasting that this is big news that he wants to change the Miranda Law and relax it.

    I haven’t a clue where our country is heading. On a side note. 30 coal miners killed, 6 refinery works killed in Anacortes, Wa. 2 refinery workers killed in Texas?, and now 11 Oil Worker killed on the BP oil rig. That’s 49 fatalities in the last 2 months. If these deaths were done by a anyone from an Arab Country we’d be contemplating a new war.

    Just as we are starting to see the futility of our War on Drugs and legalization movements finally getting traction so to is our misdirection on our War on Terror. America is a rudderless ship.

    • patrickhenrypress says:

      It’s got a rudder. The hands on the tiller are guiding us precisely where they want us to go.

      You see, Miranda works to ensure fairness in the process of incarcerating us, and thus must be eliminated. The quaint notion of “fairness” has been replaced by the image of a totalitarian boot planted firmly on the face of America.

      Just ask the Attorney General.

  25. Hmmm says:

    OT — Had a thought on the Deep Horizon plugging effort. I know nothing about the formidable engineering issues involved, but… they already have the colossal concrete box down adjacent to the leak site, and because of the cold-chemistry it appears useless as a Shop-Vac. So why not place the colossal concrete box over the leak again, but this time instead of sucking water up the line, pump fresh concrete down the line — essentially using the colossal concrete box as a pouring form for a new concrete plug?

    • bobschacht says:

      B-b-but that would close off the money stream the oil represents! /s

      What this exposes is that BP is more interested in keeping the oil flowing (into the water, if necessary) than in stopping the oil flow.

      Their best argument for temporarily shifting the containment box to the side was that the icy hydrates forming inside the box were bouyant, sufficient to lift(?) the 100 ton inverted funnel. Your idea of pumping the cement down the pipe ought to solve that, and I don’t know why they don’t do that.

      Bob in AZ

      • Hmmm says:

        B-b-but that would close off the money stream the oil represents! /s

        Snark noted, but even if the idea to temporarily cap the wellhead as I imagine it does by some miracle work, they can still come in later and drill in from another angle — exactly as they’ve been planning to do.

        • bobschacht says:

          Exactly as they are already trying to do. But that would involve losing almost 90 days of income from this gusher. For BP, its always been about the money. Environmental and mortal hazards (heck, we might as well add moral hazards to the list, as well) are incidental costs of doing business.

          Bob in AZ

      • PJEvans says:

        I don’t buy the ‘buoyant’ theory, but I’ll believe that their pipe connection got ice-clogged.

      • qweryous says:

        Unfortunately this probably won’t work for a number of reasons.

        Envision a garden hose with ten or twenty times the normal water pressure.
        Now try to plug it by forcing something in the end. Or try to cover it up with something like the box they built so it doesn’t leak, and the floor maybe consists partially of the previously mentioned methane hydrates, and the floor is perhaps somewhat unstable.

        Oops forgot that this is happening 5,000 feet beneath the sea.

        Oops again- done by remote control submarine.

        Another detail to add ( and this one is a big one) it is mixture of liquid and a gas probably, the gas meaning that it can store and then release a great deal of energy ( work,destruction). Compressed gas in a storage vessel is much more stored destructive potential than a liquid under the same pressure. It has nothing to do with flammability either, flammability just makes it worse.Restricting the flow with some kind of container is storing the energy for later escape.

        Now I don’t remember the diameter of the pipe, but even if the leak is just at the end of the pipe- the forces at the end of the pipe due to the outflow are tremendous. Start to restrict the flow and velocity will increase, and especially if there is any sand or debris in the flow, the flow will be capable of cutting steel or cured cement. Then must be added in possible buoyancy from gas either from the well, or hydrates gassing methane.

        There are probably videos available of the capping process of above ground blowouts, which are likely flowing with less force than this one.

        There is a reason that they aren’t making promises to cap this soon, and it isn’t because they don’t want to.

        • DWBartoo says:

          “There is a reason that they aren’t making promises to cap this soon, and it isn’t because they don’t want to.”

          Perhaps, qweryous, it is simply that they don’t know HOW to “cap” the “problem”?

          How may they “top” their well-practiced arrogance? (Their greed, their conviction that “consequences” are for “others”, not themselves …)

          With their stupidity?

          Stupidity, like chickens, always comes home to roost.

          And, some forms of stupidity appear to be contagious …

          This particular “outbreak” is far from over …


          • fatster says:

            Your points are, as usual, very well taken, DWBartoo. But they were allowed to go ahead by Interior, specifically the Minerals Management Services. Apparently, that section is saturated with Cheney leave-behinds. Figures, huh?


            Any one know if any Congressional hearings are scheduled on this horrendous mess? Thnx.

            • DWBartoo says:

              The “outbreak” may well become an epidemic, fatster.

              Time will tell, sixty days, ninety days, who can imagine?


              • fatster says:

                Oh, DWBartoo, in terms of the Gulf I guess we can forget the fire or ice question and just go directly to oil.

            • qweryous says:

              Well that’s the link from he**!

              “Forget Offshore Drilling Until We Get Some Answers”- About what I expected.. But then on the same page is:

              “Why the oil spill could change everything” will check that out but that change word not working so well lately… And then last but not least:

              “The Ten Biggest Issues Elana Kagan Will Face”

              I read it.

          • qweryous says:

            “Perhaps, qweryous, it is simply that they don’t know HOW to “cap” the “problem”?”

            Partly that, and partly that doing the wrong thing now can make it worse, possibly an order of magnitude worse.

            The ‘containment box ‘ or whatever it is called, is the problem. If it moves around out of control it can damage or break off whatever is still in place on the seafloor (BOP etc).

            If this happens many other possible more long term fixes are either made much more difficult or impossible. The rate of spillage could greatly increase, and go on for a longer time. It is possible to do the wrong thing and make untried (and even unthought of) repair methods impossible.

            The media reports have never said doing the wrong thing 5000 feet deep can make it much worse, but in any damage repair it is ALWAYS possible to do the wrong thing, or to do the right thing and still have it turn out badly. The silence on this issue is telling. Any competent engineer with experience in complicated repairs knows that the rule is don’t f*** it up worse.

            I hope someone figures out something that works, it will be cause for celebration if they get it done inside a month. I am not very hopeful, only wishful.

            • bobschacht says:

              Where’s Oilfieldguy?

              BP is in it for the money. They’ve already proven that they care more about profits than safety or environmental protection.

              Congress needs to write laws funding experts in MMS and Salazar’s dept in general so that we have our own in-house experts that are not governed by the bottom line of the Oil companies. That will cost a bunch, but we can’t afford to be dependent on Oil company expertise, can we?

              Bob in AZ

            • qweryous says:

              The other detail that I failed to mention- according to this source (USDOE)-
              Methane Hydrate -The Gas Resource of the Future one cubic meter of methane hydrate releases 164 cubic meters of methane gas at atmospheric pressure. Not sure whether this number is increased due to the extreme pressure at the seafloor…

              Collecting oil and methane gas would be difficult and hazardous to say the least. Separating it from the sea water and the oil would need to be done carefully… Keeping the hydrate from plugging a mile of pipe at the varying pressures and temperatures…

              • bobschacht says:

                Wasn’t it the expansion of the Methane hydrate from ice to gas that precipitated the explosion that destroyed the oil platform in the first place? They gotta learn how to vent that stuff harmlessly.

                Bob in AZ

                • qweryous says:

                  I don’t know about that.

                  Oil fields usually are pressurized to some degree by some form of natural gas. The gas could have been in the oil deposit.

                  • bobschacht says:

                    Sure. But they still need to know how to either (1) ventilate it, (2) capture it (Methane gas has commercial value), or (3) burn it off slowly. My bet is that BP will look for a way to make money off it.

                    Toodles, y’all. Time for zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz’s
                    Bob in AZ

                  • DWBartoo says:

                    The fact of the “matter” is that BP hasn’t a clue as what to do, qweryous.

                    BP never, ever, carefully AND responsibly considered that this kind of catastrophe could befall THEM, they have happily sought to lessen regulation that would have “allowed” them to a least imagine possibilities with the understanding that there are some compelling “interests” beyond the … quarterly report.

                    The entire “business model” of BP and other oil conglomerates is to maximize profit … period. There is no genuine interest in social responsibility, merely PR, hype of the “We’re so green!” variety.

                    This is calamitous failure of monumental proportion that MUST be taken as a wake-up call that “business as usual” is a VERY major part of the “problem”.

                    This is not merely a “mechanical” failure it is undeniable evidence of severe underlying “systemic” problems of consciousness AND conscience, as well as imagination AND basic mental competence.

                    Both the company, BP, and our government, specifically the political class, have chosen incompetence and bluster above really doing their jobs in the manner in which they must be done, if society, “looking forward”, is to be reasonably served – bringing to mind the old Twilight Zone episode about the book entitled, “To Serve Mankind”.

                    It was a cookbook.


              • qweryous says:

                One final detail concerning methane gas : the “lower explosive or flammable limit(lel-lfl)” is 5% and the “upper explosive or flammable limit(uel-ufl)” is 15%.

                Between 5% and 15% methane to air ratio; ignition or worse is possible.

                Typical safety measures are to keep combustible gases no more than 25% of the lel/lfl. Or 1.25% concentration of methane in air.

                So 1 cubic meter of methane hydrate produces 164 cubic meters of methane gas, which can ‘contaminate to the point of explosion’ 164(20)= 3280 cubic meters or air ( at 5% lel-lfl). Standard safety requires dilution to 25% of this concentration as a maximum, so 3280(4)=13120 cubic meters.

                A rough approximation for 13120 cubic meters is a volume 35 feet by 80 feet by 160 feet.
                Disclaimer- not an engineer or an oilfield guy. I could be wrong.

  26. fatster says:

    Just for the record, here is a typical Miranda warning (53 words, by quick count):

    “You have the right to remain silent. Anything you say can and will be used against you in a court of law. You have the right to an attorney. If you cannot afford an attorney, one will be appointed to you. Do you understand these rights as they have been read to you?”

    How outrageous is that?

    • Hmmm says:

      Can’t help thinking this whole thing must play into a process of early determination of how a given suspect is going to be handled: Article III prosecution vs. Mil Commish prosecution. If they read the suspect the Miranda reminders but later decide to go the MC route then the worry might be that the Miranda notice would have been misleading (since not all those rights actually apply in that case) and that that might make important things inadmissible at MC trial (not that a whole lot of scrupulousness about admissibility has been seen to date). Of course the reverse is definitely a problem: if they don’t Mirandize but then later decide to go Article III then not Mirandizing would definitely come back to bite them. So they seem to want to preserve the ability to make that Courts vs. MCs decision (and I’m inferring the Dark Side as a 3rd option) later rather than sooner, and are stretching the public safety exception out of any recognizable form in order to get that result. But it’s absurd, to the point of squaring the circle, it don’t work.

    • skdadl says:

      Wow. I had to lie down with some smelling salts after I read that.

      Srsly. Every kid in Canada can recite that warning, just from watching crime shows on Merkin TV, and that’s been true for decades. You should hear the other things we can do — pledge allegiance, eg, even though we’re not actually allegie’d; sing your anthem (well, there are the ball games) and a number of your national songs; stand on the First and take the Fifth — I mean, you should adopt us. Or maybe not.

      • fatster says:

        The adoption trend, dear skdadl, tends to run in the other direction. You adopted so many of us during the Vietnam era, that I have to wonder if you could possibly have room for more.

      • bmaz says:

        I had a rather well known and noted case where four, count em four, detained suspects were rolled up out of a different city, hooded and driven at 100+ miles per hour to Phoenix, not taken to jail but instead taken to separate rooms in a nearby downtown hotel, handcuffed to the furniture and told there was irrefutable evidence implicating them in the execution style slaying of nine Buddhist monks. After an extended time of this, and a lot more coercion and manipulation, they were told that not only were they going to die by the death penalty, but that their family was going down too. If they would simply agree with the facts the cops were telling them, they could have a nice McDonalds meal, sleep and go home to mommy. That message was literally inextricably intertwined with the words and content of the Miranda warning given to them. Of course, after a while, four completely innocent and totally unconnected youths were broken down and all confessed to the mass execution murder of nine Buddhist monks they had nothing whatsoever to do with. It does not take as much as you think.

        • skdadl says:

          bmaz, I believe you. I also believe it’s not just youse guys doing these things. Alas.

          My only defence against the madness is to speak on and to principle as if I’d been born yesterday and was still completely innocent of all worldly knowledge.

          I know I’m not tough enough to get down in the arena where people are bloodied. But still I think some of us have to sing the descant.

    • bobschacht says:

      But this is outrageous! It tells these perverts that they have rights!!! If they know that they have rights, they might try to use them! We can’t have that! And we already know they’re perverts terrorists because our government says so. I mean, Dick Cheney himself has told us that these are the worst of the worst! What more evidence do we need? /s

      Ick. It makes me sick to write such drivel, even as snark.

      Bob in AZ

  27. JohnLopresti says:

    NY v Quarles 467 US 649 (1984) is the Rehnquist construct accreting to Miranda (1966) a *public safety exception*. The Quarles case opinion incorporates, as well, a partial dissent by O*Connor; also, there is a dissent by Stevens, Marshall, Brennan. Pildes wrote a rambling summary of the modern terrorism law PatriotActification of Miranda in a brief essay a few days ago suggesting congress clarify and modernize Rehnquist*s Quarles reasoning from the 1984 nonTerrorism case.

  28. tony77019 says:

    So what exactly is Obama running on for a second term? DADT? No. Public option? No. More open administration than Bush? No. Transparency? No. Governing with respect to individual and civil rights? No. Improved economic status for black Americans? No. Environmentally friendly energy policy? No.

    Does this guy not understand that when he campaigns for democrats they lose?

    • bmaz says:

      Protection of rights of Hispanic Americans and a modicum of concern and thought of their non-papered relatives and families who have been here and paying taxes and Social Security into a system they cannot benefit from? Um, NO.

      I have to belly laugh every time I even hear Obama talk about wanting a Supreme Court Justice with “empathy” or whatever fucking cliche de jour he is using to connote a sympathy for the common man. Because the one potential nominee Obama has doggedly put up and supported is Elena Kagan, a daughter of privilege of a lawyer and family from the Upper West Side in New York, somewhat inexplicable tenured faculty member at the elitist University of Chicago and gadabout dean of Harvard Law School with a reputation for schmoozing the rich and famous benefactors of Harvard. This is the person who fucking Obama thinks is going to have “empathy” for the common American? What a sick joke. Obama is on the path to making snake oil salesmen look responsible and honest.

      • b2020 says:

        Last time I looked, snake oil salesmen did not torture or assassinate. So Bygones Habeas Obama has them safely beat with his first year record alone. Snake Oil is so FISA Amendment – two-thousand and late. We are on that next-gen now, boom boom pow.

        His administration really needs the Gubernator and others with similar accents. The campaign to “errrrrrrradicate terrorism” is best appreciated when spoken in the German original, no subtitles.

  29. bmaz says:

    Paging Freep to the Trash Talk thread. Attention former troll killer, you are being hailed. Resistance is futile.

  30. fatster says:

    O/T Some are asking “Have the stepped-up attacks in Pakistan — notably the Predator drone strikes — actually made Americans less safe? Have they had the perverse consequence of driving lesser insurgencies to think of targeting Times Square and American airliners, not just Kabul and Islamabad? In short, are they inspiring more attacks on America than they prevent?”


    • bmaz says:

      If I can edit it down to language fit for a family friendly blog like this fucking one; I will have a Kagan post in a bit. I have attention deficit issues with mother’s day and Los Suns………..

      • Hmmm says:

        Wow, story’s popping out just everywhere now. Can’t wait for your take. I’ll wear gloves and sunglasses for my personal protection from your hot hating (not to mention delicious) heat.

  31. qweryous says:

    Sorry for the O.T. More Jindal bad idea news.

    Much worse than not spending money on volcano monitoring- How did that turn out Governor Jindal? Lately in Europe particularly?

    Seminal Diary reveals Jindal has big Gulf oil disaster plans: They can make this disaster even worse than it already is.

    Army Corps of Engineers ready to assist.

    Diary here.

    • bmaz says:

      I will be along in a minute with a rather intemperate post. I have had some technical issues or it would be up already……..

  32. bobschacht says:

    While we’re all waiting for bmaz’ post, I’ll recycle the old Ben Franklin quote:

    “Well, Doctor, what have we got—a Republic or a Monarchy?”

    [Franklin] “A Republic, if you can keep it.”

    The response is attributed to BENJAMIN FRANKLIN—at the close of the Constitutional Convention of 1787, when queried as he left Independence Hall on the final day of deliberation—in the notes of Dr. James McHenry, one of Maryland’s delegates to the Convention.

    Evidently, we’ve lost it.

    Bob in AZ

    • bmaz says:

      Evidently, we’ve lost it

      Pretty much the issue I had with my post. Happened as I was trying to load the graphic. Brother, what a nightmare. It will be up up sometime here when I get it recreated…..

      • DWBartoo says:


        As I said to you, the other day, Obama Co. IS reading what you say about potential nominees to SCOTUS.

        “I say, ole bmaz has severely and devastatingly eviscerated “consensus-builder” Kagan, therefore she MUST be the BEST possible candidate. Experience has shown that if bmaz disses someone, THAT someone is PRECISELY the one we must have for the position. If we postulate that bmaz can discern competence and capacity, then, as we wish servile acquiescence, the choice is clear, very clear. Read bmaz, do a one-eighty, and Shazam! We KNOW, without qualm or doubt, that it must be Kagan!”

        This may seem a bass ackward “methodology”, but it reduces the “workload” of the President and DOJ, immensely.


  33. DWBartoo says:

    The choice is … Kagan … “a consensus builder” …

    And a supporter of Executive Supremacy.

    A pragmatist’s pragmatist.

    What WILL Obama “run” on for a second term?

    Perhaps he will “retire” to a life of revered elder statesman and money-making wisdom?


    • bobschacht says:

      The choice is … Kagan … “a consensus builder” …

      What a crock of B.S. Her work at Solicitor General earned her a number of slapdowns from the Supremes– I don’t see her building any consensus there– except against her.

      I hope she falls on her face and her nomination gets withdrawn.

      Bob in AZ

      • b2020 says:

        Bygones Habeas Obama might just be doing this to get back to the Supremos for their various glitches in his face – Roberts’ inauguration blunder, Alito’s SOTU shake-up, and of course the treatment of Kagan during her first SCOTUS appearances. The man seems to make a priority of backstabbing any and all opposition, except for the Figleaf Caucus. What better than to nominate somebody that everybody at the SCOTUS disrespects?

  34. DWBartoo says:

    OT – Lena Horne has died, she was 92.

    A beautiful, intelligent woman of courage, conscience, and capacity.

    [I wonder if they make entertainers (or celebrities) like that anymore?]


    • skdadl says:

      Oh, I loved her. I was so young when I first saw her that I can’t remember which movie that was, but she was wearing a gardenia in her hair and singing wonderfully, and I thought she was gorgeous. Very smart, funny, gutsy woman too — a great dame.

  35. fatster says:

    Devastation in the Gulf update. Three committees are opening hearings this week:

    Senate Energy and Natural Resources (McKay from BP, Newman from Transocean, and Probert Halliburt to appear)
    Senate Environment and Public Works Committee (same witnesses as above)
    House Energy and Commerce Oversight and Investigations

    I do hope they’re on cspan.

  36. qweryous says:

    In response to DWBartoo @ 125

    “The fact of the “matter” is that BP hasn’t a clue as what to do, qweryous.”

    As far as prevention, mitigation, and cleanup I agree.


    Oil lobby money unlikely to quell storm over BP :


    This year, oil lobby spending could set another record as the industry seeks to minimize political damage from the BP spill and revive its policy prospects as quickly as possible.”

    And BP is getting more political, and that may help weather oil-spill storm:

    “John Browne, the former chief executive of energy giant BP, used to brag about his company’s relative lack of political involvement, saying the London-based conglomerate purposely shied away from spending too much on lobbying and campaign contributions.

    Really- spent just the right amount? Got most of what they wanted?

    And this:

    “The company has mobilized a massive Washington lobbying campaign over the past week in response to the worsening crisis, dispatching senior executives to meet with Obama administration officials and members of Congress, while Hayward and other executives make frequent media appearances to defend BP’s performance.”

    • fatster says:

      I know I’ve sounded like a broken record, harping on the Minerals Management Services at Interior, but today someone who is widely read–Krugman–is saying the same thing. I want those public employees brought before Senate/House hearings, too.


      • qweryous says:

        No doubt that Interior and MMS in particular needs some further scrutiny.

        That little ‘energy task force” thing…

        After that little Griles Federici Abramoff thing (at Interior)(when Gale Norton was in charge) there was a thorough investigation, they really got to the bottom of things,they were glad to move ahead without looking back.

        Abramoff, Prison and a Crazy Little Thing Called Love

        “Had J. Steven Griles not been busy with so many lady friends while serving as the No. 2 official in the Interior Department, he probably wouldn’t have scored a date yesterday with another woman: Judge Ellen Huvelle of U.S. District Court, who sentenced Griles to 10 months in prison for obstructing an investigation into the Jack Abramoff scandal.

        Griles asked Abramoff for favors for the women in his life, prosecutors said, and in exchange helped Abramoff’s clients with their government business. One of Griles’s girlfriends, Italia Federici, got $500,000 for her nonprofit from Abramoff’s Indian tribes.”

        And when the court thing with the judge goes like this:

        “Griles’s lawyer, Barry Hartman, tried to detach his client from the fallen lobbyist. “The stench of Jack Abramoff is everywhere,” he said. “Mr. Griles suffers from that.”

        But Hartman had trouble making headway with the judge. When he asked permission for a tribal representative to speak in support of Griles, she protested, reminding him that “you’ve given me almost 100 letters.” She seemed skeptical when Hartman tried to minimize the ties between Abramoff, Federici and Griles. “This person he’s having an at-times-romantic relationship with, he did not know who was paying her?” Huvelle asked.”

        EW and MB at Wampum were on this (Abramoff, Interior etc.) years ago.

        Fail to get the correction done, and get the opportunity to have some more.

        • fatster says:

          “Fail to get the correction done, and get the opportunity to have some more.”

          But, but, but aren’t we supposed to be looking forward and all?

          No doubt I’m being Pollyanna-ish, but I do hope at least one or two congresscritters at the hearings this week will begin laying the groundwork to bring those MMS team members to public accounting (“rake ’em over the coals”–if only!) and, from there, get into how MMS became the servant of the industry (which gets us right back to the Dick), and on to other large tentacles (such as Abramoff).

          • Hmmm says:

            I wonder whether the present situation might make any new attempt at accessing the Cheney Energy Task Force records more likely to succeed now that it was back then. SoL doesn’t apply to administrative requests for records, does it?

            • qweryous says:

              Aren’t they down in Texas- some new library/think tank/research center/presidential repository/sealed for a long time- executive order thing…LINK

              Don’t forget there was a fire…vicinity of the “man sized safe”…

              So even after the arguing- they might not be found…

              • Hmmm says:

                Thank you, fatster. Don’t see anything too recent-looking there. I hope those folks are re-energized by the ongoing Deepwater Horizon disaster.

                  • Hmmm says:

                    Very good links, I thank you again.

                    Where do I go to buy credit default swaps on BP and Halliburton?

                    (For that matter, how do we find out who’s holding CDSs on them?)

Comments are closed.