And if you want to know more than that, it’s a state secret, so you must be a terrorist.
https://www.emptywheel.net/wp-content/uploads/2016/07/Logo-Web.png00emptywheelhttps://www.emptywheel.net/wp-content/uploads/2016/07/Logo-Web.pngemptywheel2010-10-19 08:43:432010-10-19 08:43:43“Then We Turned the Illegal, Legal, AND Made the White House MORE Snuggly”
newz4all says:
Olbermann and Turley discuss “Will SCOTUS Give Ashcroft Immunity in Ashcroft v. al-Kidd?” from Monday 18 october 2010
OLBERMANN: Overarching all this, the Obama administration is arguing the attorney general of the United States has absolute immunity above the law?
TURLEY: Yeah. That‘s basically it. The amazing thing about this case is there is an old expression of bad cases making bad law. This is a case of a bad guy making bad law. They‘re going to have to pitch this to the hard right of the court, to support one of the most abusive attorney generals in history.
And what will be left is truly frightening. This is a case, as you‘ve mentioned, where false statements were given to a federal court to secure a warrant. A person was held without access to a lawyer, was held in highly abusive conditions. And you also have an attorney general who was virtually gleeful during that period about his ability to round up people. This was at a time, as you know, where the material witness rationale was being used widely and rather transparently to simply hold people.
What‘s fascinating about this, Keith, is, you know, Smith, the judge here, wrote a really incredible opinion. It‘s one of the better opinion I‘ve read in the last ten years.And he notes at the end, this is basically what the framers fought against. And he‘s right. That is, we‘ve become what it is we fought against, what it is we defined ourselves against.
This is what the framers were talking about, arbitrary detention.And my God, you now have the Obama administration arguing that you can‘t possibly hold an attorney general liable for such an egregious and horrible act.
OLBERMANN: Especially with Justice Kagan on the sidelines for this, is it safe to assume that a conservative court is going to undo what all the lower courts have said and give that absolute immunity to Ashcroft and all the other attorneys general for time immemorial?
TURLEY: I think it is, unfortunately. The Obama administration knows that it has an excellent chance of creating this new precedent. And when you pile it up, it truly is frightening. The administration has already said it will not investigate torture. It has already said it will not prosecute torture. It has said dismissed dozens of cases, including cases for victim of torture.
Now it is saying that even people that order abuses, that clearly should have known that they were abuses, cannot be held liable. And you‘re left with this curious scene of Obama officials expressing concern over why liberals are so lethargic in this election, like it‘s something that we said.
Yeah, it is. This is a truly — it‘s not a disappointing act by the administration. I have to tell you, I find it a disgusting act to try to create this kind of precedent.I promise you, this precedent will bear a horrible fruit. And this will be repeated because of what President Obama and his administration are going to do before this court.
Out of context and kind of non-sequitor, but this “false statements were given to a federal court to secure a warrant” goes to a part of what I start to rant over now and then about the DOJ in house and OPR investigations. They spin wheels for years over whether or not professionally competent research was done by Yoo for his torture memos, but never does anyone touch the really black and white, provable and punishable, offenses, including lies to the courts which have been like mother’s milk to the Bush and Obama DOJs.
Yeah, I started a long post on that, not sure when I can finish it. The Al-Kidd case is terrifying in its implications under the Obama power grab. Beyond belief. And the supremes are ready to enshrine it into law to with little question it appears.
Mary says:
It’s that same feeling that Dramamine used to help with when I was a kid.
cbl2 says:
oh lord, my mind read Snuggie instead of “Snuggly” in that headline
you’re not only warm, you’re wrapped in hope and change
jdmckay0 says:
including lies to the courts which have been like mother’s milk to the Bush and Obama DOJs.
well put!!!
And the courts let them get by with it.
to do otherwise would be “activist”, entirely non-strict-constructionist. Or, observed in context of current functioning, somehow intercession would be viewed as immoral by the moralizing minority. Think about that.
Someone has to put the ugly in snuggly
‘tee hee hee (sounds funny coming from you).
…
Regarding strict constructionist “theory”, I just came acroos a book:
“The New Right v. The Constitution”.
It was written by Stephen Macedo, and published (oddly enough) by CATO in ’86… just prior to Bork confirmation wars. Macedo looks at both sides in detail, and in saturating utterly thorough fashion demolishes this Reagan “gift” to our “heritage”.
It’s only +/- 60 pages, highly recomend to anyone desiring a more scholarly, informed concept on just what this particular “us vs. them” crap debate is about.
Mary says:
waving, way too late as per usual, but still waving.
jdmckay0 says:
I have a very very rare off day today, enjoying your (Marcy’s) posts as participant is rare these days for me. Anyway, on this particular foreclosure thing, it’s been on my mind working around the house today.
For some unknown reason… for 1st time since (I think) college days (30+ yrs past), the Diogenes story… eg. his wandering around ancient Athens shining a lantern in peoples faces and, when asked why, said: “I’m looking for an honest man.”
Giants now up 2 – 1, w/21 yr old rookie Bumgartner poised to throw no hitter tommorow.
Looks like there’s gon’a be joy in SF this week.
prostratedragon says:
Diogenes …
There is a collective unconscious, or at least a tendency of minds to collect around focal points.
thatvisionthing says:
Snuggly the Security Bear! Like Buckles the FISA Cat!
thatvisionthing says:
“At the beginning of the day of December 17, 2007, there were a lot of politicians who had decided that the bill was going to pass and there was nothing that they could do. They just stood by the side and waited for it to happen. Or worse, in the case of Senator Majority Leader Harry Reid, they allowed the bill to come to the floor when they could have stopped it because they felt it was inevitable. Senator Joseph Biden, Senator Hillary Clinton and Senator Barack Obama had promised Senator Christopher Dodd that they would help filibuster the bill, but when the day came to resist the bill, did they? No, they didn’t come to Washington. They did not help build a filibuster to the bill as they had promised. They broke a promise. Why? You’ll have to ask them, but my guess is that they felt it was a lost cause and just not worth it, that it was more worth their time to talk about change, to talk about a better country and what neat people they were and how they deserved to be President.” — Buckles the Cat
Olbermann and Turley discuss “Will SCOTUS Give Ashcroft Immunity in Ashcroft v. al-Kidd?” from Monday 18 october 2010
OLBERMANN: Overarching all this, the Obama administration is arguing the attorney general of the United States has absolute immunity above the law?
TURLEY: Yeah. That‘s basically it. The amazing thing about this case is there is an old expression of bad cases making bad law. This is a case of a bad guy making bad law. They‘re going to have to pitch this to the hard right of the court, to support one of the most abusive attorney generals in history.
And what will be left is truly frightening. This is a case, as you‘ve mentioned, where false statements were given to a federal court to secure a warrant. A person was held without access to a lawyer, was held in highly abusive conditions. And you also have an attorney general who was virtually gleeful during that period about his ability to round up people. This was at a time, as you know, where the material witness rationale was being used widely and rather transparently to simply hold people.
What‘s fascinating about this, Keith, is, you know, Smith, the judge here, wrote a really incredible opinion. It‘s one of the better opinion I‘ve read in the last ten years. And he notes at the end, this is basically what the framers fought against. And he‘s right. That is, we‘ve become what it is we fought against, what it is we defined ourselves against.
This is what the framers were talking about, arbitrary detention. And my God, you now have the Obama administration arguing that you can‘t possibly hold an attorney general liable for such an egregious and horrible act.
OLBERMANN: Especially with Justice Kagan on the sidelines for this, is it safe to assume that a conservative court is going to undo what all the lower courts have said and give that absolute immunity to Ashcroft and all the other attorneys general for time immemorial?
TURLEY: I think it is, unfortunately. The Obama administration knows that it has an excellent chance of creating this new precedent. And when you pile it up, it truly is frightening. The administration has already said it will not investigate torture. It has already said it will not prosecute torture. It has said dismissed dozens of cases, including cases for victim of torture.
Now it is saying that even people that order abuses, that clearly should have known that they were abuses, cannot be held liable. And you‘re left with this curious scene of Obama officials expressing concern over why liberals are so lethargic in this election, like it‘s something that we said.
Yeah, it is. This is a truly — it‘s not a disappointing act by the administration. I have to tell you, I find it a disgusting act to try to create this kind of precedent. I promise you, this precedent will bear a horrible fruit. And this will be repeated because of what President Obama and his administration are going to do before this court.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/39740452/ns/msnbc_tv-countdown_with_keith_olbermann/
Just read Pat Oliphants Cartoon; Boehner leading us sheep to the abattoir. Seems to fit with Snuggly Security State.
To bad Snuggly can’t be broadcast over TV. Even the sheep might understand.
http://www.gocomics.com/patoliphant
Great excerpt to add news4all.
Out of context and kind of non-sequitor, but this “false statements were given to a federal court to secure a warrant” goes to a part of what I start to rant over now and then about the DOJ in house and OPR investigations. They spin wheels for years over whether or not professionally competent research was done by Yoo for his torture memos, but never does anyone touch the really black and white, provable and punishable, offenses, including lies to the courts which have been like mother’s milk to the Bush and Obama DOJs.
And the courts let them get by with it.
Someone has to put the ugly in snuggly
Yeah, I started a long post on that, not sure when I can finish it. The Al-Kidd case is terrifying in its implications under the Obama power grab. Beyond belief. And the supremes are ready to enshrine it into law to with little question it appears.
It’s that same feeling that Dramamine used to help with when I was a kid.
oh lord, my mind read Snuggie instead of “Snuggly” in that headline
you’re not only warm, you’re wrapped in hope and change
well put!!!
to do otherwise would be “activist”, entirely non-strict-constructionist. Or, observed in context of current functioning, somehow intercession would be viewed as immoral by the moralizing minority. Think about that.
‘tee hee hee (sounds funny coming from you).
…
Regarding strict constructionist “theory”, I just came acroos a book:
“The New Right v. The Constitution”.
It was written by Stephen Macedo, and published (oddly enough) by CATO in ’86… just prior to Bork confirmation wars. Macedo looks at both sides in detail, and in saturating utterly thorough fashion demolishes this Reagan “gift” to our “heritage”.
It’s only +/- 60 pages, highly recomend to anyone desiring a more scholarly, informed concept on just what this particular “us vs. them” crap debate is about.
waving, way too late as per usual, but still waving.
I have a very very rare off day today, enjoying your (Marcy’s) posts as participant is rare these days for me. Anyway, on this particular foreclosure thing, it’s been on my mind working around the house today.
For some unknown reason… for 1st time since (I think) college days (30+ yrs past), the Diogenes story… eg. his wandering around ancient Athens shining a lantern in peoples faces and, when asked why, said: “I’m looking for an honest man.”
Hmmm…
Glad to have you in the threads!
And yeah, that’s sort of what I feel like at this point.
Thanks! (guess u could say I’ve been thread bare).
…
Giants 3, Phills zip… Cain throws 2 hitter >> 7 innings.
Giants now up 2 – 1, w/21 yr old rookie Bumgartner poised to throw no hitter tommorow.
Looks like there’s gon’a be joy in SF this week.
Diogenes …
There is a collective unconscious, or at least a tendency of minds to collect around focal points.
Snuggly the Security Bear! Like Buckles the FISA Cat!