Comments on: John Yoo v. Alice Fisher and Michael Chertoff

By: masaccio

masaccio — Thu, 05 Jun 2008 14:19:23 +0000

Let me add that Fisher and Chertoff can’t recall any discussion of specific techniques.
Here is just one example:

Fisher also stated that she did not recall discussing with the FBI specific techniques for use with detainees. Fisher said she vaguely remembered a meeting with then FBI General Counsel Kenneth Wainstein in which they discussed the FBI not being present at CIA interrogations, and she stated that the meeting would have related to interrogation tactics, but she said she did not recall any specific techniques being discussed.43

112/438

However, as William Ockham points out, Nahmias says something else.

By: phred

phred — Thu, 05 Jun 2008 12:58:20 +0000

I would think so, but then IANAL. As I understand it, DoJ is the only entity who can enforce a subpoena and if they refuse to do so, I think this brings us back to my tree falling in a forest quandary above, i.e., if a crime is committed without subsequent prosecution was it really a crime? I get the feeling that this administration equates ignoring laws and law enforcement as making something legal, which I don’t believe to be a correct interpretation.

In the hopes that Mary pops back in on this thread… I haven’t yet read the OLC opinion you linked to yesterday (plan to this weekend), but I have a couple of questions about the legal authority of OLC opinions in general. As I understand it, OLC legal interpretations have the force of law for the executive branch. So if OLC gets to decide what is and isn’t legal, has anyone ever been prosecuted for violating an OLC opinion? Secondly, if someone had reason to dispute an OLC opinion and wanted a court to rule on the validity of the OLC’s interpretation of the law, who would have standing to bring such a complaint before a judge?

In a nutshell, I’m trying to understand what checks and balances there are on the OLC to prevent it from being an entirely independent entity with its own set of laws outside the jurisdiction of the judicial branch?

By: darclay

darclay — Wed, 04 Jun 2008 21:59:14 +0000

Anyone who knows can answer…

By: darclay

darclay — Wed, 04 Jun 2008 21:49:23 +0000

So what about the DOJ,are they not also breaking the laws by not bringing contempt charges against Bushco when they ignore a subpoena?

By: Ishmael

Ishmael — Wed, 04 Jun 2008 21:42:22 +0000

I don’t think so – Nixon would almost certainly have been charged with offences but for the pardon from Ford, but I am unaware of any other criminal proceedings against former Presidents.

By: rkilowatt

rkilowatt — Wed, 04 Jun 2008 20:30:24 +0000

re parsing, etc

The “clever strokes” theme seems inherent in much criminality:
“… the whole atmosphere of every prison is an atmosphere of glorification of that sort of gambling in “clever strokes” which constitutes the very essence of theft, swindling and all sorts of similar anti-social deeds.” PKropotkin’s Memoirs, ca 1899

By: Leen

Leen — Wed, 04 Jun 2008 20:09:33 +0000

“suspension of criminal process”

Have other Presidents been held accountable for crimes after they are out of office? Or are they always given pardons?

By: phred

phred — Wed, 04 Jun 2008 20:08:07 +0000

Evidently in practice, if not in principle.

By: Leen

Leen — Wed, 04 Jun 2008 20:06:45 +0000

So the President operates outside of the law?

By: phred

phred — Wed, 04 Jun 2008 19:59:51 +0000

I think both the separation of powers argument and the principle of preventing prosecutors/jurors from having the power to overturn an election are both excellent reasons to defer prosecution. However, I am obviously of the opinion that if a valid criminal case can be made after leaving office, that it should be.

I also think it is important to use terms like legal and illegal when discussing Presidential conduct, if for no other reason than to prevent people from getting used to the notion of Presidential impunity, and ultimately unbridled monarchy.