|
disoriented man, in an ICU bed recovering from surgery. Lawyers are obliged to avoid taking signatures on official documents from people who are not competent. The added violation was that Ashcroft wasn't AG, at that point, as Ashcroft himself stated. It was an intended endrun around Comey--the DoJ's only competent and fully vested authority. The signature WOULD NOT HAVE BEEN legal--in those two regards: Ashcroft wasn't competent, and Ashcroft wasn't AG. So, Gonzales and Card conspired to commit an illegal act--quite aside from the illegality of the NSA spying program itself.
Comey said there was a "command center" in the room next to Ashcroft's ICU bed. I'm not sure what that means. Why would there be a "command center" there if Ashcroft had delegated his AG powers to Comey? Possibly for AFTER Ashcroft recovered from surgery and was competent again. But we don't know. Was it a secure facility--taking Ashcroft's ICU bed (apparently set up in a hallway) together with the "command center" in one of the adjoining rooms? Again, we don't know. I believe that Mrs. Ashcroft was in the room, when Gonzo and Card came in--right? That alone would compromise national security--if the spying program was discussed.
Comey doesn't mention a "national security" issue, as a concern of his. And, all in all, I would say that that is not the main issue. The main issue is that they were seeking a signature from someone who was incompetent, and also did not, at that time, possess the authority to sign-off on the program. It was an illegal solicitation, and a well-witnessed one.
A third illegality is that they continued the spying program WITHOUT DoJ's re-authorization for several weeks (while the DoJ negotiated bringing into compliance). Ashcroft, Comey and their aides, and FBI head Mueller, were all threatening to resign, and what appears to have been the issue was that the fascists in the White House were engaging in domestic spying without even the after-the-fact oversight by the FISA court (which the law allows). WHO they were spying on thus comes into play? And I noticed a phrase that Comey used, early in his testimony. He was describing the initial meeting between him and Ashcroft--that precipitated these events--at which they decided not to sign-off on the spying program. Comey said that they "were reviewing what they had learned." WHAT had they learned? "Learned" implies data, information, details--not legal theory, or legal niceties. And when you consider the very dramatic END of this sequence of events--the late-night effort to pressure the sick Ashcroft, and the incredible things that occurred (for instance, Comey calling in Mueller and the FBI to prevent Gonzo and Card from removing him from Ashcroft's side, and Comey refusing to meet with Andrew Card in the WH "without a witness")--you've got to figure that SOMETHING well beyond legal niceties was at issue.
WHO were they spying on--in March 2004, nine months before the so-called election? The Abu Ghraib torture photos were soon to come out (May 2004). And, a particular interest of mine, the Calif Sec of State Kevin Shelley was preparing the sue Diebold, decertify the worst of their election theft machines (the touchscreens) and demand to see their source code. (Shelley was then "swiftboated" out of office on entirely bogus corruption charges.) Were they spying on CBS, re: Bush's AWOL in the National Guard? Was domestic spying a political tool for maneuvering around, and controlling the newsstream, on potentially explosive issues? Did it enable Karl Rove to implement dirty tricks and black ops to blunt these issues? Were they spying on the DoJ re the Plamegate investigation, and on Comey and Ashcroft in their meeting about the spying program?
How is it possible that the American people, 56% of whom opposed the Iraq War from the beginning (Feb. '03), and 63% of whom opposed torture "under any circumstances" (May '04) voted for a regime that was both perpetrating an unjust war and torturing prisoners?
We now know that there was, in effect, a "palace revolt"--by Comey, Mueller and Ashcroft--in March 2004. Was it over a signature, or something more? Was it over WHAT the illegal spying program was being USED FOR? The spying program had been running for several years. Why would lawmen like Comey and Mueller suddenly balk at it? And why were Gonzo, Card and the White House gang so bent on getting around them? What information was so important to this criminal gang that they couldn't let even a secret FISA court judge see it?
It seems to me that, in the broader picture of national security--that is, REAL national security--the maintenance of secrecy about this spying program (the issue raised by the OP) is antithetical to the interests of the American people. Secrecy is the problem here. So a Gonzo/Card violation of secrecy doesn't concern me so much--except as yet another cause of action on impeachment. Illegal spying should never HAVE HAD the cover of national security secrecy. And, to the extent that systems of national security protected it--and prevented we, the American people, who were funding all of this, from finding out about it--our national security was compromised! The security of our votes. The security of our persons. The security of our political system. The security of our laws. The security of our Constitution, which specifically forbids unreasonable search and seizure--for the very good reason that this is a tyrant's tool.
|
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
