Cheney's Law on PBS

[radiclib]

Did anyone watch? I thought it was fantastic, and I pray that millions watched it. Nothing new to us on here, but pretty horrific when laid out all at once. It did introduce me to the full-bore assholism of David Addington. He's Bolton on steroids, fer Chrissake!
Between this and Moyers' interview with Jeremy Scahill, a great week at PBS. I might hafta break down and send them some $ next time.:applause:

[Blue_In_AK]

1. I agree, those two shows this week

were real eye-openers. It's too bad we're not seeing this kind of journalism on the networks, but at least it's getting out there.

[Tellurian]

7. What is missing is the mention of the involvement of SCJ Scalia, Thomas and Rehnquist

as key proponents and officers of the Federalist Society who worked side by side with Dick Cheney to bring the Federalist interpretation of the Constitution to fruition. And how they supported and advised Addington and Woo on deconstruction of the Constitution as we know it.. to favor the Federalist version.

This missing puzzle piece, may at some later point in time be argued: Have "they" in their zealotry overturned the Constitution they swore an oath to defend?

[Frustratedlady]

2. Darn, I wish I'd known that Cheney piece was on.

Every time I try to watch one of these specials, the phone rings and I miss the most of it. I saw enough of the Scahill interview to see he was hitting the nail on the head. I'll try to catch the reruns to both. Well worth the time.

[murielm99]

8. Do you have caller ID?

There are some things that come on that make me ignore the phone and tell my family to ignore the phone. Unless someone is dying, they can leave a message or call another time.

My problem used to be that when something I really wanted to see came on, my mother would drop in unexpectedly. At least now we can record things! (And my mother moved to Wisconsin, LOL).

[HereSince1628]

3. Here is a link that I'm about to try in order to see it on line.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/cheney/

[Frustratedlady]

10. Thank you kindly.

That is a very good piece, but I hope they will do more on all thing tricks they have pulled to get their way. I'm not ashamed to say I am fearful of their last year...if, and when it comes.

[MissWaverly]

4. yes, they are definitely putting the facts out there

the scariest part is the minute they are stymied then they just get authorization from someone else, congress says no, get it from the DOJ, the DOJ says no, get it from the President.

[Uncle Joe]

5. I like Front LIne, but I was a little disappointed,

they seemed to make the case that 9/11 changed everything regarding illegal wiretapping and didn't mention that the practice seems to have started shortly after Cheney/Bush came to power.

[Tellurian]

6. read here:

"For three decades Vice President Dick Cheney conducted a secretive, behind-closed-doors campaign to give the president virtually unlimited wartime power. Finally, in the aftermath of 9/11, the Justice Department and the White House made a number of controversial legal decisions. Orchestrated by Cheney and his lawyer David Addington, the department interpreted executive power in an expansive and extraordinary way, granting President George W. Bush the power to detain, interrogate, torture, wiretap and spy -- without congressional approval or judicial review." Read more

[Blue_In_AK]

9. This is what scares me the most

about Cheney. For THREE DECADES! Does someone (or group of someones) work behind the scenes for three decades to undermine the United States Constitution and effectively bring about a coup d'etat and then just walk away from it all? Shouldn't we be convinced now that he and his minions will do everything in their power to assure that we continue to go down this road? Is there any way we can preserve our American ideals when these dark and powerful forces are so aligned against us?

I'm very, very worried.

[Tellurian]

11. I believe there are many scenarios

that could play out in the end before the turnover.

Three decades is nothing when the Framers were faced with the exact same problem before the Constitution was signed.

The position we're in is really worthy of a best selling novel. This is an unprecedented time through unchartered waters. The set up evolves with 2 branches of government, the Judiciary and the Executive Branch against one, the Legislative Branch. That inofitself is mind boggling. In watching the pbs special both on tv and online, Woo has done his homework. He's done his due diligence. The only thing I have to say about him I'd be willing to challenge is he was looking at the Constitution from a Federalist perspective for no other reason than to break it. As the Constitution goes, the further back you research it the stronger it becomes. I would venture to say, Woo just ignored anything written that would stand in the way of breaking the Constitution and rolled over it anyway.

I believe there are many holes in Cheney's assumptions. He just chooses to ignore them. BUT..the SCOTUS is part of the malignancy metastasizing this situation.. And I'm sure a scenario has already been worked out if a court challenge were to arise by a team of Constitutional Scholars filing suit accusing Cheney of usurping the Constitution, Treason etc. If the SC finds in favor of the VP...then we've screwed ourselves. That is one avenue. The Second and simpler outcome is another election theft. If a theft fails, theres always the Third solution, Martial Law with all elections suspended indefinitely.

I have more scenarios. Too scary for me to even put down here.

[Blue_In_AK]

12. Tellurian, I know you're a Hillary fan

and you may know that I'm not, although I try not to be disrespectful about it. As her supporter, what assurance can you give me that if she is elected president she will take steps to reverse these negative trends of the last 30 years? Will she be willing to investigate and bring charges against Bush/Cheney for their lawless activities or will she just want to move on in the interests of "healing the nation"? Will she not want to criticize the Bush/Cheney presidency because of that unwritten rule that current presidents don't trash-talk former presidents? Will she be willing to be a less powerful president than Bush/Cheney has been in order to restore the balance of power among the three branches of government?

Please understand that these are honest questions and that I'm not trying to be snarky. This is something that has worried me about her potential presidency, and I'd really like to have my mind put at ease.

[Tellurian]

13. The only candidate I know of

that said they will not prosecute Bush/Cheney is Obama. I don't think Edwards has put out a statement regarding their High Crimes and Crimes Against Humanity or if he will or will not prosecute them. Apparently deals have been struck within the Obama Camp. I know of no such deal struck within the Clinton Camp.

I don't have a problem with you asking a valid question. As a rookie, Obama is being shaped by the people running his campaign. No one is shaping the Clinton's campaign but the Clintons themselves. Just ask yourself, who has been the most persecuted by the Right Wing Neocons during his "rookie" tenure? Who stood in the way of PNAC after being elected? Who has learned a chilling lesson, "you can never trust a Republican," after attempting to heal the bitterness of a nation divided?

I'm actually disgusted with Edwards. What was he thinking when he planned his run? You need a min of $100m to compete in a presidential race otherwise you don't get in. The way Edwards strategised his race is like hooking your dogs up to a sled for the Iditarod without having the money to feed them during the race. Ridiculous!

At any rate, it's still premature to discuss anything of real substance until we know who will be the nominee. My money and my support is with the Clintons. They have the knowledge and wherewithal to set things right and as far as I'm concerned, Hillary is the one, the only one... who can.

[Uncle Joe]

14. The point I was trying to make

is that, I seem to remember a thread floating around here that stated evidence is coming out that the illegal wiretapping actually began before 9/11 and that wasn't mentioned in the documentary.

I understand, Cheney has been pushing this for a long time now.

[Tellurian]

15. The actual proof may be sequestered in the 9/11 Commission's Investigation..

Last I heard, their findings were classified not to be made public. I haven't checked recently if the designation has changed. If it hasn't, I would think Frontline, rather than speculate, went with what they could document with hard evidence. Which is the only way to go. You need proof in hand when you make serious accusations against someone. Having irrefutable evidence handy backing your statements if challenged.

Of course, the Republicans do not adhere to the Rule of Law. They shoot first and answer questions later, if you're lucky enough to get that far with them.