Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Does ANYONE here STILL insist that the Attorney General ...

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU
 
bvar22 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-05-10 08:54 PM
Original message
Does ANYONE here STILL insist that the Attorney General ...
..operates COMPLETELY free from Presidential influence or supervision?

That particular fallacy appeared ad nauseum on DU when people were calling for the investigation of the Bush Administration for Torture and War Crimes.

It sounded like this:
"Oh NO. You can't hold Obama responsible for that! The Attorney General is completely independent from the President! You don't know how government works! If Obama stepped in, THAT would be just like Bush!"

Lather.
Rinse.
Repeat.
Over, and over, and over again.


So, does ANYONE now want to tell us about how "independent" the Justice Department is from the President?
Anyone want to tell us How Obama can't tell Holder what to do "because that would be just like Bush"?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x7850718

Anyone?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
rucky Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-05-10 08:55 PM
Response to Original message
1. I'm not sure if he's operating at all.
:shrug:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
tekisui Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-05-10 09:00 PM
Response to Reply #1
3. Zing!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FrenchieCat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-05-10 08:57 PM
Response to Original message
2. Why? Was there an announcement from either Holder or Pres. Obama?
Edited on Fri Mar-05-10 08:58 PM by FrenchieCat
If so, I hadn't heard....just heard of some rumbles from advisors of sorts.

You sound like you have some definite news though! So what it is? :shrug:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Donnachaidh Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-05-10 09:00 PM
Response to Reply #2
4. try checking the LINK he posted
:eyes:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FrenchieCat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-05-10 09:25 PM
Response to Reply #4
13. I'm ignoring that thread's author.....
But I have not seen Obama or his DOJ announce anything.

Since I'm not a reactionary, waiting to pounce on anything
and everything negative just because I've got time on my hands,
I'll just wait. I don't think it will hurt me
to do so. Guess that's why patience is a virtue.....:shrug:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ProSense Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-05-10 09:04 PM
Response to Reply #2
7. Yes, WaPo is the official WH press office.
Whatever WaPo reports is a fact.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
WillyT Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-05-10 09:33 PM
Response to Reply #7
14. No... But Apparently, WaPo Is Rahm Emanuel's Official Press Office
:evilgrin:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ProSense Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-05-10 09:02 PM
Response to Original message
5. Despite the frenzy around the speculative MSM reports
The administration is still trying to make a determination, and their decision will likely be based on cooperation from specific venues:

But aides at the Department of Justice and in the administration concede privately that the options for a federal trial are growing increasingly limited. All potential venues have serious complications, especially in the form of fierce local opposition. The White House has explored hosting criminal prosecutions in Pennsylvania and Virginia, in addition to New York (the three states where the 9/11 attacks transpired). But in each of those cases, either local officials or congressional representatives have spoken out against bringing suspected terrorists onto their soil. Technically, state lawmakers don't have purview over such a decision. But with money and manpower needed to secure locations, the administration is concerned that it can't practically put together a trial without across-the-board cooperation.

And so, military tribunals -- which Attorney General Eric Holder has said for weeks remain on the table -- have come under serious consideration and seem likely to be the end result for the 9/11 trials.

link

The blogs have simply become an extension of the MSM.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bvar22 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-05-10 09:04 PM
Response to Reply #5
6. If the DoJ is "independent",
why are they making a "determination"?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ProSense Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-05-10 09:08 PM
Response to Reply #6
9. The Attorney General is a member of the cabinet
The President should not interfere with the Justice Department. He makes appoints, but he doesn't interfere with trials.



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bvar22 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-05-10 09:13 PM
Response to Reply #9
10. We shall see.
Looks like he is "interfering" with this one.
He is certainly overruling his own Justice Department.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ProSense Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-05-10 09:24 PM
Response to Reply #10
12. "We shall see."
You mean nothing has been decided yet?





Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bvar22 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-06-10 12:15 PM
Response to Reply #12
16. YES. Something HAS been decided.
What has been decided is that the POLICY to protect the Bush War Criminals, War Profiteers, and Torturers originates with The President in the White House,

and that those who continually INSIST that this is the sole province of the Attorney General operating completely independent from White House direction or influence are completely WRONG.

THAT is what has been "decided",
and THAT is what this thread is about.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
WillyT Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-05-10 09:19 PM
Response to Reply #9
11. He Shouldn't Interfere With The Attorney General Either...
<snip>

The Saturday Night Massacre was the term given by political commentators to U.S. President Richard Nixon's executive dismissal of independent special prosecutor Archibald Cox, and the resignations of Attorney General Elliot Richardson and Deputy Attorney General William Ruckelshaus on October 20, 1973 during the Watergate scandal.

Richardson appointed Cox in May of that year, after having given assurances to the Senate Judiciary Committee that he would appoint an independent counsel to investigate the events surrounding the Watergate break-in of June 17, 1972. Cox subsequently issued a subpoena to President Nixon, asking for copies of taped conversations recorded in the Oval Office and authorized by Nixon as evidence. The president initially refused to comply with the subpoena, but on October 19, 1973, he offered what was later known as the Stennis Compromise—asking U.S. Senator John C. Stennis to review and summarize the tapes for the special prosecutor's office.

Mindful that Stennis was famously hard-of-hearing, Cox refused the compromise that same evening, and it was believed that there would be a short rest in the legal maneuvering while government offices were closed for the weekend. However, President Nixon acted to dismiss Cox from his office the next night—a Saturday. He contacted Attorney General Richardson and ordered him to fire the special prosecutor. Richardson refused, and instead resigned in protest. Nixon then ordered Deputy Attorney General Ruckelshaus to fire Cox; he also refused and resigned in protest.

Nixon then contacted the Solicitor General, Robert Bork, and ordered him as acting head of the Justice Department to fire Cox. Richardson and Ruckelshaus had both personally assured the congressional committee overseeing the special prosecutor investigation that they would not interfere—Bork had made no such assurance to the committee. Bork also felt that the order was legal and appropriate. Thus, Bork complied with Nixon's order and fired Cox. Initially, the White House claimed to have fired Ruckelshaus, but as The Washington Post article written the next day pointed out, "The letter from the President to Bork also said Ruckelshaus resigned."

Congress was infuriated by the act, which was seen as a gross abuse of presidential power.
In the days that followed, numerous resolutions of impeachment against the president were introduced in Congress. Nixon defended his actions in a famous press conference on November 17, 1973, in which he stated,

"...In all of my years of public life, I have never obstructed justice. And I think, too, that I can say that in my years of public life that I've welcomed this kind of examination, because people have got to know whether or not their President's a crook. Well, I'm not a crook! I've earned everything I've got."


Nixon's presidency would later succumb to mounting pressure resulting from the Watergate scandal and its coverup. In the face of the, by then, certain threat of removal from office through impeachment and conviction, Nixon resigned on August 9, 1974.

The now expired Ethics in Government Act of 1978, also called the Independent Counsel Act, was a direct result of the "Saturday Night Massacre".

<snip>

Link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saturday_Night_Massacre

:shrug:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BeFree Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-05-10 09:07 PM
Response to Original message
8. odd, isn't it?
Edited on Fri Mar-05-10 09:29 PM by BeFree
Ya think there are more than a few DC insiders that don't want an open trial of 9/11?

If there was an open trial, all kinds of funny questions will be asked and answers given.

Nope, we best just stick to pushing the whole 9/11 thing under the rug where it belongs.

Discuss, here at this link, in the dungeon:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=125x282712
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Radical Activist Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-05-10 09:56 PM
Response to Original message
15. "likely" to be "advised" and "recommended" by unnamed someones
Edited on Fri Mar-05-10 09:57 PM by Radical Activist
That's what I see in your link. Sooo...whatever happened with that?

I don't know why people aren't becoming more savvy about that crap. I got tired of people crying wolf on Obama a long time ago. It started about a month before he took office. The cumulative effective is to increase cynicism and make it more difficult for Obama to pass a progressive agenda.

Of course, there are other ways to move forward that will look less political, and thus, have more legitimacy with the public. Don't you think Obama knows that?
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=7854105&mesg_id=7854105
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Fri Apr 19th 2024, 02:58 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC