Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

This post is too important not to share here in GD: "This scares the bejeepers out of me."

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
 
DeepModem Mom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-28-07 03:54 PM
Original message
This post is too important not to share here in GD: "This scares the bejeepers out of me."
The quote in the subject line is from a response in this thread: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.ph...

Olbermann, Professor Turley on "state secrets" and the law:

Constitutional law scholar Professor Jonathan Turley: "THEY DON'T WANT A COURT TO SAY THAT THE PRESIDENT DID SOMETHING THAT IS A FEDERAL CRIME....THE (STATE SECRETS) PRIVILEGE IS NOW A TOOL USED TO PROTECT THE GOVERNMENT FROM ITS OWN CRIMES."

Link to video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H5o-LVefOxE

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
nadinbrzezinski Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-28-07 03:55 PM
Response to Original message
1. You too caught that one
if a court says such, then impeachment will come back screaming onto the table, or reveal the amount of collusion
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
zabet Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-28-07 04:04 PM
Response to Reply #1
8. Yes indeed!
Collusion of the illusion
if Impeachment is not the
main course!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Solly Mack Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-28-07 03:56 PM
Response to Original message
2. K&R
True, true.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mmonk Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-28-07 03:56 PM
Response to Original message
3. Unfortunately yes.
So much is wrapped around using it as a shield from criminality.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
NoFederales Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-28-07 07:32 PM
Response to Reply #3
37. So, are citizens truly screwn? Are those of us who "get it" just going
to have to hunker down and "fit" in? I want a shield, too. for everyone--the old legal one, the one they used to teach us about in Civics, all that rule of law and constitutional stuff. Damn, I am soooooooooo tired.........

NoFederales
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mmonk Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-28-07 10:05 PM
Response to Reply #37
47. The problem is congress and the courts so far are going along with it.
Edited on Wed Nov-28-07 10:06 PM by mmonk
Everything is tied up in "state secrets".
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
femrap Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-28-07 11:49 PM
Response to Reply #37
53. I don't think they teach
Civics anymore.

I saw Naomi Wolf on 'Democracy Now' w/ Amy....WOW! We are a fascist state...similar to Germany around 1935. I see it...pretty soon it is going to be difficult to travel. And they'll be demanding names. It's his last year of power...I take that back...he might just stifle dissent between now and next fall.

I'm wrong, I hope.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
txaslftist Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Nov-29-07 02:09 PM
Response to Reply #53
93. What makes you think anything about this will change under "new" leadership?
The only candidates who take this constitution and civil liberties and domestic spying stuff seriously and make an issue out of it are "fringe" folk like Kucinich and Dodd. You don't hear Hillary running on this do you? Or Obama? Or Edwards? Hell no. They want to talk about anything but this.

It won't sting as much when we elect a Democratic president (at least not for us good liberals), but the jackboots aren't coming off this election cycle.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bdamomma Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Nov-29-07 02:33 PM
Response to Reply #53
95. you wonder if that wall they want to build around the borders
is too keep aliens out or keep Americans trapped in their own country. :scared:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LSparkle Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-28-07 04:00 PM
Response to Original message
4. Check out Randi's segment with Turley today ...
It was even scarier -- went into just why Turley is sure that the Dems won't lay a hand on Shrub in terms of impeachment. My stomach is in turmoil and my spirits are sagging ... He understands (and conveys) so well that this is all just a power game to both sides.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DeepModem Mom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-28-07 04:10 PM
Response to Reply #4
12. Thanks, LSparkle! nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
flyarm Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-28-07 10:58 PM
Response to Reply #4
51. i heard it as well and i tmade me sick to my stomach..he said not one dem as pres would go after
these guys..and he said a deal was made that no impeachment would take place..that is why they will give immunity to the telecoms..that the dems will not let it go to court and have a court say * broke the law on wiretapping ..and they did not want the new attorney general while in his hearings to answer the question about waterboarding..because if he had said water boarding was torture * would have broken the law in our constitution as well as the geneva ..and he would have been guilty of war crimes..and they would have had to start impeachment hearing..

how dare the dem having made a deal with the fucking devil..how dare they..i was so furious when i heard it ...fuck Pelosi AND Reid..how fucking dare them...that is all i can say..

i got a Official Presidenial Strategy Survey from the dems today..and i wrote all over it.."Impeach and don't you dare give immunity"..i wrote it huge and in magic marker..

i wrote not another dime if you don't impeach or if you give immunity..and i also wrote i won't vote because what would the point be??,.and i wrote i will change to independant..and would work to remove each and every dem that would vote for immun ity for the telecoms..

i was just furious after hearing Turley on Randi'd show..

Turley said it was well known in Washington about the deal the dems made to not impeach..and to give * a free ride...

i am still so angry.

fly
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
KoKo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Nov-29-07 08:50 AM
Response to Reply #51
65. What did the Dems get in return for the Deal? Did Turley say?
:shrug:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bbgrunt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Nov-29-07 09:35 AM
Response to Reply #65
71. that's what I'd like to know too.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Nordmadr Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Nov-29-07 10:25 AM
Response to Reply #71
79. They get the same power when they're in the drivers seat. N/T
Edited on Thu Nov-29-07 10:25 AM by olafvikingr
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
CoffeeCat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Nov-29-07 10:21 AM
Response to Reply #51
77. I just wanted to say I understand...
Thanks for sharing your thoughts and also for taking the time
to write your well-articulated points on the card. I imagine
the Dems are hearing and seeing comments like this. At least
they'll understand that we're paying attention.

I share your outrage, flyarm. There are times I feel so
betrayed and so lost in my own country. It's such a dark
cloud that hangs over everything, and with the Dems acting
as accomplices--you just wonder how this will end? Will
it ever end?

As a Democrat, I've been so upset about their role in all
of this. We expect that the Republicans will behave like
thugs--especially the neocons. However, it's a total
shock and an emotional betrayal when the Dems stand idly
by and watch our democracy destroyed and our Constitution
mocked.

I'm totally convinced that the reason we don't have voting
reform is because the Dems are in on the fix. They'll reap
the benefits of fraud if they shut up and continue to allow
our broken voting system to continue. I wouldn't be surprised
if certain DLC-oriented candidates will be propped up by
voter fraud in the primaries.

It's all so revolting. I just wanted to let you know
that you're not alone in your outrage and anger. Kudos
to you for writing your comments. One step at a time, right?

:hug:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Andrea Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Nov-29-07 11:15 AM
Response to Reply #77
85. I share your feelings and concerns
I feel like I have to be hypervigilant so that I don't miss the point at which I must leave the country. I don't want to leave. I'm a proud American and I love my local community, but I'm sure many Germans in the 1930s felt that way, too. Some got out in time, some didn't. I don't want to find that I have waited too long and can't get out. But, if things can be set right somehow, I don't want to leave at all.

:grouphug:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Richard Steele Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-28-07 04:00 PM
Response to Original message
5. K&R
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BrklynLiberal Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-28-07 04:02 PM
Response to Original message
6. Now HE would be a great nomination for Attorney General...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
gateley Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-28-07 04:11 PM
Response to Reply #6
13. Wow - EXCELLENT suggestion! nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
gateley Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-28-07 04:03 PM
Response to Original message
7. K&R! nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Ytzak Donating Member (287 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-28-07 04:06 PM
Response to Reply #7
10. He would make a good Supreme Court Nomination.
We need judges who will support the Constitution not one side or the other.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
gateley Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-28-07 04:12 PM
Response to Reply #10
14. Another EXCELLENT suggestion! Can you imagine? "A Sacred Duty". What a good man! nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
EV_Ares Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Nov-29-07 07:47 AM
Response to Reply #10
62. Yes, he would be a great choice and this is why we need a democratic
nominee for president who will approve these kind of choices. We do not want one who is going to go along with the old DC crowd and the corporate crowd but one who is going to work for the people.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sicksicksick_N_tired Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-28-07 04:04 PM
Response to Original message
9. "They" are corporate dictators. Democracy has met its demise in the USA.
The only way to pump life back into democracy is for the American people to take a stand for democracy.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bdamomma Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Nov-29-07 02:42 PM
Response to Reply #9
97. that will be the only way, we bitch about the tools that have
been given to the Congress, what about the tools that were given to us? foreign and domestic enemies??? end the government? feed the tree of liberty with the blood of tyrants and patriots???? oh, never mind.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
madokie Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-28-07 04:06 PM
Response to Original message
11. I caught that last night
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
lonestarnot Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-28-07 04:12 PM
Response to Original message
15. Was that on today? They have been talking about it, because I think I heard this yesterday also.
I haven't seen today's show yet.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DeepModem Mom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-28-07 04:14 PM
Response to Reply #15
16. It was on last night (Tuesday). nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
CherokeeDem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-28-07 04:19 PM
Response to Original message
17. Scared Silly About All of This
I saw the segment last night as well and I had the same reaction. I wish I had heard Randi's interview with him but then I would probably be under the bed shaking. I think he is correct that this is only a game to both sides and who loses...the Constitution and the American people. I am almost past hope.

Turley as AG or on the Court is an excellent idea. Brains, class, and a love of the Constitution...what a combination.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
puebloknot Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-28-07 06:49 PM
Response to Reply #17
33. But in whose administration would he ever be able to function...
...honestly and lawfully.

Kucinich would put him in nomination. Who else would?

Welcome to DU.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
orleans Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Nov-29-07 02:59 AM
Response to Reply #17
56. to to this website
http://www.whiterosesociety.org /

click on randi rhodes

http://www.whiterosesociety.org/Rhodes.html

scroll down and download the show from wednesday
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
IndyDurham Donating Member (41 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Nov-29-07 03:05 PM
Response to Reply #56
99. Thanks!.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
seemslikeadream Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-28-07 04:23 PM
Response to Original message
18. THAT IS A FEDERAL CRIME....
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
lonestarnot Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-28-07 04:30 PM
Response to Reply #18
21. I love that pic!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sce56 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-28-07 09:48 PM
Response to Reply #18
45. I wish that picture as a prophetic vision! And these too!



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BrklynLiberal Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Nov-29-07 07:28 AM
Response to Reply #45
59. cool. So realistic. I would like to think they are prescient.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
aquart Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Nov-29-07 02:47 PM
Response to Reply #45
98. The cuffs look so natural on him.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BrklynLiberal Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Nov-29-07 07:27 AM
Response to Reply #18
58. What a great image!!!! hahahahahaha. Here is one I can hardly wait to see..
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
HughMoran Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-28-07 04:26 PM
Response to Original message
19. I saw that - was quite the eye-opener
I wonder why having a lawyer state unequivically that the President broke the law is not bigger news?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Andrea Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Nov-29-07 10:18 AM
Response to Reply #19
75. Well, honestly
Edited on Thu Nov-29-07 11:17 AM by Andrea
There are lawyers who will say anything. Now, considering it was Jonathan Turley, yes it should be big news. But, he has been saying it clearly for years and it seems only KO hears him.

Edited to add: I LOVE your username!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Blue_In_AK Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-28-07 04:29 PM
Response to Original message
20. That was an excellent discussion
and scared the bejeepers out of me, too.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bvar22 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-28-07 05:11 PM
Response to Original message
22. 1) Bush repeatedly and knowingly broke the LAW.
2)Everybody KNOWS it.

3)The Democratic Party Leadership willfully chooses to ignore it.

Yes. I'm scared too.


"There are forces within the Democratic Party who want us to sound like kinder, gentler Republicans. I want us to compete for that great mass of voters that want a party that will stand up for working Americans, family farmers, and people who haven't felt the benefits of the economic upturn."---Paul Wellstone
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bagrman Donating Member (889 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-28-07 08:57 PM
Response to Reply #22
40. Thats a beautiful quote. (V)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
blm Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-28-07 05:26 PM
Response to Original message
23. THIS is what we get when Dem presidents protect secrecy and privilege, too.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
southerncrone Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-28-07 06:37 PM
Response to Reply #23
28. He didn't mention Mena, did he? The REAL reason.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Andrea Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Nov-29-07 10:16 AM
Response to Reply #28
74. What is Mena?
Sorry to sound stupid, but I haven't heard this. Thanks.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
blm Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Nov-29-07 06:57 PM
Response to Reply #74
106. Mena, Ark. airport was used as a hub by Poppy Bush's IranContra operatives' drugruns
The RW nuts tried to claim this a Bill Clinton's drugrunning operation when it was actually part of Poppy Bush's IranContra operations.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Andrea Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Nov-29-07 10:43 PM
Response to Reply #106
109. Thanks
I have heard about that, but didn't know the name.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
blm Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Nov-30-07 09:49 AM
Response to Reply #109
110. It's a shame the RW succeeded in attaching Clinton's name to this when Poppy Bush
is the one who deserved and STILL DESERVES the scrutiny.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Andrea Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Nov-29-07 11:29 AM
Response to Reply #23
86. Great article!
It is a very clear enunciation of the dangerous results when we veer from truth-seeking and transparency, regardless of what the motivations may be.

It points out another very important reason that impeachment or no, we need complete public investigations and exposure of all this administration has done: we need to make sure that there is no chance for younger generations of the Bush cabal to gain power.

A rigorous War Crimes Tribunal will be very helpful in this regard.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
blm Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Nov-29-07 11:56 AM
Response to Reply #86
88. I have long believed it's one of the most important articles generated post9-11.
Thank you for reading it. Parry allows that article to be posted in full if you wish to pass it on to other sites you visit.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Elspeth Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-28-07 05:28 PM
Response to Original message
24. Britain's official secrets act comes to America
And who says we start everything?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Imagevision Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-28-07 05:46 PM
Response to Original message
25. Where the hell is Pelosi and the Dem gang when you really need them...???
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
lonestarnot Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-28-07 06:25 PM
Response to Reply #25
26. In the thick of it prollee.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Disturbed Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-28-07 06:34 PM
Response to Reply #26
27. "American people to take a stand for democracy."
I believe that the majority of American citizens only view "democracy" as voting. Anything else is above their heads & they don't care to know about it. Most are willing to allow the Govt. to do whatever if that insures Security.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
lonestarnot Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Nov-29-07 08:06 AM
Response to Reply #27
63. I wish I could go through life w/o knowing. It would be much easier.
Something to that ignorance is bliss statement.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Andrea Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Nov-29-07 10:20 AM
Response to Reply #27
76. Sadly, I think you are exactly right. n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
puebloknot Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-28-07 06:51 PM
Response to Reply #25
34. Right where they always were. We've been had! nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ooglymoogly Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-28-07 08:32 PM
Response to Reply #25
39. Having cocktails and yukking it up with the pugs on how to divvy up the pie.
Edited on Wed Nov-28-07 08:33 PM by ooglymoogly
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Rockholm Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Nov-29-07 03:53 PM
Response to Reply #25
102. Who is Pelosi?
I thought I heard her name sometime last November, but not really clear just who she really is. Anyone help me out with this?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
barbtries Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-28-07 06:42 PM
Response to Original message
29. they've been changing laws,
writing laws, making up laws, to hide the fact that they are BREAKING laws right and left. i think priority number one for the fucking gw admin at this point is making sure they don't all end up in prison, which of course is exactly where they ought to be. already.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
malaise Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-28-07 06:44 PM
Response to Original message
30. That was an excellent discussion last night
Glad to see it again
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
robinlynne Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-28-07 06:45 PM
Response to Original message
31. And he then continues to say because if they did, they will have to impeach and the Dems and republi
don't want that...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
katty Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-28-07 06:45 PM
Response to Original message
32. it certainly is-that has been Darth's&Co's mission for 30 years
mission accomplished-The United States of Saudi Arabia
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
leveymg Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-28-07 09:53 PM
Response to Reply #32
46. Or, the Kingdom of America
Take your pick.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
blm Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Nov-30-07 10:42 AM
Response to Reply #32
111. You hit that nail on the head - United States of Dubai may be more in order -
Saudi Arabia still needs to pretend they aren't full partners with US or all hell would break loose there.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
balantz Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-28-07 06:58 PM
Response to Original message
35. This is what we have all been fearing of late.
Especially when we watch dumbfounded as the Democratic Congress just sits silently and turns into a body Republican.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
balantz Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-28-07 07:03 PM
Response to Original message
36. So now what happens?
We may as well expect nothing but compliance with the nazi regime from here on out. We are left alone with our shredded peice of paper. None but a few true-blue heroes will stand against them because their hands have always been clean. They won't pull together to save us and the whole coup becomes thoroughly locked in.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
balantz Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-28-07 07:34 PM
Response to Reply #36
38. Perhaps I'm carrying this too far.
If so, will somebody please paint me a clear picture on what this all boils down to?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sistagoldilocks42 Donating Member (38 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-28-07 09:01 PM
Response to Reply #38
41. CHARGE ALL OF THE HOUSE AND SENATE UNDER THE RICO ACT
My fellow DU I am not naive. I grew up under this mess in a country south of the USA. America was a constitutional republic and never a democracy. Subsequent traitors in the congress, state houses and city councils have betrayed us.

The world knows what is happening but, we have to raise our voices in unison. Shut the government down. Scream!!!Holler!!!Swear!!! BUT Stock up on food and water , candles lamps etc, charcoal....Shut the criminal enterprise down.

The supreme court needs to be purged along with the rest of this criminal government. The chicken little coo-coo tutu dems will grease their palms and screw us some more into a downward spiral of poverty and ruin.

Here in Jamaica we have two opposition parties who are both corrupt, with NO leader. Leaders are hard to find because, of the climate of fear these spawn of Lucifer have us surviving in.

Leave the keyboards...take to the streets and sustain it....OR

WAIT A MINUTE!!!.....America is now Burma. The only difference is that the monks felt their balls and used them regardless of the consequences.

Hour of Decision....Bring out the cranes to the Washington Mall and seize our country from these treasonous criminals....

Love and "Light"

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
cartach Donating Member (361 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Nov-29-07 12:56 AM
Response to Reply #41
54. Leave the keyboards....take to the streets -
AMEN !
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bdamomma Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Nov-29-07 02:36 PM
Response to Reply #54
96. we need them to be afraid of us.
we need to keep pushing them, and not wave that white flag.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bagrman Donating Member (889 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-28-07 09:02 PM
Response to Original message
42. Now what do we do? Simple. Vote in the establishments worst nightmare.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
balantz Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-28-07 09:08 PM
Response to Reply #42
43. You got that right. I think I'll do a little praying as well.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Hotler Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-28-07 09:32 PM
Response to Original message
44. Thanks mom! eom.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
NoGodsNoMasters Donating Member (257 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-28-07 10:45 PM
Response to Original message
48. Great Post!
BTW: Did you guys hear about the area 51 one case he took up that he made a brief reference to? Non-military workers at area 51 started getting deathly ill, developing all sorts of horrible symptoms, apparantly they have toxic waste there and some stuff is burned out in the desert, where the wind just blows it around, the workers sued to find out what they were exposed to, or get some compensation, and were denied under the same "national security" defense. The govt. even tried to claim area 51 didn't exist, even though it's visible from the road and has been photographed numerous times.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
flyarm Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-28-07 10:48 PM
Response to Original message
49. Turley went into details today with Randi Rhodes..it is a must listen to!! eom
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
neuvocat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-28-07 10:50 PM
Response to Original message
50. They've been doing that since Reynolds v. U.S.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Baby Snooks Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-28-07 11:18 PM
Response to Original message
52. The problem...
We now have a king. The king cannot commit treason. Treason is committed against the king. By pointing out that the king has committed treason.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DeepModem Mom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Nov-29-07 07:42 AM
Response to Reply #52
61. Wow. A stunningly simple way of looking at all this. nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SusanLarson Donating Member (43 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Nov-29-07 01:15 AM
Response to Original message
55. Legality
It's always been used that way. I really think that judges should be required to assess that when they consider if state secret applies. Was the action covered by the claim of states secret, in violation of the laws or the Constitution of the United States. If so then the states secret privilege must never apply.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DeepModem Mom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Nov-29-07 07:40 AM
Response to Reply #55
60. Yes. Thanks for the post, SusanLarson -- and welcome to DU!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Olney Blue Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Nov-29-07 07:21 AM
Response to Original message
57. K/R
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Buzz Clik Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Nov-29-07 08:23 AM
Response to Original message
64. It goes deeper than that. Much deeper.
Impeaching Bush is literally impossible right now because of the legal framework that they created INTERNALLY! The mechanism for defining the law to their liking was set up ages ago, and it is being abused to the max. We like to blame the House leadership for this, but reality is reality, and Bush has covered his ass completely. He is truly bulletproof:
  • Invoking executive privilege, even for people like Harriet Miers who no longer work there.
  • Classifying documents and refusing to release them.
  • Signing statements.
  • The Office of Legal Counsel.

Those people who have been blaming Pelosi and Conyers for inactivity owe them a huge apology.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
balantz Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Nov-29-07 09:15 AM
Response to Reply #64
67. I'm not apologizing until I see that they have fought this
tooth and nail. I want to see them give no quarter and examine and pursue every detail. I'm sorry, but it doesn't seem obvious to me that they have put their armor on. With what is at stake no stone can be left unturned. Are you saying their hands are completely tied?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Buzz Clik Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Nov-29-07 09:18 AM
Response to Reply #67
69. I never implied that their hands are tied.
However, the House leadership is in no position to pursue impeachment with any hope of success. If you'd like to sacrifice the 2008 elections for such an endeavor, have at it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
balantz Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Nov-29-07 09:33 AM
Response to Reply #69
70. I see
So it's damned if you do or don't.

With all of this control it's easy to fear there may be no elections.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Buzz Clik Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Nov-29-07 09:38 AM
Response to Reply #70
72. Um, okay.
It's great to see you focus in on my point.

But why do you care if there are elections or not? You're convinced that the Democrats are working in concert with the Republicans, so what the hell is the point?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
balantz Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Nov-29-07 09:43 AM
Response to Reply #72
73. I'm not convinced that they are working with the Republicans,
Edited on Thu Nov-29-07 09:53 AM by balantz
I have a hard time understanding whether they are or not. I can see that perhaps they aren't. I don't think I'm alone in this confusion.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
KoKo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Nov-29-07 09:03 AM
Response to Original message
66. Thanks for posting the Olberman "You Tube' link....it's a must watch for those
of us who missed his show.

I wonder what we do...with this 'Deal' that's been made. I don't trust Specter and Kennedy's Bill to be anything but lip service to those who know that Bush/Cheney have committed crimes...because of this deal.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Andrea Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Nov-29-07 10:37 AM
Response to Reply #66
80. In this entire thread, you are the only one
Who mentioned the subject that started Keith's discussion with Turley - The Specter-Kennedy Bill. I don't trust it, but I do have hope for it.

I do want to know more about this deal. However, I don't see how any deal can protect them from international prosecution for war crimes.

I agree with all those who suggested that Jonathan Turley would be a great AG or Supreme Court Justice. Perhaps he could be AG until the next opening on the court and then be nominated for the court. I don't see how anyone could oppose him. He is loyal to the rule of law and the constitution and that is exactly what we need.

Another good candidate for the court, although a Republican, is Bruce Fein. He too holds the constitution above any person or party.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
fishwax Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Nov-29-07 09:18 AM
Response to Original message
68. kick
:kick:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
cascadiance Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Nov-29-07 10:24 AM
Response to Original message
78. Here's my own transcription of Ann Beeson's discussion of the privilege before 2005 SCOTUS preview..
Edited on Thu Nov-29-07 10:26 AM by calipendence
She describes in a lot more detail of her and the ACLU lawyers experiences in trying to deal with the State Secret's privilege in Sibel Edmonds appeal to the Supreme Court, which subsequently wasn't heard by them.

It says some good things about how this privilege is not used in criminal cases, since CIPA is used instead to govern how secure information is protected in those cases. All the more reason to pressure congress in to doing impeachment and get indictments on some of these other individuals, so that it can't be used as a shield when others have to resort to civil litigation to try and bring these criminals to justice. Also brought up is the Totten Doctrine, which I think we should all seek to understand so that we can lobby more effectively to those in decision capacity that don't understand it to make it clear how the State Secrets Privilege is being misapplied as if it were this doctrine.

I can't find the video clip or transcript online anyplace, but CSPAN in its 2005 Supreme Court Preview had ACLU's Ann Beeson and Sibel Edmonds speak on the State Secrets Privilege in that case, and Ann Beeson's comments were particularly relevant. Here's a transcript I just did of what Beeson said about that case and how State Secrets Privilege was applied (or misapplied):

Aired on CSPAN on as the Supreme Court Case Review session on September 26, 2005:

Ann Beeson:
Good morning, I'm Ann Beeson, the Associate Legal Director of the National ACLU, and I'm here this morning to talk a little bit about a case that we'd filed a (?) petition in, Sibel Edmonds vs. the Department of Justice.

Sibel Edmonds joined the FBI as a translator shortly after 9/11, and worked on translations in counter terrorism and intelligence cases including investigations directly related to the 9/11 attacks. After being there for several months, Sibel discovered serious security breaches and potential espionage within the translation unit and began to report those problems up the chain of command within the FBI. Instead of thanking her for making the bureau aware of these problems, the FBI fired Ms. Edmonds. And this case began as a straight forward, well shortly after that Sibel filed a lawsuit, a straight forward employment retaliation case. And the case began that way, as a simple employment retaliation case.

Over the past few years however, it has become a pivotal test of executive power in the post 9/11 world. And in particular the case is indicative of two disturbing trends. The first is the administrations excessive user of secrecy in national security cases, and the second is the judiciary's reluctance to trump the executive in national security cases. These issues as many of you know of course have popped up in many of the national security cases in the last few years. In this case I think they're quite extreme.

The particular tool that the administration has used in Sibel's case is a rarely invoked privilege called the "State Secrets Privilege". This is an absolute privilege that was intended to protect particular evidence from disclosure in discovery, and after one files a lawsuit, one goes in to the discovery phase. If the plaintiffs demand a particular piece of evidence which is a "state secret", the justice department can come in, the Attorney General himself, and invoke the state secrets privilege to deny the plaintiffs access to discovery.

Unfortunately in this case, uh, and let me just say that a typical use of the state secrets privilege would be to protect a military secret like you know the placement of a particular ship during battle, or something like the identity of a covert CIA agent. In this case, what the Attorney General did after Sibel filed her lawsuit was to come in at the very beginning of the case and file a motion to dismiss, which of course is not so unusual, in and of itself. But their theory for dismissing the whole case at the outset was that nothing in the case could be litigated at all because of the state secret privilege, and that instead the case had to be dismissed.

This is a very broad and radical use of the privilege. They had a bit of a problem unfortunately when they did this and invoked the privilege because two years before, they had, Sibel's case had got the attention of high level members of congress, including senators Grassley and Leahy, who had demanded answers from the FBI. And the FBI had provided two different unclassified briefings to these members of congress, and had discussed in great details Sibel's case. They had also confirmed several of her allegations, particularly about the potential espionage.

Now the fact that they had provided this unclassified evidence to congress undercut of course their state secrets argument, that nothing in this case could be discussed because it was all state secret. And so they took the radical additional step. I mean it was enough that John Ashcroft himself came in and invoked the state secrets privilege, but they then went and retroactively classified the information that they had provided the congress in unclassified form. And they did this specifically to support their state secrets privilege invocation in the lawsuit and they really were quite direct about this, although they didn't bother to tell the court. Unfortunately the district court bought their sort of broad argument, and did dismiss the case on the assertion that the nature of Sibel Edmonds' job as a translator and the events surrounding her termination were all state secrets and therefore her case couldn't go forward at all.

Shortly after the ruling, the Department of Justice, in a separate case, actually conceded that the information that they had provided to congress, which was widely available on the internet by the way, and had been for months, was not in fact classified. In the meantime, as the case was going forward, the Inspector General of the Justice Department had been investigating Sibel's claims.

There were rumors that the IG had completed his report, but unfortunately, the department that was in charge of providing an unclassified summary, or version of the report, was the Justice Department itself, the same department that was being sued in Sibel's case! Well, perhaps unsurprisingly, the Justice Department did not bother to release any unclassified version of the Inspector General's report, until a couple of days after we filed an appellate briefing in DC Circuit for Sibel's case.

Now once that report came out, it provided very strong confirmation of the strength of Sibel's claims in the lawsuit. In fact, the Inspector General of the Justice Department had concluded that many of Ms. Edmonds allegations were supported, that the FBI did not take them seriously enough, and that her allegations were in fact, and I'm quoting, "the most significant factor in the FBI's decision to terminate her services."

Well at that point, we assumed that we had an even stronger case. Not only did the case law not support their broad invocation of the state secrets privilege at the outset of the litigation, but now we had a lot of new evidence that could be used to support her First Amendment claim in the retaliation case. We had all the information in the Inspector General's report, which was now public, and we had the information that had been retroactively classified that was provided to Congress, and then later admitted by the Justice Department to be not classified again.

Unfortunately, it did not go so well before the DC Circuit. We had sort of a bad omen, when the day before the argument here in DC, I got a call from Clerk of the DC Circuit, who informed me... Literally this was about 2:00 in the afternoon, on I think it was a Tuesday, and the argument was on a Wednesday, that the Circuit had decided to close the courtroom and to exclude the press and the public. We were quite surprised by this, because the Justice Department itself had written a letter to the court saying that they were willing to argue the case in open court.

The DC Circuit panel did not issue any findings to support the need for secrecy, the need for closure of the courtroom, which is quite remarkable. And within the space of a few hours, every single major media outlet in the country, including CNN, the Washington Post, The New York Times, and many, many others, had filed a motion to intervene to open the courtroom. The next morning, when the panel began its deliberations, they simply issued a one line order, rejecting the media's request to have the courtroom open, and the request of course, by the parties, by Ms. Edmonds herself, and the courtroom was closed. A few weeks later, the DC Circuit affirmed the dismissal of Ms. Edmonds' case, without any opinion, simply citing the rationale of the District Court.

Ironically, at the same time that Sibel's case was winding its way through the courts, new information was made public about the government's motivation, the Justice Department's motivation. Fifty years ago in another case that basically set the standard for the invocation of the State Secrets Privilege. This was the case of the Supreme Court decided called "Reynolds vs. the United States". It is not considered the State Secrets Privilege since that time fifty years ago. And what happened just in the last couple of years. is that some of the underlying documents at issue... That case involved a military crash, and many of the family members of the victims of the crash suing the government over negligence.

The government in that case refused to produce that accident report, claiming that the accident report contained important military secrets about the operation of this military plane, and the court upheld the privilege. Now importantly in that case, they didn't dismiss the case. They upheld the invocation of the privilege and they sent the case back down and said try to win your claim, plaintiffs, without using this particular piece of evidence. So Reynolds involved an invocation and an application of the privilege that was much narrower than in Sibel Edmonds' case.

But the irony is that this new information that has come to light about the Reynolds case shows in fact that the real motivation of the government in invoking the privilege in that first big case fifty years ago, was its own negligence. It turns out that there was no information whatsoever in the accident report that even talked about any of the classified military systems on the plane. The only information that was in the accident report, was that in fact the government had been highly negligent, the military had been highly negligent in attending to many, many problems with the operation of this plane, and so they were basically trying to cover up their own negligence and not allow the plaintiff to go forward with the case.

We strongly believe that Sibel Edmonds' case is an example of the same phenomena, and that is invoking the State Secrets privilege not to protect national security, but to cover up its own wrongdoing and its own negligence. The difference of course in some ways, is twofold. One is, as I said before, in Sibel's case they invoked the privilege to dismiss the whole case at the outset, and not just to deny us access to particular pieces of evidence. And secondly, there is a great deal of information about Sibel Edmonds' allegations that is now in the public domain and that is available for her to prove her case, and yet the government will just not let us go forward.

Given all of the current information, and especially given the Inspector General's strong confirmation of her retaliation claim, we think there is no justification whatsoever for continuing this fiction of State Secrets, and denying Sibel her day in court. We think the case does have broad implications beyond this particular case, and we have asked the court to accept review because of a sort of widespread confusion over the last fifty years about the scope of the State Secrets privilege.

One of the specific problems, to get a little legalistic for a minute, is that lower courts have often confused the State Secrets privilege with another related doctrine, which is known as the "Totten Doctrine". This is a doctrine which allows for the dismissal of cases at the outset, without even having to invoke the State Secrets Privilege, when the case involves a central fact that cannot be confirmed or denied at all. Now this doctrine was the one that the court considered last term in Tenet vs. Doe, and the court in fact indicta (?) essentially discussed the difference between the State Secrets Privilege and the Totten Doctrine, by saying the Totten Doctrine says there are some unacknowledged covert agents out there, CIA agents, that can never bring any claim against the government, because to engage in any litigation with those agents would be to confirm or deny their existence.

The court distinguished those kind of cases from other cases, even cases involving CIA agents, covert agents, like Webster vs. Doe,, many of you will remember, in which an agent is bringing, for example, a straight forward employment retaliation claim, which can go forward even if there are some secrets involved. There is a way that courts can engage in litigation simply by having the government invoke the State Secrets privilege over narrow pieces of evidence but not by preventing the plaintiff from having any opportunity to go forward in court and try to win her claim.

There are some other cases, as Steve mentioned before, where the government has greatly increased its use of the privilege over the last few years. There are two other cases winding their way through the courts in which the government has invoked the State Secrets privilege at the outset as they have done in this case. One of them is the case of Maher Arar, who is the Canadian who was rendered by the United States illegally to Syria and then tortured. The government has said that his claim that he was unlawfully tortured cannot go forward because the case involves State Secrets privilege.

There's also another case in which the Fourth Circuit recently upheld the broad invocation of the privilege. It is a race discrimination case brought by a man named Sterling, who is a covert CIA agent, but again an acknowledged, not an unacknowledged agent. We are very concerned that if the broad use of the privilege is affirmed by the Supreme Court, or if the lower lower court rulings are left standing, that the government will have every incentive to use the State Secrets privilege in any case that they don't want to litigate, because of embarrassment or wrongdoing, and in which employees are working in secretive or classified environments.

Obviously they have learned that secrecy is an extremely powerful tool for covering up their own wrongdoing and negligence, and we are certainly hoping that the court will step in in this case, and set some reasonable and meaningful limits on the misuse of the privilege.

I want to introduce Sibel Edmonds now, and I would just say I know there's been a lot of talk of course about the characteristics that a new justice on the Supreme Court should have, and I have to say that my own belief is that it is very important that we have justices who understand the impact of their rulings on real lives and real people's lives. I think often we tend to have a very high level abstract concept of the work of the Supreme Court and that they need to understand that this is not just legal theory. It affects people's lives and I think you'll understand why I think that's so important when you hear from my client, Sibel Edmonds. Thanks.

...


(Sibel Edmonds speech. I'm not transcribing that mostly due to time constraints and also that it isn't as relevant to the topic here, but more specifically to her history, etc.)

In the Q/A there was also some very important question and answer that highlights that State Secrets privilege is primarily used only for civil cases and not criminal cases. Ms. Beeson explains it here.



Questioner:
Ms. Beeson, what's different about the State Secrets all or nothing approach that the government's using here, as opposed to the "Classified Information Procedures" Act where you can sort of negotiate with the government and you know you give a little, they get a little, or they hold something back and the judge sanctions them. Is that not available in State Secrets cases?

Ann Beeson:
Well it's an interesting question. I have kind of a somewhat crackpot theory that in fact the State Secrets Privilege should have become defunct when the procedures for classified evidence, classified information were established. In other words, this is a very old privilege, dating back to common law, the common law in Britain. It was often invoked when there was no other way the government could protect the information because they didn't have early on these sort of classified procedures. Now that particular act, CIPA, as it's called, only applies in criminal cases. That's part of the problem. And so there really aren't procedures in civil cases.

The government also takes the position quite strongly that something can be a state secret even if it's not classified. (questioner shown in audience cutaway is shown grinning very sheepishly at this statement.) And that is very much true in this case. In other words, much of the information is very clearly not classified in this case. For example, the nature of Sibel Edmonds's job. And this is where, you know, we keep pulling our hair out because they keep acting as if, and they manage to convince at least two courts now, that the nature of the job of an FBI translator is a state secret. Well that's absurd! I mean any of you can go online right now. Go to the FBI's own web site and read all about exactly what translators do! Right?

Of course its true that some of her job duties involve classified information, but those duties have almost nothing to do with her allegations here. In other words, we don't have to discuss anything having to do with the wiretaps that she was translating, which are classified, in order to prove that the FBI fired her because she reported security breaches. Right? So its an even more dangerous doctrine, I think, because they can invoke it whenever they want. All they have to do is come in, file a declaration and say, "We have designated this information to be a State Secret.", and a lot of courts, just as has happened here, will just defer to the executive claim, and not even look underneath it, to see if it passes the laugh test...

Another Questioner:
It's almost a procedural question, but I haven't seen your petition. Since the Appeals Court hearing was closed, are you even able to present, are you even able to articulate what it is your challenging?

Ann Beeson:
Well, the irony of course is that the thing that was so bizarre that they closed portion of the court hearing that we as Sibel's lawyers participated in, is that I have no access to any classified information whatsoever. I mean I don't have security clearance. I didn't need to have security clearance to represent Ms. Edmonds, because again, none of the issues that are relevant to her case involve classified information. Since I have no access to that information, there was no way I could slip up and disclose anything in open court. It has not prevented me from making arguments on her behalf in that sense.

Obviously the big problem here is that John Ashcroft filed two versions of the declaration in District Court. One was a public version that said essentially nothing. It said "I invoke the State Secrets Privilege. This case can't go forward.". He also filed a classified version of the declaration, and clearly, and it's very long, we do know that its fifty something pages just based on the citations. We have no idea what's in that declaration obviously. And if we did we would be in a much better position to argue on her behalf, so...

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Andrea Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Nov-29-07 11:11 AM
Response to Reply #78
84. Fantastic post
Thanks for this, and especially for taking the time to do that transcription. I now have a much clearer, easy to articulate understanding of the Sibel Edmonds case.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DeepModem Mom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Nov-29-07 12:39 PM
Response to Reply #78
90. THANK YOU, calipendence! nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
lukery Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Nov-29-07 05:38 PM
Response to Reply #78
103. thnx C/P
great work.

I'll have a mashup of sibel's story interspersed with Olberman and Turley up on youtube (probably) tomorrow
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
leftist_not_liberal Donating Member (408 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Nov-29-07 10:39 AM
Response to Original message
81. State Secrets Privilege - an American FRAUD since inception
U.S. v. Reynolds

In 1953, the US Supreme Court set the basic precedent for executive control of classified documents in legal proceedings. In United States v Reynolds, an appeal of a default judgment alleging Air Force negligence in the death of 3 civilian contractors, the Supremes decided that a great deal of deference was due the government when it claimed National Security justification for withholding documents, and that in some cases (including Reynolds) they could deny the District Court judge access, preventing judicial review of the claim.

Natch, the government was lying. There were no secrets -- other than that the government just wanted to avoid the fullness of its liability for several civilian deaths.

While the US did ultimately pay damages in a settlement, it never accepted blame for the accident and maintains to this day that there were valid "national security" reasons for withholding the accident report. Maybe there were...

In 2003, the dead mens' widows filed a motion based on the declassified documents with the Supreme Court asking them to reconsider their "error" asserting that the declassified documents had no national security information.

Of course, every national security case since then has used Reynolds as precedent, right up to the Patriot Act cases of late.

The Supreme Court rejected the petition on June 23, 2003 though there was but one secret that was evident from the accident report: The B-29 SuperFortress didn't work very well and could not be relied upon in a major war.

So protecting the MIC versus the lives of innocents is the genesis for this wonderful government privilege...




Part 1
A daughter's search for answers

Part 2
Sweet grasses and spilled blood

Part 3
Coming
full
circle

View an interactive, animated presentation about the crash

View a full page diagram of what went wrong (PDF)


Families continue quest for justice in 1948 deaths
Historic case gets new hearing
http://www.courierpostonline.com/specialreports/statese...



Judith Loether (left), the former Judith Palya, was haunted for years by unanswered questions about her father's death. Albert Palya (right) of Haddon Heights at work in Camden in the 1940s. He had been working for RCA for only three years when he died in the B-29 crash.

The secrets in this accident report provide more than details about a plane crash that killed nine men in 1948. They expose the roots of American secrecy law, the very essence of "state secrets."

...

On Oct. 6, 1948, it is now known, Albert Palya flew in a B-29 bomber to test secret electronic equipment. The plane crash killed Palya, three other civilians and five Air Force personnel.

The crash ended Palya's life, but it began a lifetime of questions for his daughter, Judith.

Why did the B-29, the same model plane trusted to deliver the two atomic bombs, disintegrate over the skies of Georgia?

How is it that only four of 13 men aboard were able to parachute to safety?

What information was the Air Force trying to hide when it refused to produce the accident report, even for a federal judge?

The answers would provide a cautionary lesson, particularly relevant today, about governmental accountability at times when America feels most threatened.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Orsino Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Nov-29-07 10:40 AM
Response to Original message
82. I don't see this point as any scarier than the million other symptoms...
...of creeping fascism. Yes, Congress and the courts could slap down such power grabs, but as usual, they lack the political will.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
L0oniX Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Nov-29-07 11:01 AM
Response to Original message
83. Ok I am going back to smoking weed and snorting cocaine because its all over anyway
Who gives a flying fuck anymore? It's over. The 4th Reich has taken over. Sieg Heil!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Sam Ervin jret Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Nov-29-07 11:31 AM
Response to Original message
87. What have I been SAYIN' on DU? The INFO mega companies CANNOT get retro immunity
they will have NO incentive to tell the truth in court when asked to give evidence on other information they may know. The information that will come out in these trials is "NU-cu-LIAR."
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Yavapai Donating Member (554 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Nov-29-07 12:14 PM
Response to Original message
89. Two books that my wife and I
have been reading is Sorrows of Empire and Blackwater. These along with the Bob Woodward series Bush at war are the most revealing books that we have seen in a very long time. I think everyone should read these ASAP, like before your next vote.

To quote Jerome Scahills book Blackwater; on page 253 he states The rendition program was not born under the Bush administration but rather during the Clinton administration in the mid-1990s. The CIA, with the approval of the Clinton White House and a presidential directive, began sending terror suspects to Egypt, where far removed from U.S. law and due process, they could be interrogated by mukhabarat agents.

It is my belief that we as a nation are at a critical crossroads in our countrys future. I dont care who is put into office (either Democrat or Republican), but whoever is to be our next president, they need to turn this mess around 180 degrees. My opinion for what little it is worth, is that we dont need a continuation of the Bush/Clinton/Bush dynasties. We have seen our Country sliding into fascism for years (even though we didnt, at first, recognize the fact).

King George the first was tossed out, partly, because the people saw his elitism and rejected it and him. We were so happy to get Clinton that we overlooked many things that he did, such as NAFTA, Illegal renditions, the unconstitutional Line Item Veto Act, the Telcom Reform act that eliminated major ownership restrictions for radio and television groups, and the Defense of Marriage Act that allowed states to refuse recognition of certain same-sex marriages and defined marriage as between a male and female for purposes of federal law. To me, Bill Clinton looked a lot more Republican than Democrat.

I think that if you do a bit of research into where Hillary took much of her campaign funds from, you will see that she will continue with the status-quo. She will continue with the Iraq war, we will not see anything but a cosmetic change in our health care system and we will continue this slide into Fascism.

I hope that the next administration spends their time reversing this mess and does the work needed to investigate, investigate, and do more investigations. I would like to see Guantanamo change into a Federal Prison filled with those people who tried to destroy America. Just to name a few such as King George II, Dick Chenny, Dick Armitage, Paul Wolfowitz, Don Rumsfield, Skooter Libby, James Baker, Paul Bremmer, Henery Kissinger, and Erik Prince. This is the short list. The known people responsible for the subversion of our country would fill Guantanamo and we would have to build skyscrapers there to house the rest.

We need some real change in our country not just cosmetic sound bites. We need a return to Democracy. We need it now.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
KoKo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Nov-29-07 12:42 PM
Response to Reply #89
91. Well said....!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
KoKo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Nov-29-07 06:31 PM
Response to Reply #91
104. ....
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
redqueen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Nov-29-07 12:44 PM
Response to Reply #89
92. ...
:thumbsup:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
KoKo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Nov-29-07 08:02 PM
Response to Reply #92
107. Another "thumbs up" for good read...past Subject Line....
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
blm Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Nov-30-07 04:55 PM
Response to Reply #89
113. You should start a thread with this reply - it will get lost way down here.
It deserves more eyeballs.

BTW - you forgot about Clinton deep-sixing all the outstanding matters that came throughout the 90s re Poppy bush's illegal operations in IranContra, Iraqgate, BCCI and CIA Drugrunning.

You might like to add Robert Parry to your list.


http://consortiumnews.com/2006/111106.html
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
spooked911 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Nov-29-07 02:30 PM
Response to Original message
94. same goes for 9/11
it was an inside job
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Major Hogwash Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Nov-29-07 03:11 PM
Response to Original message
100. We've been sold out.
The Democrats in Congress aren't going to do anything about it.
They have now agreed in principle with the Republicans that whoever is in charge of the White House can do anything they want, so long as the corporations rake in their money.

But, the economy is living on an air matress - supported by the Federal Reserve pumping in billions of dollars and asking foreign countries for loans as the US dollar is devalued with each passing day.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
KoKo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Nov-29-07 06:40 PM
Response to Reply #100
105. I didn't want to believe that......even after "Selection 2000 which I thought was Huge Flub UP
but it made me a RADICAL to RESTORE OUR CONSTITUTION/BILL OF RIGHTS...as I watched it day by day...and couldn't do "Christmas" that year because I was so upset both Democratically and Religiously. I'm not a Fundie Christian...but ..what happened to Al Gore in that Rigged/Corrupt Florida Fiasco...made me a Radical that will not rest until there is a "RESTORATION of GORE" because he really WAS the "PRESIDENT!"...and anyone who tells you differntly is a CORRUPT LIAR..SYCHOPHANT FOR BUSH...or a FOOL!

Gore WON THAT ELECTION! I want that carved on my tombstone...even if I decide to be Cremated!

GORE WON!!!!!!GORE WON!!!!!!!!!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
KoKo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Nov-29-07 08:04 PM
Response to Reply #100
108. "...the economy is living on an air mattress." That's an excellent point...
"Helicopter Ben" pumping and pumping and pushing the dollars through that tube of air to give us a "cushion." Great Visual! :thumbs up:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
McCamy Taylor Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Nov-29-07 03:17 PM
Response to Original message
101. Because the gloves came of with Bill Clinton and now W. can be charged with a crime when he leaves
office. He can not pardon himself. This is why Karl Rove is trying like a dog to get a Republican elected in 2008--in hopes that a GOP AG will not prosecute W. If not a GOP, the Bill Clinton's wife, since Big Dog might feel sorry for Poppy and ask Hillary to go easy on Poppy's son.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
blm Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Nov-30-07 01:28 PM
Response to Reply #101
112. They think they covered themselves with a GOP or a Dem win thinking Hillary
will get the nomination. They counted on the same protection Poppy got in the 90s.


http://consortiumnews.com/2006/111106.html

It looks like primary Dem voters are not acting like sheep - and Iowa CAUCUSES can NOT be rigged - no machines. Heh.
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 Wed Jul 30th 2014, 03:15 PM
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