Meet your new thread, same as the old thread.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
Is that a life appointment? if not, at whose pleasure does the acting AG serve? If comey was a lone wolf on the issue they needed to know.

No. It means that he's the #2, acting as the AG while the AG is unable to perform (because he was hospitalized).

[Gattigap]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
No. It means that he's the #2, acting as the AG while the AG is unable to perform (because he was hospitalized).

Ty, maybe it's just preseason. That time of year, sometimes the old pros, they throw shit up at the backboard, and don't even look surprised when they miss the rim entirely.

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
Is that a life appointment? if not, at whose pleasure does the acting AG serve? If comey was a lone wolf on the issue they needed to know.

It rather defeats the purpose of having a provision for an acting AG in the case of incapacity of the AG if the acting AG has no actual authority because the AG must be consulted.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Gattigap
Ty, maybe it's just preseason. That time of year, sometimes the old pros, they throw shit up at the backboard, and don't even look surprised when they miss the rim entirely.

read the posts again. if they only hear about the alleged problem in a 2 year old program from the acting guy, after the regular guy goes into the hospital, it is not unreasonable to wonder if the regular guy felt the same way. not that he is still in charge, but if the acting guy has so changed policy that the regular guy disagrees with what the acting guy decided, shouldn't the WH know. Hint: what can the WH do about the acting guy's status?

[Shape Shifter]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
read the posts again. if they only hear about the alleged problem in a 2 year old program from the acting guy, after the regular guy goes into the hospital, it is not unreasonable to wonder if the regular guy felt the same way. not that he is still in charge, but if the acting guy has so changed policy that the regular guy disagrees with what the acting guy decided, shouldn't the WH know. Hint: what can the WH do about the acting guy's status?

You really don't know anything about this, do you?

[Replaced_Texan]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
read the posts again. if they only hear about the alleged problem in a 2 year old program from the acting guy, after the regular guy goes into the hospital, it is not unreasonable to wonder if the regular guy felt the same way. not that he is still in charge, but if the acting guy has so changed policy that the regular guy disagrees with what the acting guy decided, shouldn't the WH know. Hint: what can the WH do about the acting guy's status?

I suspect that a) Congress will very soon be talking to the regular guy, and b) since acting guy suck around for two years after the incident, nothing was done to or about him.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
Hint: what can the WH do about the acting guy's status?

According to Comey's testimony, he was prepared to resign, but it sounds like the President didn't want that to happen.

[Gattigap]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
read the posts again. if they only hear about the alleged problem in a 2 year old program from the acting guy, after the regular guy goes into the hospital, it is not unreasonable to wonder if the regular guy felt the same way. not that he is still in charge, but if the acting guy has so changed policy that the regular guy disagrees with what the acting guy decided, shouldn't the WH know. Hint: what can the WH do about the acting guy's status?

You're advocating the Searching For Robert Bork Strategem, eh? Brilliant!

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Replaced_Texan
I suspect that a) Congress will very soon be talking to the regular guy, and b) since acting guy suck around for two years after the incident, nothing was done to or about him.

1: seriously- I worry about SS reading stuff at work and having to figure out what it means.

2: once they know that Ashcroft agrees with Comey, then they have to accept it. From the testimony, once they heard that this was also Ashcroft's position, they left. I just don't think it unreasonable to have checked what Ashcroft's position was, not because Ashcroft was the AG at that point, but to see whether the guy who wasn't really picked to be in charge had changed policy.

I realize that Bush directed the policy to be changed to answer comey's concerns- there might have been a different course is Ashcroft had said he disagreed.


edit: see, to me this hinges on whether DofJ had mentioned it's disagreement with the policy BEFORE Ashcroft almost croaked. if it did (burger said something made him think it did*) then showing up at hospital is pretty bad- but if it hadn't, the visit seems almost advisable, necessary.

*and if DofJ had told the WH, that is one big-assed missed question in schumer's questioning.

[ltl/fb]

Wolfowitz working on resignation deal.

Is there really a thought that the cloud will be gone from over his head soon enough for it to be realistic that they are working on a deal now?

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Here are pretty comprehensive answers to questions Hank has been asking.

eta: Here's a shorter version from tomorrow's NYT:

• Former colleagues say strains with the White House began after the arrival in 2003 of Jack L. Goldsmith to head the department’s Office of Legal Counsel. With Mr. Comey’s backing, Mr. Goldsmith questioned what he considered shaky legal reasoning in several crucial opinions, including some drafted by Deputy Assistant Attorney General John Yoo.
  
  Mr. Goldsmith’s review of legal memoranda on the N.S.A. program and interrogation practices became a source of friction between Mr. Comey and the White House.
  
  “He had a strong sense of personal integrity and he felt that the legal judgments of the Justice Department were not being honored,” a former Justice Department colleague said, speaking on condition of anonymity. Mr. Yoo had the strong support of Mr. Gonzales and David S. Addington, Mr. Cheney’s legal adviser. Mr. Comey testified that both Mr. Cheney and Mr. Addington opposed the N.S.A. program changes sought by the Justice Department.

[LessinSF]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
Mr. Goldsmith’s review of legal memoranda on the N.S.A. program and interrogation practices became a source of friction between Mr. Comey and the White House.

Interesting, but for that I understand the Comey-Ashcroft-Gonzalez incident dealt with a no-warrant program.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by LessinSF
Interesting, but for that I understand the Comey-Ashcroft-Gonzalez incident dealt with a no-warrant program.

I understand that the NSA program has a major no-warrant issue. The torture thing is something else, although the ultimate legal justification -- that the President's war powers give him the discretion to disregard any laws Congress may have passed -- is, I think, the same.

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by LessinSF
Interesting, but for that I understand the Comey-Ashcroft-Gonzalez incident dealt with a no-warrant program.

Which is the NSA program.

[Adder]

From two individuals both far more qualified to, and, not suprisingly, more successful in expressing this than I:

• It's Our Cage, Too
  Torture Betrays Us and Breeds New Enemies
  
  By Charles C. Krulak and Joseph P. Hoar
  Thursday, May 17, 2007; A17
  
  
  
  Fear can be a strong motivator. It led Franklin Roosevelt to intern tens of thousands of innocent U.S. citizens during World War II; it led to Joseph McCarthy's witch hunt, which ruined the lives of hundreds of Americans. And it led the United States to adopt a policy at the highest levels that condoned and even authorized torture of prisoners in our custody.
  
  Fear is the justification offered for this policy by former CIA director George Tenet as he promotes his new book. Tenet oversaw the secret CIA interrogation program in which torture techniques euphemistically called "waterboarding," "sensory deprivation," "sleep deprivation" and "stress positions" -- conduct we used to call war crimes -- were used. In defending these abuses, Tenet revealed: "Everybody forgets one central context of what we lived through: the palpable fear that we felt on the basis of the fact that there was so much we did not know."
  
  We have served in combat; we understand the reality of fear and the havoc it can wreak if left unchecked or fostered. Fear breeds panic, and it can lead people and nations to act in ways inconsistent with their character.
  
  The American people are understandably fearful about another attack like the one we sustained on Sept. 11, 2001. But it is the duty of the commander in chief to lead the country away from the grip of fear, not into its grasp. Regrettably, at Tuesday night's presidential debate in South Carolina, several Republican candidates revealed a stunning failure to understand this most basic obligation. Indeed, among the candidates, only John McCain demonstrated that he understands the close connection between our security and our values as a nation.
  
  Tenet insists that the CIA program disrupted terrorist plots and saved lives. It is difficult to refute this claim -- not because it is self-evidently true, but because any evidence that might support it remains classified and unknown to all but those who defend the program.
  
  These assertions that "torture works" may reassure a fearful public, but it is a false security. We don't know what's been gained through this fear-driven program. But we do know the consequences.
  
  As has happened with every other nation that has tried to engage in a little bit of torture -- only for the toughest cases, only when nothing else works -- the abuse spread like wildfire, and every captured prisoner became the key to defusing a potential ticking time bomb. Our soldiers in Iraq confront real "ticking time bomb" situations every day, in the form of improvised explosive devices, and any degree of "flexibility" about torture at the top drops down the chain of command like a stone -- the rare exception fast becoming the rule.
  
  To understand the impact this has had on the ground, look at the military's mental health assessment report released earlier this month. The study shows a disturbing level of tolerance for abuse of prisoners in some situations. This underscores what we know as military professionals: Complex situational ethics cannot be applied during the stress of combat. The rules must be firm and absolute; if torture is broached as a possibility, it will become a reality.
  
  This has had disastrous consequences. Revelations of abuse feed what the Army's new counterinsurgency manual, which was drafted under the command of Gen. David Petraeus, calls the "recuperative power" of the terrorist enemy.
  
  Former defense secretary Donald Rumsfeld once wondered aloud whether we were creating more terrorists than we were killing. In counterinsurgency doctrine, that is precisely the right question. Victory in this kind of war comes when the enemy loses legitimacy in the society from which it seeks recruits and thus loses its "recuperative power."
  
  The torture methods that Tenet defends have nurtured the recuperative power of the enemy. This war will be won or lost not on the battlefield but in the minds of potential supporters who have not yet thrown in their lot with the enemy. If we forfeit our values by signaling that they are negotiable in situations of grave or imminent danger, we drive those undecideds into the arms of the enemy. This way lies defeat, and we are well down the road to it.
  
  This is not just a lesson for history. Right now, White House lawyers are working up new rules that will govern what CIA interrogators can do to prisoners in secret. Those rules will set the standard not only for the CIA but also for what kind of treatment captured American soldiers can expect from their captors, now and in future wars. Before the president once again approves a policy of official cruelty, he should reflect on that.
  
  It is time for us to remember who we are and approach this enemy with energy, judgment and confidence that we will prevail. That is the path to security, and back to ourselves.
  
  Charles C. Krulak was commandant of the Marine Corps from 1995 to 1999. Joseph P. Hoar was commander in chief of U.S. Central Command from 1991 to 1994.
  

link