Mobile version

John Ashcroft

What Is The Worst Crime Of The Bush Administration? by: Something The Dog Said Thu Jun 18, 2009 at 08:40:05 PDT ( - promoted by buhdydharma ) Asking the Left side of the Blogosphere what the greatest of President Bush's crimes/sins against this nation was is kind of inviting a shouting match. There are so many to choose from, wars, torture, environmental law changes or lack of enforcement, the list goes on and on. Without an operational definition it is a argument which could consume thousands of words on line or tens of pints at a bar. The Dog is going to provide you with the definition and explain why he thinks there is one overarching act which out shines (if that is the right metaphor for such heinous acts) all others. "Originally posted at Squarestate.net" There's More... :: (24 Comments, 1224 words in story)

Remembering The Federal Death Penalty, Saving 49 Lives by: davidseth Sun Feb 01, 2009 at 08:07:41 PST (@ 9 - promoted by NLinStPaul) cross-posted from The Dream Antilles It might be easy to forget the Federal Death Penalty.  We might not want to think about it. It wasn't an issue in the past election.  For eight years the Bush DoJ used its muscle to expand federal use of capital punishment by overruling local United States Attorneys' decisions not to seek death.  Those political decisions to seek death are still very much in effect: the US government continues in court to seek the death penalty in all of those cases. As the new Attorney General arrives in Washington, it's vitally important that the new DoJ immediately remember to re-evaluate all of the federal cases in which the death penalty is presently being sought. And it's important that if these cases do not meet their professed higher standards for imposition of the death penalty (this is an oxymoron, standards that allow state killing cannot be high), authorization to seek the death penalty be withdrawn.  This may save 49 lives and prevent state killings from being carried out in our names. Please join me below.   There's More... :: (3 Comments, 776 words in story)

Condi Rice admits White House officials planned torture by: Magnifico Thu Sep 25, 2008 at 02:46:24 PDT (11 am. - promoted by ek hornbeck) For the first time, a senior Bush administration official has admitted to discussing the use of torture by the CIA. In a written statement to the Senate Armed Services Committee, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice acknowledged that in 2002 and 2003, she and other high-ranking White House officials discussed the use of torture, including waterboarding, and other coercive methods. Rice's and her legal council's statements were released by Sen. Carl Levin (D-MI), the committee's chairman. No specific dates were given. At the time of the White House torture planing meetings, Rice was George W. Bush's National Security Advisor. According to the Los Angeles Times, Rice admits Bush officials held White House talks on CIA interrogations, she and other White House officials "discussed simulated torture techniques that elite U.S. soldiers were subjected to as part of a survival training program".   There's More... :: (3 Comments, 749 words in story)

Overlooked by Media, Important Torture Testimony! by: tahoebasha3 Tue May 13, 2008 at 12:16:31 PDT (this is amazing - promoted by pfiore8) Cross-posted at DailyKOS Memos written at the request of high-ranking government officials by Former Deputy Assistant Attorney General John Yoo on August 1, 2002 (also signed by Jay Bybee, now a federal judge) and March 14, 2003, assured the Bush administration that . . . . the Department of Justice would not enforce the U.S. criminal laws against torture, assault, maiming and stalking, in the detention and interrogation of enemy combatants." Of course, we know that the purpose of Yoo's memos were simply established as a means of legal clearance for all that ensued thereafter.   Daniel Levin, Acting Assistant Attorney General Office of Legal Counsel (December 30, 2004) . . . . specifically rejects Yoo's definition of torture, and admits that a defandant's motives to protect national security will not shield him from a torture prosecution.  The rescission of the August 2002 memo constitutes an admission by the Justice Department that the legal reasoning in that memo was wrong.  But for 22 months, the [sic] it was in effect, which sanctioned and led to the torture of prisoners in U.S. custody." Note:  all quoted material above from Marjorie Cohn, President National Lawyers Guild. There's More... :: (57 Comments, 306 words in story)

Get This Through Your Heads by: Turkana Mon Apr 14, 2008 at 15:00:00 PDT So, Bush last week admitted complicity in his administration's policy of torturing people. Earlier, the Associated Press revealed that Dick Cheney, Colin Powell, Condoleezza Rice, John Ashcroft, and George Tenet were also complicit. Donald Rumsfeld was implicated as far back as July of 2005, and Alberto Gonzales's already known complicity didn't prevent him from being confirmed as this nation's chief law enforcement officer, even earlier in 2005. Just over a month ago, Bush ignored the advice of "43 retired generals and admirals and 18 national security experts, including former secretaries of state and national security advisers," and vetoed a bill that would have forbade the U.S. from engaging in torture, and Republican nominee-to-be John McCain supported his doing so. None of this is a surprise. At the risk of being cynical, none of it really matters, except for the historical record, because no one who is in the position of being able to do anything about it seems so inclined. We are a nation that tortures people. The White House decides what forms of torture can be used, and Congress, which hasn't overridden Bush's veto, played its part by giving Bush tacit approval to continue doing so. And no leading Democrats mention that maybe violating international and moral laws ought to disqualify those responsible from holding public office. No leading Democrats ever supported impeaching the torturers. No leading Democrats talk about possible war crimes implications. No leading Democrats talk about holding the torturers legally accountable, once they leave office. Of course, no one will be surprised if Bush blanket pardons everyone, before he leaves office, and only impeachments would negate his ability to thus immunize them from prosecution. But Jack Balkin says the 2006 Military Commissions Act "effectively insulated government officials from liability for many of the violations of the War Crimes Act they might have committed during the period prior to 2006," so it's probably a moot point, anyway. And Marty Lederman is skeptical of the idea of a Department of Justice prosecuting people whose behavior was given legal clearance by a previous Department of Justice, so it's probably a moot point, anyway- twice over. We are a nation that tortures people. The outrage over last week's revelations reveal that people still don't understand that fact. We are a nation that tortures people. Outrage over further revelations of that fact will similarly reveal that people still won't understand that fact. We are a nation that tortures people. It is no longer about this criminal administration or any criminal individuals working within it, we are a nation that tortures people. It's now institutional. To address that fact, to do anything about it, will require levels of outrage far exceeding the outrage directed at one administration or the criminals working within it. We are a nation that tortures people. Until our ostensible progressive leaders, until we, as a nation, decide to do something about that fact, it will simply be a part of who we are. We are a nation that tortures people. The people responsible for that fact get away with it because no one and nothing will stop them from getting away with it. We are a nation that tortures people. Discuss :: (36 Comments)

OK... see... I wasn't TECHNICALLY lying... by: Jeffrey Lieber Mon Apr 14, 2008 at 04:55:38 PDT ...when I failed to mention that, along with you, I was also dating five other women, three of them pregnant via me, two close relatives (your sister is SO much hotter than I first thought), and my wife of eighteen years. See, though nothing I said was accurate, I was simply employing enhanced truth-telling techniques, which, apparently, President George Bush approved from the oval office! There's More... :: (17 Comments, 339 words in story)

The Torture Planners: "Why are we talking about this in the White House?" by: Valtin Thu Apr 10, 2008 at 15:11:18 PDT ( - promoted by buhdydharma ) [I know buhdy already wrote on this -- see cite for him below -- but I figured an extra commentary wouldn't hurt, providing also a bit more information on the legalities involved. -- V.] In a very interesting follow-up to the unfolding story on the 2003 John Yoo memorandum that justified the use of torture, ABC news is reporting how the CIA came to the White House after the spring 2002 capture of al Qaeda operative Abu Zubaydah in Pakistan and asked for permission to use more "aggressive" interrogation techniques. Citing anonymous sources, ABC says that beginning with the Zubaydah case, "the most senior Bush administration officials discussed and approved specific details of how high-value al Qaeda suspects would be interrogated by the Central Intelligence Agency." These discussions evidently included the use of waterboarding, as the CIA has admitted using this torture technique on Zubaydah. The "Principals" -- high-level Bush administration officials -- present included National Security Adviser Condolezza Rice, who chaired the meetings, "Vice President Cheney... Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and Secretary of State Colin Powell, as well as CIA Director George Tenet and Attorney General John Ashcroft." While Ashcroft is said to have signed off on the legality of the interrogations, he got squeamish about how it was being approved. Perhaps he was afraid of future legal and political consequences. Perhaps he remembered how the secrets of the Wannsee Conference were ultimately leaked. Per the ABC story (also reported over at Reuters): There's More... :: (5 Comments, 887 words in story)