# Ashcroft shows his hand . . . by refusing to show his hand **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [June 9, 2004, 5:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ashcroft-shows-his-hand-by-refusing-to-show-his-hand/249489 "2004-06-09T17:27:33Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![Early\_Out](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/6f9a4e/32.png) [@Early\_Out](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Early_Out)\ **Post date:** [June 9, 2004, 8:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ashcroft-shows-his-hand-by-refusing-to-show-his-hand/249489/21 "2004-06-09T20:47:04Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Would you care to revise your post in light of this information? > > - Rick Already addressed. Preview is your friend. ---
**Author:** ![Calliope](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/e9bcb4/32.png) [@Calliope](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Calliope)\ **Post date:** [June 9, 2004, 9:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ashcroft-shows-his-hand-by-refusing-to-show-his-hand/249489/22 "2004-06-09T21:02:42Z")
Here’s a [partial transcript of the hearing](http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/fedagencies/jan-june04/torture_6-8.html) courtesy of Online Newshour. The pertinent part, IMO is > [@](#): > > ATTN. GEN. ASHCROFT: I am not going to reveal discussions – whether I’ve had them or not had them with the president. He asked me to deal with him as a matter of confidence. I have not invoked the executive privilege today. I have explained to you why I’m not turning over the documents. > > SEN. KENNEDY: Well, what are you invoking then? > > ATTN. GEN. ASHCROFT: I have not invoked anything. I have just explained to you why I am not turning over the documents. > > SEN. JOE BIDEN, D-Del.: Thank you very much. Well, General, that means you may be in contempt of Congress then. You got to have a reason not to answer our questions, as you know from you sitting up here. There may be a rationale for executive privilege that misses the point, but – but, you know, you have to have a reason. _You are not allowed, under our Constitution, not to answer our questions. And that ain’t – that ain’t constitutional._ Not being a lawyer, I have no idea whether Biden speaks accurately about the constitutionality of Ashcroft’s refusal to answer. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [June 9, 2004, 9:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ashcroft-shows-his-hand-by-refusing-to-show-his-hand/249489/23 "2004-06-09T21:10:22Z")
> [@Early Out](#): > > An additional thought or two: technically, of course, Ashcroft isn’t in contempt of Congress in the absence of a subpoena. There _is_ a legal difference between a Senator (or several, in this case) demanding that Ashcroft produce the documents, and the Senate (or its committee) issuing a subpoena for the documents. A legal difference. Politically, it’s a distinction without a difference. Politically, it’s irrelevant to the OP’s point, which was, I remind you: > [@](#): > > Ashcroft claims his own personal opinion of what is right or wrong trumps \*\*the actual law. \*\* > > He refused to turn this memo , which basically flies in the face of international law and precedents set at Nuremberg in approving the torture of prisoners, over to senators. When challenged, he acknowledged that the president had not claimed executive privilege to prevent the memo’s release. And it was pointed out that the law compels him to release if if asked to do so by the senate. He steadfastly refused. (Emphasis added). This post claims that Mr. Ashcroft is violating the law. I asked what law he was violating. You, **Early Out** , now seem to agree that there is no violation of law. (It’s unclear to me if the OP also wishes to retract that accusation). If you wish to turn this thread into a debate about the political appearance of Mr. Ashcroft’s intransigence, feel free; I will not be joining you, as I believe it amounts to idle speculation amongst an audience not favorably inclined to view Mr. Ashcroft. Indeed, were it not for me challenging the OP’s words, the accusation that Mr. Ashcroft was refusing to follow the law would have remained uncorrected. The debate about the law is much more clear-cut. Mr. Ashcroft is NOT violating the law. I’m hoping that the OP, in deference to intellectual honesty, will acknowledge that this accusation was in error. > [@](#): > > What will you say if the Republican-controlled committee refuses to issue a subpoena? At that point, we’re left with only the **elucidator** conjecture: must be something in those memos that the adminstration really, really, _really_ doesn’t want us to see. Not necessarily. This is mere conjecture, again from people not inclined to give Mr. Ashcroft the benefit of any doubt at all. - Rick ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [June 9, 2004, 9:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ashcroft-shows-his-hand-by-refusing-to-show-his-hand/249489/24 "2004-06-09T21:11:43Z")
> [@Calliope](#): > > Here’s a [partial transcript of the hearing](http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/fedagencies/jan-june04/torture_6-8.html) courtesy of Online Newshour. > > The pertinent part, IMO is > > Not being a lawyer, I have no idea whether Biden speaks accurately about the constitutionality of Ashcroft’s refusal to answer. If Mr. Ashcroft appeared pursuant to a Congressional subpoena, then Senator Biden is correct. If he did not, then Senator Biden is incorrect. - Rick ---
**Author:** ![Sevastopol](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/cdc98d/32.png) [@Sevastopol](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sevastopol)\ **Post date:** [June 9, 2004, 9:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ashcroft-shows-his-hand-by-refusing-to-show-his-hand/249489/25 "2004-06-09T21:27:55Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > If you wish to turn this thread into a debate about the political appearance of Mr. Ashcroft’s intransigence, feel free; I will not be joining you, as I believe it amounts to idle speculation amongst an audience not favorably inclined to view Mr. Ashcroft. **Indeed, were it not for me challenging the OP’s words, the accusation that Mr. Ashcroft was refusing to follow the law would have remained uncorrected.** > > The debate about the law is much more clear-cut. Mr. Ashcroft is NOT violating the law. I’m hoping that the OP, in deference to intellectual honesty, will acknowledge that this accusation was in error. > Not necessarily. This is mere conjecture, again from people not inclined to give Mr. Ashcroft the benefit of any doubt at all. > > - Rick Fallacies: The failure to cite an authority does not invalidate the claim that Ashcroft is refusing to follow the law. The question remains open, notwitstanding assertion to the contrary. Note that the OP is not the source of the claim, rather it arose directly from the Senate transcript. If **Bricker** wishes to argue with the prestige of law, do so from legal authorities. ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [June 9, 2004, 9:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ashcroft-shows-his-hand-by-refusing-to-show-his-hand/249489/26 "2004-06-09T21:51:51Z")
> [@Spavined Gelding](#): > > There is more than a little knee jerk obscurafication going on around here, and on the part of a Moderator… I rise to phrase a rebuke in the mildest possible terms. If you mean our very own **Uncle Beer** , I believe his cognomen belies your point: he is SDSAB, not a Moderator, one of the _cherubim_, so to speak. Secondly, I read no sense of denial in his statement, no trace of any real argumentation. His coy mockery in suggesting a principled stance on the part of any Bushivik is belied by his use of the _droll post-modernist irony_ smilie. Over time, I have come to understand that **Unc’s** belligerance is not specific, but nearly universal, radiating from a disgruntled center ourwards. It is only that persons of my general political persuasion annoy and vex him slightly more than the other. ---
**Author:** ![UncleBeer](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/977dab/32.png) [@UncleBeer](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/UncleBeer)\ **Post date:** [June 9, 2004, 9:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ashcroft-shows-his-hand-by-refusing-to-show-his-hand/249489/27 "2004-06-09T21:54:08Z")
> [@Early Out](#): > > Apparently, you failed to notice that elucidator has pointed out, quite correctly, that this adminstration has no such principled objections to releasing information that it believes accrues to its benefit. Even classified information seems miraculously to find its way out. No shit, Dick Tracy. I didn’t fail to notice elucidator’s remarks. You’d do better to go back check my post over for signs of sarcasm. They (note the plural) are quite overt. My post was nothing, if not sardonic. ---
**Author:** ![Squink](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/b5e925/32.png) [@Squink](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Squink)\ **Post date:** [June 9, 2004, 9:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ashcroft-shows-his-hand-by-refusing-to-show-his-hand/249489/28 "2004-06-09T21:55:03Z")
> [@](#): > > The confidential Justice Department (news - web sites) memos criticized by Democrats as laying the legal foundation for Iraqi prisoner abuses were aimed mainly at showing that international treaties banning torture do not apply to al-Qaida and Taliban prisoners, Bush administration officials say. > … > The conclusions of a March 6, 2003, Pentagon memo that has been made public… [here](http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=533&e=5&u=/ap/20040609/ap_on_go_pr_wh/prisoner_abuse) (06/09/04) The memo’s timing appears a little off for its stated purpose. ---
**Author:** ![Early\_Out](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/6f9a4e/32.png) [@Early\_Out](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Early_Out)\ **Post date:** [June 9, 2004, 10:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ashcroft-shows-his-hand-by-refusing-to-show-his-hand/249489/29 "2004-06-09T22:26:26Z")
> [@UncleBeer](#): > > No shit, Dick Tracy. I didn’t fail to notice elucidator’s remarks. You’d do better to go back check my post over for signs of sarcasm. They (note the plural) are quite overt. My post was nothing, if not sardonic. Sorry, missed the sarcasm entirely, though upon rereading, I don’t have a good excuse for having been that obtuse. I suppose I was conditioned to expect a totally non-sardonic response along precisely the same lines, since that’s usually what administration apologists (of all stripes, I hasten to add) trot out when they’ve been well and truly nailed to the wall: “B…, b…, but, but… It’s a matter of principle! Yeah, that’s it.” Please continue with your convulsive laughter. ---
**Author:** ![cmason32](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/51bf81/32.png) [@cmason32](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/cmason32)\ **Post date:** [June 9, 2004, 10:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ashcroft-shows-his-hand-by-refusing-to-show-his-hand/249489/30 "2004-06-09T22:38:29Z")
You can find a full video of Ashcroft’s testimony [here](http://www1.cnn.com/video/us/2002/02/25/ashcroft.sings.wbtv.med.html). ---
**Author:** ![Voyager](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/voyager/32/133_2.png) [@Voyager](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Voyager)\ **Post date:** [June 9, 2004, 11:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ashcroft-shows-his-hand-by-refusing-to-show-his-hand/249489/31 "2004-06-09T23:04:34Z")
> [@sevastopol](#): > > Fallacies: The failure to cite an authority does not invalidate the claim that Ashcroft is refusing to follow the law. The question remains open, notwitstanding assertion to the contrary. > > Note that the OP is not the source of the claim, rather it arose directly from the Senate transcript. > > If **Bricker** wishes to argue with the prestige of law, do so from legal authorities. There are two refusals here. The first is the refusal to turn over the memo, which, without a subpoena, seems not to be against the law. The second is his refusal to answer questions during a hearing. Isn’t a subpoena a way to compel someone to appear - not necessary in this case. Is it really true that someone voluntarily testifying can legally refuse to answer without grounds when someone forced to testify cannot? That seems odd to me. I believe Ashcroft was scheduled to testify on the Patriot Act, but the session got hijacked when the memo got leaked. ---
**Author:** ![Oy](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/bc8723/32.png) [@Oy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Oy)\ **Post date:** [June 10, 2004, 1:05am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ashcroft-shows-his-hand-by-refusing-to-show-his-hand/249489/32 "2004-06-10T01:05:46Z")
One thing that has bothered me about this is that Ashcroft justified his refusal to provide the document(s) on the basis that they were confidential advice to the President. Sort of an attorney/client privilege thing, or at least that’s what it sounded to me as if he were claiming. But that’s not his function as AG, is it? That’s what White House Counsel is for. The AG doesn’t give private legal advice to the President; he presides over the DOJ. It seems to me that _anything_ he says in his function as AG should be a matter of public record, shouldn’t it? And this certainly seems to have been a part of his function as AG. ---
**Author:** ![David\_Simmons](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/9de053/32.png) [@David\_Simmons](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/David_Simmons)\ **Post date:** [June 10, 2004, 2:15am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ashcroft-shows-his-hand-by-refusing-to-show-his-hand/249489/33 "2004-06-10T02:15:30Z")
I’m not too worried. Copies of the memo will be leaked very soon if such hasn’t already happened. Ashcroft _et al_ don’t seem to grasp this. In order to conduct business you just have to write things down. Things that are written down get copied and the ship, so to speak, on secrecy has then sailed. ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [June 10, 2004, 2:38am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ashcroft-shows-his-hand-by-refusing-to-show-his-hand/249489/34 "2004-06-10T02:38:56Z")
Loose lips sail ships. Of secrecy. Or something. ---
**Author:** ![Spavined\_Gelding](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/958977/32.png) [@Spavined\_Gelding](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Spavined_Gelding)\ **Post date:** [June 10, 2004, 3:07am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ashcroft-shows-his-hand-by-refusing-to-show-his-hand/249489/35 "2004-06-10T03:07:18Z")
> [@UncleBeer](#): > > At severe risk of causing you (and even my own cynical self) to double-over in calefactive cachinnation, _principle_ comes to mind 😉 If we are going to talk about principle, even as that term is used in the drainage of the Maumee River, the people acting from principle, and at no little risk to themselves, are the career DoJ lawyers and the bottom of the pyramid JAGC officers who had the integrity and guts to make this stuff public when the Boys from (the vicinity of) Waco clearly wanted to keep it under their hats. They want it kept quiet because, first, it contradicts DoD ‘s express guidance to the field and, second, it contradicts what the Solicitor General told the Supreme Court just a couple of weeks ago in the oral arguments in the Enemy Combatant cases. We are the United States; we don’t do stuff like that, said the Solicitor General. But now we see that at the highest levels of the Administration political appointees were clandestinely looking for loopholes that would justify our doing precisely stuff like that. Sooner or later this Administration will learn what previous Administrations have learned to their injury, notably Nixon with Watergate and with the Pentagon Papers, the now beatified Reagan with Iran-Contra, and Clinton with Monica. When you try to hide stuff it will bite you in the ass. Don’t discount the possibility that the Attorney General is just puffing himself up. ---
**Author:** ![DanBlather](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/f4b2a3/32.png) [@DanBlather](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DanBlather)\ **Post date:** [June 10, 2004, 3:14am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ashcroft-shows-his-hand-by-refusing-to-show-his-hand/249489/36 "2004-06-10T03:14:39Z")
> [@lissener](#): > > I mean, isn’t it the same principle as not negotiating with terrorists? I mean, if you buy what they’re selling, they’ll try to sell you more. Don’t speak ill of the dead, he’s not even in the ground yet. ---
**Author:** ![Zagadka](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/zagadka/32/7272_2.png) [@Zagadka](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Zagadka)\ **Post date:** [June 10, 2004, 3:21am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ashcroft-shows-his-hand-by-refusing-to-show-his-hand/249489/37 "2004-06-10T03:21:37Z")
> [@DanBlather](#): > > Don’t speak ill of the dead, he’s not even in the ground yet. Why does it matter who is in the ground? He’s dead. Unless you have some religious preference? ---
**Author:** ![DanBlather](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/f4b2a3/32.png) [@DanBlather](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DanBlather)\ **Post date:** [June 10, 2004, 3:24am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ashcroft-shows-his-hand-by-refusing-to-show-his-hand/249489/38 "2004-06-10T03:24:26Z")
> [@Zagadka](#): > > Why does it matter who is in the ground? He’s dead. > > Unless you have some religious preference? Whoosh ---
**Author:** ![Zagadka](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/zagadka/32/7272_2.png) [@Zagadka](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Zagadka)\ **Post date:** [June 10, 2004, 3:25am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ashcroft-shows-his-hand-by-refusing-to-show-his-hand/249489/39 "2004-06-10T03:25:00Z")
> [@elucidator](#): > > Loose lips sail ships. Of secrecy. Or something. I thought it was Clinton who had to worry about loose lips… hm… ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [June 10, 2004, 4:14am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ashcroft-shows-his-hand-by-refusing-to-show-his-hand/249489/40 "2004-06-10T04:14:26Z")
Seem to me the important question here is not what the AG does or does not have to tell Congress or provide to Congress. The important question is, did the Administration authorize or did it not authorize the torture or humiliation of prisoners? If the answer is “yes,” that should justify the removal from office of anybody and everybody who was involved in making that decision, including the president if he knew anything about it. Does anyone care to dispute this point? [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ashcroft-shows-his-hand-by-refusing-to-show-his-hand/249489.md?page=1) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ashcroft-shows-his-hand-by-refusing-to-show-his-hand/249489.md?page=3)