# 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:** 4
**Author:** ![alaricthegoth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/4bbf92/32.png) [@alaricthegoth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/alaricthegoth)\ **Post date:** [June 10, 2004, 8:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ashcroft-shows-his-hand-by-refusing-to-show-his-hand/249489/61 "2004-06-10T20:35:22Z")
correction: IAAL ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [June 10, 2004, 8:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ashcroft-shows-his-hand-by-refusing-to-show-his-hand/249489/62 "2004-06-10T20:59:13Z")
Ok, well thank _you_, **Alaric**. That’s what I was after. I was trying to get a fix on what the rules are once (as you put it) the ass is in the chair, regardless of how said ass got to be there. Would a voluntary witness have the option of simply ending the testimony altogether rather than cherry-picking suitable questions to answer or would that still constitute contempt? ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [June 10, 2004, 9:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ashcroft-shows-his-hand-by-refusing-to-show-his-hand/249489/63 "2004-06-10T21:13:26Z")
> [@alaricthegoth](#): > > your gratitude is premature. ric’s informationi is not accurate. > IALA,and > > the contempt beef turns not upon the presence or absence of compulsion of process in producing the appearance of the witness. > > Once your ass is in that chair, you must answer responsively or assert a privelege. Irrelevant. There was no question that Mr. Ashcroft failed to answer responsively. The gravamen of the issue is the production of the memo, which – unless he happened to have a copy in his breast pocket – is not subject to production merely because he happens to be sitting in the chair. - Rick ---
**Author:** ![ShibbOleth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/848f3c/32.png) [@ShibbOleth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ShibbOleth)\ **Post date:** [June 10, 2004, 9:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ashcroft-shows-his-hand-by-refusing-to-show-his-hand/249489/64 "2004-06-10T21:21:39Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Irrelevant. There was no question that Mr. Ashcroft failed to answer responsively. The gravamen of the issue is the production of the memo, which – unless he happened to have a copy in his breast pocket – is not subject to production merely because he happens to be sitting in the chair. > > - Rick Wouldn’t it have then been simpler for Ashcroft to just respond that he didn’t have a copy with him? On a separate note, there would have been something beautifully ironic about the Sergeant in Arms taking him in the back room and flaying him until he agreed to produce the document. (Insert Sarcasm smiley here) ---
**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, 9:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ashcroft-shows-his-hand-by-refusing-to-show-his-hand/249489/65 "2004-06-10T21:24:50Z")
I’m just folks and I find this legal hair splitting disturbing. The constitution requires that the president see that the laws are “faithfully executed.” I think that means that he or she must try to execute the laws in accordance with the intent of Congress. I can’t believe that the Congress in passing the lows about torture, and the treaties on treatment of prisoners had in mind that every effort should be made to find a way not to follow them. War or no war. ---
**Author:** ![alaricthegoth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/4bbf92/32.png) [@alaricthegoth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/alaricthegoth)\ **Post date:** [June 10, 2004, 9:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ashcroft-shows-his-hand-by-refusing-to-show-his-hand/249489/66 "2004-06-10T21:40:45Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Irrelevant. There was no question that Mr. Ashcroft failed to answer responsively. The gravamen of the issue is the production of the memo, which – unless he happened to have a copy in his breast pocket – is not subject to production merely because he happens to be sitting in the chair. > > - Rick absolutely, as to the document. my bad, I thought what was at issue was his refusal to answer substygantive questions relative to the contents of the memo. ---
**Author:** ![alaricthegoth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/4bbf92/32.png) [@alaricthegoth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/alaricthegoth)\ **Post date:** [June 10, 2004, 9:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ashcroft-shows-his-hand-by-refusing-to-show-his-hand/249489/67 "2004-06-10T21:44:24Z")
> [@Diogenes the Cynic](#): > > Ok, well thank _you_, **Alaric**. > > That’s what I was after. I was trying to get a fix on what the rules are once (as you put it) the ass is in the chair, regardless of how said ass got to be there. > > Would a voluntary witness have the option of simply ending the testimony altogether rather than cherry-picking suitable questions to answer or would that still constitute contempt? Yes, but… only if the witness has previously been prepared by his prudent counsel to do the following: 1. grab his chest 2. shout “help me-I can’t breathe” 3. stagger out of the witness chair 4. fall down 5. do not move, no matter what. moaning is permitted. ---
**Author:** ![Squink](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/b5e925/32.png) [@Squink](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Squink)\ **Post date:** [June 10, 2004, 11:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ashcroft-shows-his-hand-by-refusing-to-show-his-hand/249489/68 "2004-06-10T23:58:06Z")
> [@](#): > > Asked if torture is ever justified, Bush replied, “Look, I’m going to say it one more time. … The instructions went out to our people to adhere to law. That ought to comfort you.” [Bush: Interrogators Told to Act Lawfully](http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=514&e=5&u=/ap/20040610/ap_on_go_pr_wh/bush_prisoner_abuse) ---
**Author:** ![lissener](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lissener/32/6139_2.png) [@lissener](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/lissener)\ **Post date:** [June 11, 2004, 1:00am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ashcroft-shows-his-hand-by-refusing-to-show-his-hand/249489/69 "2004-06-11T01:00:22Z")
[QUOTE] Asked if torture is ever justified, Bush replied, “Look, I’m going to say it one more time. … The instructions went out to our people[li] to adhere to law. That ought to comfort you.” [/li][/QUOTE] \*Accompanied by a brochure entitled _How to Navigate the Loopholes in the Law We’re Asking You to “Adhere” to (Wink, Wink)_ ---
**Author:** ![Sevastopol](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/cdc98d/32.png) [@Sevastopol](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sevastopol)\ **Post date:** [June 11, 2004, 1:26am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ashcroft-shows-his-hand-by-refusing-to-show-his-hand/249489/70 "2004-06-11T01:26:23Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > On the contrary: the burden of proof rests with the proponent of the assertion. To claim that Mr. Ashcroft is violating the law, it is necessary to point to the law being violated. I cannot refute the claim, except by linking to the enite United States Code and saying, in essence, “There’s nothing in here that was violated.” > > - Rick Missing the difference between proven and true. The earlier \*_Bricker_ post establishes that the claim is unproven but fails to show it untrue. You may consider an opinion canvassing the laws of contempt of senate too burdensome. However it would be better to have considered that before declaring “Mr. Ashcroft is NOT violating the law.” ---
**Author:** ![Boyo\_Jim](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/87869e/32.png) [@Boyo\_Jim](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Boyo_Jim)\ **Post date:** [June 11, 2004, 1:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ashcroft-shows-his-hand-by-refusing-to-show-his-hand/249489/71 "2004-06-11T13:35:27Z")
Can I ask a few technical questions here, to help sort out whether this is a legitmate choice or a violation of law? 1. does “summoned before Congress” _absolutely require_ a subpeona? If someone is invited and accepts an invitation, and then refuses to answer questions, liable to a contempt citation? 2. Even if we assume Ashcroft was in fact summoned before Congress, was he summoned to testify (that would be my WAG), OR to provide documents. He can’t be expected to immediately provide any conceivable document that gets asked for in the course of his testimony? Presumably is he is summoned to proide documents, thise documents need to be enumerated in at least a general sense. 3. What question did Ashcroft refuse to answer? I have not seen it in this thread. The committee didn’t _like_ his answer, which was basically, “No, I do not plan to provide that document.” 4. If 2 USC 192, portions quoted by _Early Out_, is indeed the correct law to cite, what part of it did Ashcroft violate? There is a penalty specified for refusing to answer questions, I do not see a penalty specifed for not producing documents. Is there additional text the criminalizes refusing to turn over documants? I assume there is, but I don’t see it here. But it _does_ seem clear that the law distinguishes between testimony and document production: > [@](#): > > to give testimony or to produce papers upon any matter under inquiry before either House… ---
**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 11, 2004, 4:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ashcroft-shows-his-hand-by-refusing-to-show-his-hand/249489/72 "2004-06-11T16:43:08Z")
[QUOTE=Squink] Asked if torture is ever justified, Bush replied, “Look, I’m going to say it one more time. … The instructions went out to our people[li] to adhere to law. That ought to comfort you.” [Bush: Interrogators Told to Act Lawfully](http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=514&e=5&u=/ap/20040610/ap_on_go_pr_wh/bush_prisoner_abuse)[/li][/QUOTE] Somehow I’m not comforted. After all, most of the crooked corporate executives seemingly acted within the letter of the law while robbing thousands of millions and in some instances their life savings. For God’s sake! The Dept. of Justice is supposed to be a law _enforcement_ agency. It seems to me that the task of their lawyers shouldn’t be to find ways that the executive can skate as close to the edge as possible while still engaging in abuse but having a pretty good chance of beating the rap. That is the way of the con artist, the grifter, the carnival hustler. Furthermore it seems to me an elementary assumption that Justice didn’t go into this as a self-imposed task. I’ve got to assume that someone, probably in DOD, asked Ashcroft to have his people look into the limits of when rough treatment turned into torture under the law or how the onus of the law could be avoided altogether. I can imagine Rummy, or Wolfie, in a _tete a tete_ with Ashcroft over breakfast rolls casually mentioning that they needed more information and it sure would be nice if a way could be found around the anti-torture statute. Of course, Ashcroft being the team player that he is would know instantly what to do. Ascroft practically admitted as much when he claimed that for him to produce the memos would hamper the ability of the Attorney General to give legal advice to the president. I agree with a previous poster who said that the job of Justice is to enforce the laws and prosecute offenders and not to furnish legal advice to the president. I don’t think this is a game in which the Dept of Justice helps the executive find ways to evade the will of Congress. ---
**Author:** ![Mal\_Adroit](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/df788c/32.png) [@Mal\_Adroit](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mal_Adroit)\ **Post date:** [June 11, 2004, 5:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ashcroft-shows-his-hand-by-refusing-to-show-his-hand/249489/73 "2004-06-11T17:18:35Z")
I only wish to share my complete and utter glee at seeing Joe Biden respond to Ashcroft’s arrogance with such barely restrained fury. Saying that we follow the Geneva Convention laws so that _his son_ (Biden’s), who’s in the military, won’t be tortured or abused in the event of capture in a hostile country. Gah _damn,_ you go, Joe. ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [June 11, 2004, 6:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ashcroft-shows-his-hand-by-refusing-to-show-his-hand/249489/74 "2004-06-11T18:00:53Z")
> [@Moody Bastard](#): > > I only wish to share my complete and utter glee at seeing Joe Biden respond to Ashcroft’s arrogance with such barely restrained fury. Saying that we follow the Geneva Convention laws so that _his son_ (Biden’s), who’s in the military, won’t be tortured or abused in the event of capture in a hostile country. Gah _damn,_ you go, Joe. Here’s the exact quote if anyone missed it: > [@](#): > > There’s a reason why we sign these treaties - to protect my son in the military. That’s why we have these treaties. So when Americans are captured they are not tortured. That’s the reason, in case anybody forgets it - that’s the reason. You really had to see the expression on Biden’s face- the barely restrained fury- to get the full effect. It was awesome. ---
**Author:** ![Jimmy\_Chitwood](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/f475e1/32.png) [@Jimmy\_Chitwood](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jimmy_Chitwood)\ **Post date:** [June 11, 2004, 6:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ashcroft-shows-his-hand-by-refusing-to-show-his-hand/249489/75 "2004-06-11T18:49:29Z")
> [@Diogenes the Cynic](#): > > Here’s the exact quote if anyone missed it: > > > [@](#): > > > > There’s a reason why we sign these treaties - to protect my son in the military. That’s why we have these treaties. So when Americans are captured they are not tortured. That’s the reason, in case anybody forgets it - that’s the reason. > > You really had to see the expression on Biden’s face- the barely restrained fury- to get the full effect. It was awesome. Indeed it was. Barely restrained fury, at the second “that’s the reason,” culminating in a sort of demonic grin. What I want to know is what happened next. What did Ashcroft say to that? ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [June 11, 2004, 7:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ashcroft-shows-his-hand-by-refusing-to-show-his-hand/249489/76 "2004-06-11T19:33:23Z")
> [@Jimmy Chitwood](#): > > Indeed it was. Barely restrained fury, at the second “that’s the reason,” culminating in a sort of demonic grin. What I want to know is what happened next. What did Ashcroft say to that? I don’t remeber the exact quote but Ashcroft said something to the effect that he understood about the reason for the treaty and that he also had a son in the military. ---
**Author:** ![Enginerd](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/bcef8e/32.png) [@Enginerd](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Enginerd)\ **Post date:** [June 11, 2004, 7:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ashcroft-shows-his-hand-by-refusing-to-show-his-hand/249489/77 "2004-06-11T19:33:52Z")
> [@](#): > > Ashcroft said he needed no reminder, because his own son has been on active military duty in the Persian Gulf. From Tuesday’s [Washington Post](http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A24867-2004Jun8.html). ---
**Author:** ![Pleonast](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/pleonast/32/1183_2.png) [@Pleonast](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Pleonast)\ **Post date:** [June 11, 2004, 10:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ashcroft-shows-his-hand-by-refusing-to-show-his-hand/249489/78 "2004-06-11T22:07:15Z")
While we’re talking about congressional subpeonas: who does Congress have the authority to summon? Could Congress subpeona any private individual, or are they restricted to summoning members of the executive branch? What about the federal judges or other members of Congress? What about state governments? ---
**Author:** ![rjung](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/45deac/32.png) [@rjung](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/rjung)\ **Post date:** [June 11, 2004, 10:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ashcroft-shows-his-hand-by-refusing-to-show-his-hand/249489/79 "2004-06-11T22:28:25Z")
> [@Diogenes the Cynic](#): > > I don’t remeber the exact quote but Ashcroft said something to the effect that he understood about the reason for the treaty and that he also had a son in the military. Anyone know if we’re talking authentic, front-line military duty here, or a “champaign unit 2004” somewhere several miles offshore? ---
**Author:** ![Boyo\_Jim](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/87869e/32.png) [@Boyo\_Jim](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Boyo_Jim)\ **Post date:** [June 11, 2004, 11:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ashcroft-shows-his-hand-by-refusing-to-show-his-hand/249489/80 "2004-06-11T23:59:31Z")
IIRC, one has a son on a Navy destroyer, and one has a son in the Judge Advocate General’s office. I can’t remember which son is with which dad, but does it matter? Neither is likely to get shot at. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ashcroft-shows-his-hand-by-refusing-to-show-his-hand/249489.md?page=3)