Already addressed. Preview is your friend.
Here’s a partial transcript of the hearing 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.
Politically, it’s irrelevant to the OP’s point, which was, I remind you:
(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.
Not necessarily. This is mere conjecture, again from people not inclined to give Mr. Ashcroft the benefit of any doubt at all.
- Rick
If Mr. Ashcroft appeared pursuant to a Congressional subpoena, then Senator Biden is correct. If he did not, then Senator Biden is incorrect.
- 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.
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.
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.
here (06/09/04)
The memo’s timing appears a little off for its stated purpose.
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.
You can find a full video of Ashcroft’s testimony here.
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.
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.
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.
Loose lips sail ships. Of secrecy. Or something.
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.
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?
Whoosh
I thought it was Clinton who had to worry about loose lips… hm…
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?