correction:
IAAL
correction:
IAAL
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?
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.
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)
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.
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.
Yes, but…
only if the witness has previously been prepared by his prudent counsel to do the following:
grab his chest
shout “help me-I can’t breathe”
stagger out of the witness chair
fall down
do not move, no matter what. moaning is permitted.
[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)
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.”
Can I ask a few technical questions here, to help sort out whether this is a legitmate choice or a violation of law?
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?
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.
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.”
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:
[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[/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.
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:
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?
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.
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.
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?
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?
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.