Congressional members are trying to declassify testimony from 2002 given by Richard Clarke, the former White House advisor who has faulted President Bush’s approach to fighting terrorism. “Mr. Clarke has told two entirely different stories under oath,” said the Senate Majority Leader. Clarke has said recently that Bush made terrorism “an important issue but not an urgent issue,” and criticized the efficacy of invading Iraq. Clarke was “the only common denominator” in a decade of terror beginning with the 1993 attack on the World Trade Center. Clarke’s book was “an appalling act of profiteering” in its reliance on access to insider information on 9-11. If he lied, should he be tried?
Didn’t he recant? Now he isn’t sure what the first story was? But he’s protected by Article 1, Section 6 because he wrapped his slander in a Congressional speech?
My impresion so far is that it is just wishful thinking from the Republican leadership:
Other members (Democrats) are taking the bluff and demanding that not only his testimony be declassified, but also more from this secretive administration.
The latest, almost instantaneous, backpedaling of First was not reported much, so I do think news outlets (why I do suspect Fox news would be most at fault here?) are turning a talking point into news, IMO it will be news only if there is a resolution passed in congress to declassify the testimony. Only then it will be news, so far, it is only character assassination.
Lying to congress isn’t a big deal:
If perjury is such an unforgivable sin, then how come so many Republicans treated Oliver North like a hero – and tried to get him elected to the Senate – after he lied to Congress?
Elliott Abrams
John Poindexter
Both these guys were convicted of lying to congress, yet still got cushy jobs with GW’s administration. With laws this toothless, there’s no point in even investigating Clarke’s alleged abuses.
I dunno. Given Frist’s hasty backpedaling, it might be fun to see Clarke vindicated by a public examination–say around the third week of October. 
Well sure, that’d be a hoot 
, but I was trying to address the perception that lying to congress is a very bad thing that has serious consequences. Lying may once have had serious consequences, but that’s been 20 or 30 years ago now.
I don’t see how Article 1, Section 6 would protect him. For one, although what he said may indeed be slander, slander is typically more of a civil issue than a criminal one. Furthermore perjury, which is typically a criminal issue and not a civil one, is what is being discussed.
Article 1, Section 6, Clause 1 just says that Representatives and Senators cannot be questioned “in any other place” concerning any speech given in their respective houses. So a Congressman would be immune for prosecution if he said anything that might be illegal during a congressional speech, but not Mr. Clarke, who is not a member of congress.
Either way, I don’t think Clarke necessarily purjured himself. Though I do think he has two very contrasting opinions. I doubt he’s actually lied about any direct facts.
If you will notice, Lib was referring to Mr. Frist (who has, as Lib pointed out) “recanted” his initial claims regarding Mr. Clarke.
The lies and slanders appear to be emanting from Mr. Frist–who is protected for all speech on the Congressional floor.
Yes, Frist is the one protected. Laws, in fact, exist to protect government, not citizens.
The disputed testimony, I thought, was that the Bush administration was doing a good job on the WOT. If this is perjury, then the Republicans would have to prove that Bush was in fact not doing a good job.
If the most recent testimony were untrue, then they would have to disprove that - which they seem to be quite unable to do.
In fact, that’s not true. Laws and governments exist to protect individuals from each other.
Not so. Government has no obligation to protect individuals. “[A] government and its agents are under no general duty to provide public services, such as police protection, to any particular individual citizen”. — Warren v. District of Columbia, 444 A.2d 1 (D.C. App.181)
“The duty to provide public services is owed to the public at large” ibid.
I was speaking more generally. The reason governments and laws exist are for the mutual protection of the citizens governed.
Well, I’m not going to debate a greased cat. If you’re going to change what you just said every time you’re rebutted, there’s little point in it.
I didn’t change what I just said. Governments exist for the mutual protection of citizens=governments exist to protect individuals from each other. They do this by criminalizing harmful, anti-social, and fraudulent conduct, and by helping to create an environment wherein individual citizens can live peacefully.
What the Warren case points out is that the government can not be held liable for preventing specific crimes against specific individuals. However, “A publicly maintained police force constitutes a basic governmental service provided to benefit the community at large by promoting public peace, safety and good order”.
With all due respect, bullshit. The millions of laws, regulations, and ordinances that exist criminalize practically any behavior under the sun. Prisons and jails are brimming with people who did nothing more than pursue their own happiness in their own way without committing an aggression on anyone. Laws exist to protect government from its citizens. Without those laws and the guns to back them up, a man could smoke marijuana and a woman could rent out her body. And within those laws is sufficient power, not only for arresting any arbitrary citizen, but for taking their property upon mere suspicion of a crime. I submit that your view is naive and even dangerous. It lacks the vigilance necessary to guard freedom.
Ah, I see. I was not reading closely enough.
It’s not purjury when you are just stating an opinion. Which is unless I misunderstood you the point you are trying to convey.
You certainly fit your member name ;).
Anyways, you are a bit overestimating things when you say that the prisons are “brimming” with people who only tried to pursue their own happiness.
As of 2000 (according to the Department of Justice) only 251,200 persons were incarcerated on drug related offenses. Roughly one fourth of all U.S. prisoners.
As much as most Libertarians hate to admit this, ALL laws are instituted to enforce morality. Rape is illegal because it violates our society’s mores, same with murder, larceny, et al. Just because drug abuse is “someone pursuing their own happiness” does not mean it is inherently allowed, in fact if it violates a social more you should expect it to be outlawed.
Of course this is assuming that the drug trade, drug consumption, drug use, and vice truly do only negatively affect people that are willing participants. That is not the case, so the whole argument is moot.