View Full Version : The shocking and disturbing lawlessness of Bush Administration



PUGalicious
05-16-2007, 07:38 AM
From an editorial appearing in today's Washington Post (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/05/15/AR2007051501945_pf.html):
JAMES B. COMEY, the straight-as-an-arrow former No. 2 official at the Justice Department, yesterday offered the Senate Judiciary Committee an account of Bush administration lawlessness so shocking it would have been unbelievable coming from a less reputable source. The episode involved a 2004 nighttime visit to the hospital room of then-Attorney General John D. Ashcroft by Alberto Gonzales, then the White House counsel, and Andrew H. Card Jr., then the White House chief of staff. Only the broadest outlines of this visit were previously known: that Mr. Comey, who was acting as attorney general during Mr. Ashcroft's illness, had refused to recertify the legality of the administration's warrantless wiretapping program; that Mr. Gonzales and Mr. Card had tried to do an end-run around Mr. Comey; that Mr. Ashcroft had rebuffed them.

Mr. Comey's vivid depiction, worthy of a Hollywood script, showed the lengths to which the administration and the man who is now attorney general were willing to go to pursue the surveillance program. First, they tried to coerce a man in intensive care -- a man so sick he had transferred the reins of power to Mr. Comey -- to grant them legal approval. Having failed, they were willing to defy the conclusions of the nation's chief law enforcement officer and pursue the surveillance without Justice's authorization. Only in the face of the prospect of mass resignations -- Mr. Comey, FBI Director Robert S. Mueller III and most likely Mr. Ashcroft himself -- did the president back down.

As Mr. Comey testified, "I couldn't stay, if the administration was going to engage in conduct that the Department of Justice had said had no legal basis." The crisis was averted only when, the morning after the program was reauthorized without Justice's approval, President Bush agreed to fix whatever problem Justice had with it (the details remain classified). "We had the president's direction to do . . . what the Justice Department believed was necessary to put this matter on a footing where we could certify to its legality," Mr. Comey said.

The dramatic details should not obscure the bottom line: the administration's alarming willingness, championed by, among others, Vice President Cheney and his counsel, David Addington, to ignore its own lawyers. Remember, this was a Justice Department that had embraced an expansive view of the president's inherent constitutional powers, allowing the administration to dispense with following the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. Justice's conclusions are supposed to be the final word in the executive branch about what is lawful or not, and the administration has emphasized since the warrantless wiretapping story broke that it was being done under the department's supervision.

Now, it emerges, they were willing to override Justice if need be. That Mr. Gonzales is now in charge of the department he tried to steamroll may be most disturbing of all.
.

Martin
05-16-2007, 07:59 AM
while one can debate the legality and ethics of warrantless wiretaps, overriding an acting attorney general isn't as big a thing as this article implies. the attorney general is no more than a cabinet position appointed by the president. just like any other cabinet position, is it such a major issue that the president expect his appointed subordinate to be on board with his agenda?

while i'm not necessarily defending the wiretapping here, what irks me is that the article sensationalizes the event and appears (to me, at least) to try to cast it as a breach in separation of powers... when in fact this whole event falls entirely inside of the executive branch and therefore is not the case. one can argue that the current agenda isn't up to par, but one can't argue that a superior (the president) can't excercise authority over his subordinate (the ag). -M

-M

dismayed
05-19-2007, 08:12 AM
So then by the same token if the Bush administration were to approach the FDA and tell them that they are to accept and certify all food from China regardless of the food's safety, that would just be an internal issue of the Executive branch? That wouldn't be an issue for you in as much as having confidence in the FDA that their decisions are not based on politics but rather in consideration of the well-being of the people?

It's the same thing really.