Anyone see Ashcroft grilled on the torture memos?

[member 5645]

Anyone see Ashcroft grilled on the torture memos??

http://www.reuters.co.uk/newsPackageArticle.jhtml?type=worldNews&storyID=526134&section=news

Senator Biden was awesome

"There's a reason why we sign these treaties: to protect my son in the military," Biden said. "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."

He sounded PISSED about this.
I personally think that Ashcroft refusing to cooperate, without citing any sort of privelage or law, is completely disgusting. Despite one's thoughts on the subject at hand, it is my understanding that Ashcroft is constituionally required to answer the panel.

 

[kat]

I didn't see this so I can only comment on the article. I think this is being politicized to an incredible extent, which for me creates a fog that makes it difficult to see the facts. I don't think Ashcroft is required to show his memos to the president or discuss them. It'll be interesting to see how this plays out. I'd also like to see a full transcript of his testimony.
I understand what Bidden is saying here, and I think the treaties are important and that we should uphold them but...when I here these type of statements there's always that little voice that says "why are we fooling ourselves?"..so, really, when have these treaties protected our soldiers. Which war have we fought in that our soldiers haven't been tortured?

 

[kat]

'"It is essential for the public interest that I should receive all the information possible respecting either matters or persons connected with the public. To induce people to give this information, they must feel assured that when deposited with me it is secret and sacred. Honest men might justifiably withhold information, if they expected the communication would be made public, and commit them to war with their neighbors and friends. " Doesn't this sound like Ashcrofts statements?

 

[member 5645]

I didn't see this so I can only comment on the article. I think this is being politicized to an incredible extent, which for me creates a fog that makes it difficult to see the facts. I don't think Ashcroft is required to show his memos to the president or discuss them. It'll be interesting to see how this plays out. I'd also like to see a full transcript of his testimony.
I understand what Bidden is saying here, and I think the treaties are important and that we should uphold them but...when I here these type of statements there's always that little voice that says "why are we fooling ourselves?"..so, really, when have these treaties protected our soldiers. Which war have we fought in that our soldiers haven't been tortured?

All it would take is Ashcroft to invoke Executive privilege, and he would be entitled to keep his mouth shut. As is, he's just saying "nope, not going to tell you". He expressely said that he is not invoking any law or right of privilege.

 

[kat]

He doesn't need to invoke executive privilege. He has the right of deliberative process privilege. This privilege also continues to protect pre-decision documents even after a decision has been made.

 

[Jake]

The Video is on C-span.org for anyone who wants to see it, just search for "ashcroft", then sort by date and look for testimony on the 8th.

Ashcroft just didnt cooperate for that testimony. He just bumbled and beat around the question with a lot of "It is not my position to discuss my conversations with the president", and other such nonsense. If Ashcroft was really doing what's right, he could discuss with clarity and directness.

 

[check]

I didn’t watch the whole thing either, but I think I heard someone say it constitutes contempt of congress if he’s not invoking any executive privilege, which I totally agree with. This is not going to play out well for him, that’s for sure.

 

[Jake]

But they'll get away with it, just by lying :)

 

[kat]

There's nothing to get away with. Pre-decision deliberations are protected, as they should be!

 

[Jake]

They don't have to be protected, in some situations we need to know what was said/discussed, I think this is one of those times. We should focus on what is better for the country rather than finding excuses for politicians on why they shouldn't have to say anything

 

[Dissident Dan]

"Executive privelege" is just BS that the Supreme Court said was not "absolute" in the Nixon years.

He obviously has something to hide. Ashcroft is probably the worst member of this administration.

 

[check]

Just started watching it from the C-Span website. About an hr and a half in. I think everyone should watch it. Sen. Biden is awesome, and it was he who suggested Ashcroft is in contempt of congress. Why is it that the most straightforward questions never get straight answers? LoL

 

[member 5645]

"Executive privelege" is just BS that the Supreme Court said was not "absolute" in the Nixon years.

He obviously has something to hide. Ashcroft is probably the worst member of this administration.

Executive privilige is a great right, and I fully support it.
However, he didn't invoke it so let's not go that route.

 

[member 5645]

He doesn't need to invoke executive privilege. He has the right of deliberative process privilege. This privilege also continues to protect pre-decision documents even after a decision has been made.

Sorry, I'm not so well versed on this subject, and being that Ashcroft refused to simply cite any right on why he wouldn't talk, perhaps you could explain this more to me??

 

[kat]

Sorry, I'm not so well versed on this subject, and being that Ashcroft refused to simply cite any right on why he wouldn't talk, perhaps you could explain this more to me??

Well, first of all, Ashcroft can't claim executive privelege. Only the president can claim this. Possibly the vice president, but I believe their was a recent court case that ruled the vice could not claim it.
In regards to Ashcroft's testimony, he did cite his reason "We believe that to provide this kind of information would impair the ability of advice-giving in the executive branch to be candid, forthright, thorough and accurate at all times,"
This is at the heart of the right of deliberative process. A privilege based on the "deliberative process" is well recognized under the Freedom of Information Act and is founded in commmon law.
There are two issues involving the right to deliberative process. The one which would explain Ashcrofts reticiency to make ANY comment in regards to the memo is that once

The attorney-client privilege “evaporates upon any voluntary disclosure
of confidential information to a third party.” Carter v. Gibbs, 909 F.2d 1452, 1458
(Fed. Cir. 1990), cert denied, 498 U.S. 811 (1990). When a party discloses
privileged material for strategic purposes, this may imply a waiver of privilege
with respect to all other communications on the same subject.

http://www.uscfc.uscourts.gov/Opinions/Bruggink/00/firstheights.pdf
and secondly, it is up to congress to prove that there was any failure to obey US law. If there was a failure there will be evidence, if then that evidence shows cause to examine a deliberative opinion of the executive branch, Ashcroft would be compelled to do so. Congress cannot request Pre-decisional documents unless it has already proven criminal actions, it cannot request them in order to investigate if there may have been. Furthermore, it must show that the benefits of the release of pre-decisonal documents outweighs the importance of the right of deliverative process.

 

[Zero]

Kat, treaties signed by a president become American law...there is no "but" to it.

 

[kat]

Kat, treaties signed by a president become American law...there is no "but" to it.

Unless it fits within the parimeters I outlined it's not relevant to the topic of "deliberative process privilege"

 

[selfAdjoint]

So Kat, since the organization that would investigate whether there had been criminal behavior by the executive branch is the Justice department, and since the Justice department doesn't have to do anything if it doesn't want to, and may be involved in the criminal activity itself, and Congress is constrained in its investigation by this "deliberative priviledge", then how is the government ever to investigte "high crimes and misdemeanors"?

 

[amp]

Kat can't give a good answer to that because it brings home the point that Ascroft dosen't have a leg to stand on.As was pointed out by the senetor who questioned him, he had only offered his opinion and feelings as a reason for not being cooperative in providing the information they sought. IMO, Ashcroft is in contempt of congress. Further, I think he is obligated to turn over the documents requested save only they are classified.(which they may be retro-actively) His reticence, I think is because like other documents (some being leaked) there is a picture emerging of systemic intent for violation not only the constitution and federal laws but also international laws to which the U.S. is a party. Apparentlly, the documents that Aschroft holds show willful intent to circumvent or ignore 'with plausible deniability' the rule of law as it pertains to those issues involving the prisoners and detainees.

 

[Zero]

Seems to me that Ashcroft's lack of an explanation says something...and so does the automatic defense of him that comes from some parties. No government official is above the system; everyone answers to someone.

 

[kat]

So Kat, since the organization that would investigate whether there had been criminal behavior by the executive branch is the Justice department, and since the Justice department doesn't have to do anything if it doesn't want to, and may be involved in the criminal activity itself, and Congress is constrained in its investigation by this "deliberative priviledge", then how is the government ever to investigte "high crimes and misdemeanors"?

I didn't create the right SA, I'm just clarifying it. I think it's an important privelege, but that there is of course, with many of our laws and rights the possibility of abuse. That doesn't mean it should be removed, nor does that mean that he should set a precedent by just waiving it. In the past it's gone before the courts, and they have not always allowed it to stand.
Some rulings have been as follows:
http://www.bcabar.org/the_clause/99_fall_privileges.htm

The Abramson court noted that this privilege is not absolute, and can be overcome based on a court’s weighing of the litigant’s need for information against the harm that may result from disclosure. Id. In contrast to the military and state secrets privilege, even a validly invoked claim of privilege will be overcome by a showing of compelling need for the information. Id. at 296. In Abramson, the government met its proof and the plaintiff was unable to demonstrate a compelling need for deliberative information concerning the General Printing Office’s decision to change its overtime policy. Id. at 297.

and also:

The District of Columbia Circuit employed this analysis in refusing to permit the Internal Revenue Service to shield field service advice memoranda ("FSAs") from discovery. Tax Analysts v. Internal Revenue Service, 117 F.3d 607, 618 (D.C. Cir. 1997). The court recognized that the deliberative process privilege is a variant of the executive privilege shielding "materials which are both predecisional and deliberative." Id. at 616. Nevertheless, the court denied the IRS’ assertion of the privilege because, in the court’s estimation, maintaining secrecy surrounding FSAs would permit the IRS to develop a body of secret law. The court concluded that FSAs were not predecisional but rather, were considered statements of the agency’s legal position. Id. at 617.

and:

The COFC’s criteria are consistent with other circuits, however, courts vary in their concern for the formality with which the agency asserts the privilege. Compare CACI Field Servs., 12 Cl. Ct. at 686-87 with Tax Analysts, 117 F.3d at 616-18. In its Zenith decision, the CAFC did not discuss the formal invocation of the deliberative process privilege by the head of Department of Commerce or the Customs Service involved in that case. Uncertainty amongst the courts, thus, counsels caution by government agencies asserting the deliberative process privilege and suggests that any such claim should be supported by an affidavit of the agency head.

My earlier quote was not Ashcroft, but Thomas Jefferson, after a failure in their claim for Deliberative process privelege. But, I found it profoundly similar to Ashcrofts statements.
Note that as I mentioned before, if he gives any information about the contents or background of the memo it invalidates the right and THEN, to use Amps words he definitely wouldn't have a leg to stand on. If congress pursues this, he may have to spill the beans anyway BUT I'm betting that they know enough about the law and how the privilege works to not push it. Because, I don't think either Bidden or Kennedy..in the legal sense..had a leg to stand on and it was all "bluster". Whether I agree with it or not is irrelevent, I still haven't had a chance to really delve into the memo etc. BUT this issue is long standing and has been introduced to congressional testimonies in the past.

 

[amp]

The fact is that Aschroft did not even evoke the priviledge, he just said no I'm not giving the memos up.

 

[kat]

The fact is that Aschroft did not even evoke the priviledge, he just said no I'm not giving the memos up.

Really? I could of sworn he said more then that. Could you please show me link me to his testimony that shows him saying just "no, I'm not giving the memos up"
Thanks! Appreciate it!

 

[Zero]

Really? I could of sworn he said more then that. Could you please show me link me to his testimony that shows him saying just "no, I'm not giving the memos up"
Thanks! Appreciate it!

You are nitpicking and flame-baiting, IMO. Don't.

 

[kat]

You are nitpicking and flame-baiting, IMO. Don't.

IMO, I've already quoted where he has said more then that. In fact I quoted not only what he said but a very similar phrasing by Thomas Jefferson on the same matter. SO, IMO I don't think I"M the one nitpicking. He made a statement, and he's made some very strong statements that IMO were a personal attack. I"D like to see YOU stand up for ME and stop nitpicking when I'm trying to politely point out a small problem with his statement...Which I KNOW he can not back up.

 

[amp]

“I do believe the president has the right to have legal advice from his attorney general and not have that revealed to the whole world,” said Ashcroft. Yet the administration was not invoking executive privilege claims to protect the documents, he said."

He is in contempt of congress, he knows that the 'advice' he is referring to is exactly what the panel is seeking to learn about and if he is contradicting himself the memos would be proof one way or the other.

 

[kat]

He is in contempt of congress, he knows that the 'advice' he is referring to is exactly what the panel is seeking to learn about and if he is contradicting himself the memos would be proof one way or the other.

I've given you several legal references that shows he is not, nor does he have to. If you want to keep believing this, go ahead. But, it is not based on fact.

 

[Njorl]

Just a note of clarification on this issue.

Ashcroft has not claimed any reason for not giving up the memo. He may very well be able to claim deliberative priveledge, or executive privaledge, but he has not. The truth is that his testimony was voluntary, not compelled. He has stated that he would give up the memo if it were subpeonaed. The commitee voted 10-9 along party lines not to subpeona the memo. Republicans on the commitee gave as a reason for their refusal that Ashcroft was being cooperative.

In other words, because he was willing to part with it under subpeona, there was no need to subpeona him. I've decided that because I am willing to pay my rent, that there is no need to pay it.

Njorl

 

[amp]

good point Njorl (LOL)

 

[kat]

Just a note of clarification on this issue.

Ashcroft has not claimed any reason for not giving up the memo.

Yes, he has. I quoted the reason he gave earlier in this thread.

He may very well be able to claim deliberative priveledge, or executive privaledge, but he has not.

He does not have to claim deliberative privelage, what I quoted as his reason for not turning them over IS delibarative privelege. Again, he CANNOT claim executive privelage, only the president can.

The truth is that his testimony was voluntary, not compelled.

The truth is he does not have to turn over anything unless it is subpheonaed, he cannot be held in contempt for not turning over his memos...because he was not subphoenaed...and even THEN, he doesn ot have to turn over everything they ask for! ...

He has stated that he would give up the memo if it were subpeonaed.

I had not read this. Do you have a reference or link, I'm interested in reading it.

The commitee voted 10-9 along party lines not to subpeona the memo. Republicans on the commitee gave as a reason for their refusal that Ashcroft was being cooperative.

This isn't what I have read either. I read that republicans thought the subphoena was to broad and would be held up in litigation AND that they wanted to continue to try to work something out with them to release documents. Can you share your links/source for what you're claiming?