It sickens me to think that Zoe Baird and Kimba Wood were disqualified as choices for Attorney General because of nanny taxes and yet we get Attorneys General who believed in stomping on the Constitution (Ashcroft), approve of voter suppression and torture as well as lie to Congress and reporters (Gonzales) and who think torture is only torture if it is done to him, won’t prosecute or investigate crimes committed by the Executive Branch and now thinks that not all violations of the law are crimes (Mukasey).
Thanks for that last one, Senators Schumer and Feinstein.
Whether you look at the “regular” definition of the word “crime” or even the legal definition, you will find the most basic “violation of law” as part of the definition.
But this isn’t just to point out that the current Attorney General is willing to say that not every crime is a crime in trying to stretch the boundaries of reality so far as to not prosecute…um….hmmm….what’s the word….oh yeah….crimes by members of his own Justice Department, it is to wonder just what other crimes, I mean “violations of the law” are just peachy keen according to the man who only holds the title and position of the nation’s top law enforcement official.
- We know that violating the fourth amendment (which is of higher authority that “a law”) is not a crime;
- We know that ignoring subpoenas by Congress is not a crime (disclaimer: IOKIYAR);
- We know that politicizing the internship program at the Justice Department is not a crime;
- We know that waterboarding another individual isn’t a crime (unless it is done to him);
- We know that destroying taped evidence of torture, after being ordered not to), is not a crime;
- We know that top Executive Branch officials ordering torture isn’t a crime;
- We know that suppressing people’s right to vote is not a crime;
- We will probably soon find out that violating FEC campaign finance rules is not a crime (again, IOKIYAR);
- We also know that violating the habeas corpus rules is also not a crime;
- We know that lying to Congress is not a crime; and
- For good measure, covering for the President himself over potential
crimes, er, “violations of law” that the President may have committed is most certainly not a crime.
I’m sure that I missed more than a few, but I am glad that having a funny sounding name or names that sound similar to names that sound funny are worthy of indefinite detaining or “errors”. And living in a house that wasn’t even the house that SWAT teams were supposed to be looking for is their own fault when they are raided or wrongfully arrested.
Torture. Fabricate evidence to invade another country. Violate laws in hiring and firing practices. Suppress the vote illegally. Violate the fourth amendment. Blow the cover of a covert CIA operative and an entire network of people working on WMD issues. Break campaign finance laws. Ignore subpoenas.
Go ahead – those aren’t crimes and there certainly is a precedent for not being prosecuted.
Just don’t wear a shirt that has a cartoon robot on it while trying to fly or, even worse, wear a t shirt that says “Give Peace A Chance”. Because those are not only most certainly not in any way violations of the law, but are also crimes.
he is correct – but still, (1) it is a ludicrous statement for him to make, especially with the track record above, and (2) I believe that a list of even one item is too much for an Attorney General.
I wrote about this about a year or so ago. There are many things that are only crimes if someone is willing to call them crimes. Murder is murder. But violating the FISA statute requires that someone file charges. Same with campaign finance laws and failure to respond to subpoenas.
A lot of the stonewalling we’ve seen from the Bush administration since the midterms has been a response to the fact that they were doing things that were illegal under traditional interpretations of the law, but were not illegal under a Republican congress and an Ashcroft/Gonzales run Justice Department. Suddenly, they became illegal again, at least in Congress. That made it all the more urgent that the Justice Department play an unconscionable defense.
And the Democrats have been rendered impotent. Of course, the likely result will be a huge landslide election. But what if it doesn’t materialize? What then?
I am very concerned that the “landslide” won’t happen. Between voter ID laws, suppression and any other election day shenanigans that gets chalked up to “oh well” can shave a couple of % points off here and there, dilute the overall vote spread and tip a few races.
I still think Obama wins and we pick up 5 Senate seats and 20 in the House. But Obama should win by 6+%, we could pick up 30 House seats and almost 10 in the Senate (as you know).
But what if it doesn’t get challenged, and what if we have too many of the “more” and not enough of the “better” Democrats?
Then we see business as usual, but suddenly the Rule Of Law(TM) will come back when Obama is in the WH.
Or, even worse, a “miraculous win” for McCain will happen out of nowhere and we will hear about the Bradley Effect or some other crap.
The big thing here is the precedent that is being set – if not for Obama then for McCain or the next republican administration.
“And the Democrats have been rendered impotent.”
I think you mean “And the democrats rendered themselves impotent”, because that’s really what’s happened.
I did not see anyone hold a gun to Nancy Pelosi’s head and say “take impeachment off the table or the first woman speaker gets it.” I did not see anyone do the same to Steny Hoyer and say “Bring back that awful FISA bill.” Nor is there anyone other than the Democratic Leadership preventing Conyers from enforcing subpoenas. Pete Stark’s blubbering apology for whatever it was he said? Pelosi forced him to do that.
The democrats did that to themselves and to the country. They hardly deserve to win anything, considering they have betrayed their base.
I don’t think there’s going to be a landslide either, and worse I think we’ll only get “more” not “better” democrats.
we’ll get both better and not-better Democrats.
The problem is they are often the same person, depending on the lack of spinal column when it counts.
It looks to me like Obama’s lead is so marginal so far that just winning is in question. Forget about landslides.
“Just don’t wear a shirt that has a cartoon robot on it while trying to fly or, even worse, wear a t shirt that says “Give Peace A Chance”. Because those are not only most certainly not in any way violations of the law, but are also crimes.“
And for HEAVEN’s sake DON’T wear anything with Arabic writing on it, even if it also has exactly the same statement written in English. In fact, don’t try to carry anything with Arabic writing on it either. Arabic writing is clearly a crime.
FREE SPEECH IS A CRIME!