Earlier quoted context omitted.
The ACLU’s moral compass needle has been wobbling for a while now, and it broke off completely after Trump was elected. They realized that they collect significantly more donations by framing themselves as champion of leftist ideals rather than the original purpose of defending actual civil liberties.
I find your lack of evidence unsurprising.
Ninth Circuit rules NSA's bulk collection of Americans' call records was illegal
281–290 of 493 posts
Re: Ninth Circuit rules NSA's bulk collection of Americans' call records was illegal
#282Earlier quoted context omitted.
There's no choice in a democracy but to have something like the pardon power. The reason is that we need protection also from the power of judicial branch, which is abusable like any branch with power. Not having a pardon power allows bad judges to throw anyone they don't like into jail with no recourse by anyone. In a democracy, all branches are checked by the others, and this is a necessary check on the judicial br…
> There's no choice in a democracy but to have something like the pardon power. Not necessarily. IIUC the American President's pardon power is based on the British monarch's pardon power. The role of President was conceived (consciously or unconsciously) as an elected, non-hereditary monarch. He had many of the same powers - veto, commander of the military. > Not having a pardon power allows bad judges to throw anyon…
> IIUC the American President's pardon power is based on the British monarch's pardon power.
Perhaps, but there are parallels in other democracies.
>That would require every judge in every court up to the highest court to be bad.
Technically, only the highest court would need to be bad, and it can order the others around.
Re: Ninth Circuit rules NSA's bulk collection of Americans' call records was illegal
#283Earlier quoted context omitted.
The ACLU’s moral compass needle has been wobbling for a while now, and it broke off completely after Trump was elected. They realized that they collect significantly more donations by framing themselves as champion of leftist ideals rather than the original purpose of defending actual civil liberties.
I find your lack of evidence unsurprising.
Re: Ninth Circuit rules NSA's bulk collection of Americans' call records was illegal
#284Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yeah but Gina had unanimous support by Democrats, Republicans, and the entire CIA to become the Director of the CIA. Let’s not forget that Obama re-signed the Patriot Act even after campaigning in 2008 to end it. This kind of behavior is a problem that spans generations of government positions. It’s about time something is done about it.
And John Yoo teaches at Berkeley law!
“Any questions class?”
“How do you sleep at night?”
Re: Ninth Circuit rules NSA's bulk collection of Americans' call records was illegal
#285Earlier quoted context omitted.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oliver_North "In July 1987, North was summoned to testify before televised hearings of a joint congressional committee that was formed to investigate the Iran–Contra scandal. During the hearings, North admitted that he had misled Congress..." One of the sources explains that when congress investigated the Iran-Contra scandal, it granted Oliver North immunity for what he would say. From o…
Pardon my ignorance. How can Congress grant immunity from the Judiciary? I thought that was only a power that resided in the Executive?
A federal court issues the actual order to appear, after 2/3 of a committee or a majority of the house or senate votes to compel a witness to attend.
The witness cannot plead the fifth but they also cannot be prosecuted for anything they say.
And yes 2/3 of a committee is a small number of people.
Re: Ninth Circuit rules NSA's bulk collection of Americans' call records was illegal
#286Now, when can we begin prosecuting the instigators? Presumably, after we have prosecuted those who ordered and participated in torture. (There is no statute of limitations on torture, is there?)
Why would you prosecute people who were given permission by the relevant authorities? >The call-tracking effort began without court authorization under President George W. Bush following the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks. So the PotUS gave them the authority. >A similar program was approved by the secretive FISA Court beginning in 2006 and renewed numerous times, but the 9th Circuit panel said those rulings were…
> Why would you prosecute people who were given permission by the relevant authorities?
Because the “relevant authorities” didn’t have the legal right to give that permission.
No one is allowed to decide to torture people - it’s illegal even if your boss says it’s okay.
Re: Ninth Circuit rules NSA's bulk collection of Americans' call records was illegal
#287Now, when can we begin prosecuting the instigators? Presumably, after we have prosecuted those who ordered and participated in torture. (There is no statute of limitations on torture, is there?)
A reminder that a CIA officer who oversaw, ordered, and participated in systematic detainee torture, then wrote the order to destroy the evidential tapes of said torture, was not only not punished or prosecuted but promoted to the current Director of the agency. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2005_CIA_interrogation_videota... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gina_Haspel
Similarly, the NSA betrayed us. They don't get to say that they were just following orders. We must always understand that the NSA betrayed us and we can't trust them any more. Information dominance is the most powerful way for a nation to dominate and control its people. The NSA turned on the US Citizens and betrayed them in this way.
Re: Ninth Circuit rules NSA's bulk collection of Americans' call records was illegal
#288Earlier quoted context omitted.
> the civil war would have lasted for decades, there would have been mass charges years after Vietnam Congress could have passed acts granting blanket pardons to all involved. > without the option of pardon Nixon may never have resigned, etc. It might have been better for the rule of law if he had been convicted and removed forcibly, then subject to prosecution.
>Congress could have passed acts granting blanket pardons to all involved. That's just a slightly different method of doing the same thing. I agree involving Congress in pardons would make sense. >It might have been better for the rule of law if he had been convicted and removed forcibly, then subject to prosecution. It would have also involved more chaos in an already chaotic time, is that better than him resigning?…
Congress granting pardons is different. It's limited in scope and has a higher bar, since it requires the assent of a majority of the legislative branch.
What's chaotic about punishing a lawbreaking president? Sounds pretty lawful to me. It's how healthy democracies are supposed to operate. Pardoning Nixon set a bad precedent.
Re: Ninth Circuit rules NSA's bulk collection of Americans' call records was illegal
#289Earlier quoted context omitted.
Perhaps, but I don't think that they were punished. The difference I'm getting at here is subtle, but it's the difference between declaring independence and replacing the existing government. Both happen through revolution of some form, but one breaks away from a government you dislike. THat's not punitive. One replaces it and usually punishes the old one. Declaring independence from a distant seat of government is v…
"held accountable != "punished" or "punative". I'm not talking about punishment or punative action. I'm talking about accountability, where being 'held accountable' could be a synonym for 'held responsible'. In this case, the way I used the phrase, Britain was 'held responsible' by simply being told to 'go away'.
But being "held responsible" and being "held accountable" are very different. Holding someone responsible means to blame them. Holding someone accountable means giving them consequences. Many people blame the government for all sorts of things. Only a very small number of those things is the government ever held accountable for.
I agree that many people blamed the British Government for their problems, indeed that was the impetus for the revolution, but accountability of the British government was limited to none.
Re: Ninth Circuit rules NSA's bulk collection of Americans' call records was illegal
#290Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Yeah but Gina had unanimous support by Democrats, Republicans, and the entire CIA to become the Director of the CIA. * 109 generals oppose her nomination in a letter: https://www.humanrightsfirst.org/sites/default/files/RMLSena... * yes, there were some democrats who voted in her favour, but there were republicans too who voted against her. Overall though, the overwhelming majority democrats did vote against her. F…
Thank you, I had not seen the letter before. It is chilling that anyone voted for her after seeing it.
You are welcome!
There was at least some level of accountability for US Army members after the Abu Ghraib scandal [0], while I haven't heard about any CIA employee being held accountable in a similar way.
It's one thing to support an authoritarian regime with torture cells because it gives you cheap oil, it's another thing to do it yourself, with your own personel, because with this you lose your moral superiority and tarnish your own reputation. I'm not saying the former is great, it's bad, but that regime is not beholden to the US constitution, laws and judges, unlike the US federal employees.
A good point I heard a senator make in her confirmation hearings [1]: Even if she wasn't involved in torture at all, (and she was), alone the fact that Trump nominated her because he believed she was involved, turns the decision about her nomination into a decision about torture, no matter how much she regrets it in her letter to Sen. Warner (and the letter's regret was minimal).
[0]: Caution, graphic pictures https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abu_Ghraib_torture_and_prisone...