Prosecute the torture.

July 29, 2008

Department of Injustice Scandal Roundup


Here's my list:

  • US Attorney General Alberto Gonzales denies that there's a right to writ of habeas corpus in the U.S. Constitution.

  • The DOJ approves the unlawful detainment of terrorist suspects and argues for the legality of extraordinary rendition.

  • The DOJ authorized the CIA to torture prisoners in its custody.

  • The DOJ's investigation into eavesdropping on U.S. citizens without proper warrants was shut down to protect AG Gonzales.

  • The DOJ’s Civil Rights Division has ruled in every case on the side of Republicans as "part of a partisan strategy to suppress the votes of poor and minority citizens."

  • The DOJ's selective prosecution of Democratic political figures.

  • DOJ job applicants were made to pass a political test ("What is it about George W. Bush that makes you want to serve him?").

  • Even if a DOJ job applicant was a Republican, one could be rejected merely because they were married to a Democrat.

  • Of course even a rumor that you might possibly be gay could cost you your job at the DOJ.

  • And, even if you were a good Republican who was able to secure a job at the DOJ as a US Attorney, you would be fired if it was deemed you weren't acting sufficiently Republican enough.

  • All of which led to DOJ lawyers talking in code because they were afraid of being wiretapped by their own government and fired.
  • I'm sure I must have missed some -- hell, there's been nearly eight years of this shit.

    Help me out!

    What is your favorite Department of Injustice scandal?

    .

    44 comments:

    Anonymous said...

    John K: This is funny. Mostly because when Clinton was running the show he actually fired all the Federal Attorneys so he could specifically hire Democrats. Not only that he trumped up false charges against the White House Travel Office (Billy Dale) so he could hire Democats cronies.
    So it appears to me that as long as Republicans hire Democrats that would be acceptable. Because you left wingers don't whine when Democrats only hire Democrats as evident by the last admin. LMAO Weak.

    Heir to the Throne said...

    Wow, most of the links go to TPM and Wikipedia. Not the most unbiased sources.
    Can I do the same and prove how corrupt the Clinton Administrion was by proving links to Judicial Watch and World Net Daily?
    What is your favorite Department of Injustice scandal?
    Waco from the poster child for Prosecutorial Misconduct Janet Reno.
    Maybe you would agree with setting terrorist suspects on fire.
    That and no Justice Department criminal investigation of Mike Nifong
    Just keep pushing the full US Constitutional rights for non US citizens.

    "Fair and Balanced" Dave said...

    Shorter JK & Hair:

    Clinton's penis! Clinton's penis!

    Anonymous said...

    OK guys,

    Here is the big question: How can you deny habeas corpus to one person without denying it to everyone?

    -Whampa

    cathcatz said...

    the trolls will never admit that bushco is corruption personified, and they will always go back to clinton to justify anything that we say their guy has done. duh.

    no doubt clinton wasn't perfect, but i'd take his kinds of missteps over this madness any day.

    and f&b dave... there used to be a troll on the al franken blog, back in the day, who went by the handle "clintons zipper". he would do exactly what i described in my first paragraph. sad sack of shit.

    EdHeath said...

    So ... who should have prosectuted Mike Nifong? The Bush Justice Department?

    Clearly, Bill Clinton was not perfect. Like the old saying goes, liberals may defend him but they wouldn't let their daughters anywhere near him. Yes, people died when Clinton launched cruise missiles at an alleged Sudanese chemical weapons factory and at Osama bin Laden. Yes, soldiers died in Somalia when Clinton tried on a smaller scale what Bush has tried in Afghanistan (use only special forces in a conflict).

    But I think the question of scale is a fair one. Bill Clinton went through the impeachment process for his embarrassing dalliance with an intern, not for his actions overseas. George Bush has skated on any charges so far, despite setting up a prison camp 90 to 100 miles away from US soil to avoid US laws on the treatment of prisoners and of course he has tweaked the definitions of combatant, torture and wiretapping to avoid US laws. All this plus our lack of a reason to invade Iraq makes the US the chief hypocrite of the world. Yes, other countries are more brutal to their citizens or other countries citizens. But the US is supposed to stand for something, and just like with slavery and then segregation, just like with the internment camps, just like with energy conservation, we say one thing and do another.

    Bill Clinton was not our best President. He rode the internet boom to a good economy and government surpluses. But he has an opposition Congress limiting what he could do (for better of worse) and of course Monica Lewinsky. George Bush had, for six years, a friendly Congress, and he invaded another country without reason, he set up a camp with unlimited prison sentences with no trial, he made America a torturer, and he trashed the economy and tried to deplete our resources. He had no Monica, but he is in the running for the worst president.

    Anonymous said...

    John K: Yep, Bubba Clinton fired all those federal prosecutors because two from Ark. were hot on his trail. And then he allowed Hillary to sick the FBI on Billy Dale and the Travel Office. It took a jury 15 minutes to come back with a not-guilty verdict against Billy Dale by the way. There are others
    My point? The left is not opposed to doing this stuff. They have done it in the past and will do so in the future. They just get angry when a Republican does it.
    Look at the number of people in the Clinton admin who were indicted and removed from office. (Latest Clinton crony to be shown to be a scoundrel is Franklin Raines.) And then compare it to the Bush admin people.
    The left is not opposed to this stuff going on. They just want to be the ones who benefit. LMAO Its too easy. You have to try harder. Perhaps have Senators Dodd or Conrad provide some advice.

    Anonymous said...

    It is interesting to debate the corruption of Clinton vs. Bush but it is really useless.

    The Bush administration has successfully removed habeas corpus rights. This is a bigger issue than any "who is more corrupt" discussion. Clinton is history. Bush is now.

    So I ask again: How can you deny habeas corpus to one person without denying it to everyone?

    -Whampa

    Anonymous said...

    John K: You liberals are weaklings. Clinton was not at war. We are in war. All powers are thus handed over to the commander-in-chief. We win wars, whatever the cost. We are Americans. In these fighting times, we have to give our decider-in-chief everything, for his discretion. All energies must be directed to what we have put our mind to most.

    You liberals would rather pout about a lesbo not getting a job; whine about the abstract, AMERICAN concocted right to habeas corpus being denied to TERRORISTS and POSSIBLE TERRORIST SYMPATHIZERS; criticize the ballsy( which none of you have a pair) move to go to a man's (John Ashcroft's) death bed to get real POWER; and the unimportant details of some sundry legal point here and there--than win the war.

    John McCain is right. You liberals would lose the war on terror to win an election. You all deserve Syria, you commies in liberal disguise. LOL

    WE ARE WINNING THE WAR ON TERROR, AND YOU LIBERAL LIMPWRISTS CAN"T STAND IT. LMAO LOL ROFL LMAO Weak.

    Eric W said...

    "You liberals are weaklings. Clinton was not at war. We are in war. All powers are thus handed over to the commander-in-chief. We win wars, whatever the cost. We are Americans. In these fighting times, we have to give our decider-in-chief everything, for his discretion. All energies must be directed to what we have put our mind to most."

    That has to be one of the most effed up and frightening appraisals of American government I have ever read. The short version: If the president says we're at war (even without a declaration from Congress), the president acquires dictatorial powers.

    Then again, the Democratic majority in Congress isn't exactly proving John K wrong. They just stay bent over and pass around the Vaseline (c.f. FISA).

    Anonymous said...

    John K:

    Eric W.

    If you can't stand the heat, get out of the kitchen. It's only a 5 hour drive to commie Canada. LMAO

    Sherry said...

    http://jonathanturley.org/

    would the lmaos'ers spend 15 minutes or so reading this blog?
    he knows more about the constitution than all of us combined.it's his job.

    then try lyao after you realize what has been done to it.

    Blue Number 2 said...

    John K, you are missing the point. Yes, all of the US Attorneys were let go at the beginning of the Clinton administration so he could hire Democrats. That's the way it always works with the DoJ. It's just like with a new cabinet. I'm not saying I condone it but that's the political process.

    The issue is that those lawyers are supposed to then act without political bias and focus on their jobs in upholding the Constitution. Throughout time they have done that regardless of whether they are Republican or Democratic appointees.

    But this administration is different. They fired some of their own appointees in the middle of the administration (unheard of) because they weren't as vigorous at prosecuting Democrats as Cheyney wanted them to be. And, they brought politics into the hiring of DoJ staff. Staff jobs are not supposed to be political at all. That's the issue.

    Oh, and that's in addition to all of the other Constitution trampling things this administration has done.

    Anonymous said...

    John K: You wimps would rather take it up the arse for the Constitution in a weak America than remain the new and only world superpower that we are.

    This is the new American Century, you fools. Love it, or, say "sianara"

    Blue Number 2 said...

    I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.

    I'm willing to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States by whatever means necessary.

    Are you John K.?

    Eric W said...

    "If you can't stand the heat, get out of the kitchen. It's only a 5 hour drive to commie Canada. LMAO"

    Newsflash, tool: the Revolutionary War was fought over less. If you think the libertarian answer is to tyranny, meglomania, and autocracy is running to a neighboring socialist nation, you're badly mistaken. God willing, the next war for liberty won't be bloody, but if America is to ever be truly free again, revolution is probably inevitable.

    "You wimps would rather take it up the arse for the Constitution in a weak America than remain the new and only world superpower that we are."

    There you have it folks: the neocon agenda in a sentence. Power is all that matters. Screw the Constitution. It's just a goddamned piece of paper, right? True, the Constitution isn't a sacred text handed down from God. It is, however, one of the world's best codifications of the philosophy of liberty ever written. I guess liberty isn't a high priority for necons, though. Power is more attractive. I hope your lust for power comforts you when you have no rights left. BTw, if you can't a nation founded on liberty, peace, and prosperity, you're just a flight away from China, Russia, several South American nations, and plenty other dictatoriships, communist regimes, juntas, and banana republics. This country was founded on libertarian ideals long before your ilk weasled their way into power. If you can't take the liberty, get the hell out of the limited constitutional republic!

    Infinonymous said...

    It is by turns humorous and frightening to observe the remarkably off-point and misguided chatter from those attempting to defend or deflect attention from the unlawful politicization of the Department of Justice.

    I could illuminate some of the pertinent points (such as the crucial distinction between political appointees such as U.S. Attorneys, who are routinely replaced at the start of a new-party administration, and career lawyers, who are to be insulated from partisanship, or the bizarre prevalence of comprehensively unqualified DOJ officials during the Bush administration).

    I could direct attention to the several fine sources of informed opinion and factual accounts concerning the diminution and corrosion of our Department of Justice.

    But I will settle for this. Conservatives and Republicans with any brain matter will refrain from attempting to defend these shameful departures from law and tradition in the Department of Justice. The most recent DOJ report not only is exceptionally damning (with unambiguous conclusions that laws were broken and misconduct abounded) but also was issued by the Bush administration's Department of Justice.

    Those who lack a law degree or substantial familiarity with the Department of Justice should for the most part leave the opining to others (ideally, those who have read the reports), and in any event should be less forceful in their pronouncements, because most of the comments to date reveal a breathtaking lack of comprehension.

    Anonymous said...

    John K: Infinonymous says he COULD help us poor oi polloi-that is, those without law degrees-- but he won't.

    He is probably a run of the mill advocate, making money hand over fist. Thus, he has no time to expound for us.

    What's the old joke about law students? The real "A" ones actually become law professors, and TEACH the law; the "B" ones eventually save face and become judges; and the "C" ones become advocates, the leat talented and more unscrupulous ones collecting tons of money for their fees

    Anonymous said...

    To John K:

    Your willingness to surrender even the most basic right (habeas corpus) is exactly what is so tragic about all of this.

    Remember, John, without habeas they can pick you up off the street and throw you into a dark pit any time they choose for as long as they want. They can do this to you, John.

    Maybe you don't think Bush will do this but you will have to live through many many more administrations. (some good, some bad) Some day, someone will want you out of the way (for any reason whatsover) and you will be gone. You, John. They will never have to bring you forth to tell us who the hell you are, let alone show any evidence for why you should be held.

    Anonymous said...

    John K: You fools. I support this regime. They know who I am. I stand up for America online, on sites like this, and we all know they are watching us. I give to Republican causes. This, I win: you lose. LMAO

    Wimps; incompetent lawyers; sorry-ass celebrators of defeat. ROFL

    EdHeath said...

    Ah, I can't resist putting in my uninformed opinion. Clinton was not at war, but Somalia was in civil war and Kosovo was at war with it's neighbor, and Clinton was trying to help protect the weak from bullies (what a wus). And trying to kill Osama bin Laden when all he had done was attack embassies and a navy ship, what a maroon Clinton was (and too bad he didn’t succeed).

    And real men beat up people on their death bed, and make them renounce the principles they have taken an oath to defend (“the unimportant details of some sundry legal point here and there”). And that’s how we win the war on terror.

    Uh, how are we winning the war on terror? We are losing in Afghanistan because the President’s limited attention span is distracted. Violence against Americans goes up and down in Iraq, but in total we have decimated the country, allowed its infrastructure to be destroyed, allowed the professional class (engineers, doctors, scientists) to be killed or driven out and created a whole new generation of terrorists by alienating Iraq and the rest of the middle east. And we never did catch Osama bin Laden.

    We are losing the war on terror by giving up our principles. Other countries see how we treat our prisoners of war, with unlimited imprisonment with no trial or hearing, with torture, by spitting on the religion of Islam. We have lost our status as the moral leaders of the world (never minding about racism in the Presidential campaign), and so we have handed the terrorists the lead in the conflict. We never see when we are in moral crisis, until after we have exited it, and look back. And right now we are smack in the middle of a moral crisis. And John K wants to distract us with Bill Clinton.

    Eric W said...

    "In Germany, they came first for the Communists, And I didn’t speak up because I wasn’t a Communist;

    And then they came for the trade unionists, And I didn’t speak up because I wasn’t a trade unionist;

    And then they came for the Jews, And I didn’t speak up because I wasn’t a Jew;

    And then . . . they came for me . . . And by that time there was no one left to speak up."


    First They came..."

    Anonymous said...

    To John K:

    You can't be for real. So you are willing to surrender your rights to Bush because Bush knows you support him politically and so therefore won't pick you off the street?

    So your vision of America is one where you are in the "regime" or you must fear a goolog? You are some "freedom fighter"!

    -Whampa

    Anonymous said...

    John K: Ed sounds like that post-Freudian, Commie wussie, Slavoj Zizek:

    At this point, however, I cannot resist a slightly paranoid speculation: what if the people around Bush knew all this, what if this 'collateral damage' is the true aim of the entire operation? What if the TRUE target of the 'war on terror' is not omly a global geopolitical rearrangement in the Middle East and beyond, but also American society itself (namely, the repression of whatever remains of its emancitory potential)? We should therefore be careful not to fight false battles: the debates about how evil Saddam was, even about the cost of the war, and so forth, are red herrings. The focus should be on what actually transpires in our societies, on what kind of society is emerging here and now as the result of the war on terror."

    What B.S. LMAO. ROFL. And someone tell that fool Zizek to get a haircut and a shave. I'll give him the money (and a bowl of soup) LOL LMAO

    infinonymous said...

    I must concede one point regarding John K -- he is consistent. Each observation as insightful, as informed, as persuasive as every other.

    Anonymous said...

    John K: What a winning personality, infinonymous.

    What's the joke about male lawyers and their practicing Catholic Natural Family Planning?

    They use their personalities as contraception...

    Infinonymous said...

    You're offering tips on making friends and persuasive reasoning, John?

    Anonymous said...

    John K: LMAO. LOL. LMAO. And for those of you who anticate an Obama victory. When Bush and Cheney declare marshall law after they provoke Iran and Israel and suspend our November elections, we will see who has to laugh then.

    For he who laughs last, has least,or at least has to laugh best, for the least inherit the earth.

    Liberal scum.

    Anonymous said...

    John K: Not responsible for the previous posts of: 10:30--11:23--11:39--11:42--12:45--1:03--1:34--2:00--2:08
    You folks ain't responding to me. You been had.

    Anonymous said...

    John K: I am that I am. And I am who I say I am.

    Do not let that last poser say I'm not I.

    That joker thinks he can break the law of non-contradiction. He's got some news comin'--I'm gonna modus tollens his butt. If not, The "excluded middle" is gonna catch up to his sorry ass.

    cathcatz said...

    uh... then commit to a blogger profile and sign on for real. you're really NOT anon. you know that, right???

    Eric W said...

    Dayvoe, any chance the current conversation thread has finally convinced you to disable anonymous commenting?

    Anonymous said...

    But I've succeeded in being even more John K. than John K.

    No small feat, eh?

    cathcatz said...

    are you proud of that?


    now, go clean up. you should feel a strong need to disinfect.

    Infinonymous said...

    I don't know the extent of the moderators' ability to control this, but the site has been attracting a share of dopes -- "small featers," from all sides -- that likely threatens its sustainability.

    An analogy would be the DOJ after the Regent grads arrived. At some point, too many toddlers make it impossible to conduct sensible operations.

    Anonymous said...

    cathcatz,

    You are funny...

    The noonday demon set it, and I felt the need to self-destruct, so I did it in a artful (less) manner.

    Sorry. I vow never to do it again here. I'll even sign us with my google account.

    And I apologize for the lawyer jokes; some of mt best friends....

    md

    Anonymous said...

    It looks like Schmuck is at it again with the bogus John K posts. He czan't stand that John has a voice on this blog. I knew those posts were not Mr K as they downright crazy and insulting. Traits that Mr Shitrock posseses.

    Anonymous said...

    It was not Shitrock. I can assure you.

    My, oh my, all the pompousness and sanctimony I have brought out.

    Between the learned doctor or jurisprudence and this last poster, how serious and touchy we are.

    MD

    cathcatz said...

    i can't say that i'm familiar enough with the many personalities who comment on this blog to know who says what and in which fashion... but i feel very strongly that alot the crap could be avoided by REQUIRING commenters to sign on with a blogger id.

    i'm sure that it's not difficult to set up. and i know that its not difficult at all to set up one's own blogger id.

    m dachschund said...

    I do not know waht is more scandalous--the Republicans getting away with these egregious abuses, or, the Democrats lacking the political will to really convince America how inexcusable such transgressions are and to remove the culprits from office and/or make them serve time for their crimes.

    Anonymous said...

    John K: The other guy is obsessed with my butt? Yo, I am not gay move along now.
    I came in here thinking you guys were already railing against Sen. Stevens. You're losing your grip.

    m dachshund said...

    wishful thinking, johnny... neither am I

    EdHeath said...

    I believe WordPress might allow you to require ID's from people. I have not tried it yet because it might be too restrictive. On my own blog I don't allow anonymous comments. However, I suspect it is very easy to set up and use a "handle" like "heir to the throne" or for that matter "cathcatz". Between the little picture and the unique spelling/case of the name, it would be harder to spoof your ID than John K's, but we still don't know for sure who's who. Some people consider that an advantage, though I know that Pat Dowd, for one, doesn't like the anonymity of the web.

    Maria said...

    See here.