Karpinski sais she would testify Rummy odered torture

[Gunny]

just a reminder for you from this same article:



you took the comment out of context, to try to make some sort of point, i presume....?

what is it.....it is okay that libby spoke about classified information marked at the SECRET level, to reporters???

care

Your post does abslolutely nothing to refute RetGySgt's. What the CIA classifies as "secret," if it does not meet the legal definition of "secret" is irrelevant. As we have already established, the special investigator sidestepped the issue of having Plame's status defined by law, and went instead with an arbitrary definition from a CIA employee.

Further, A document marked "Secret" may contain only ONE word classified as "secret." That one world will be identified with the letter "S" in parenthesis following the word, and with a letter "S" before the line of type it appears on.

All in all, it's a shady damned deal.

 

[red states rule]

and the unbaised liberal media "reported" this story last night

Brian Williams Highlights Letter Asking Bush to Stop Torturing Prisoners
Posted by Brad Wilmouth on June 26, 2007 - 00:48.
On Monday's NBC Nightly News, anchor Brian Williams highlighted a "surprise" letter presented to President Bush by high school students visiting the White House who wanted the President to "stop the practice of torture." Williams: "When they got there, 50 of them [out of 141] presented him with a handwritten letter that they had signed demanding that the United States stop the practice of torture."

During the 37-second segment, Williams recounted the story and at one point showed a copy of the letter on-screen with the sentence "We do not want America to represent torture" blown up so it was readable to viewers. The NBC anchor concluded by relaying the President's response. Williams: "The President told them the United States does not practice torture, the very same thing the President has said publicly in the past."
http://newsbusters.org/node/13732

 

[red states rule]

The Guantánamo I Know


By MORRIS D. DAVIS
Published: June 26, 2007
Arlington, Va.

LINDSEY GRAHAM, a Republican senator from South Carolina, is right: “The image of Guantánamo Bay and the reality of Guantánamo Bay are completely different.” It is disappointing that so many embrace a contrived image. Reality for Guantánamo Bay is the daily professionalism of its staff, the humanity of its detention centers and the fair and transparent nature of the military commissions charged with trying war criminals. It is a reality that has been all but ignored or forgotten.

The makeshift detention center known as Camp X-Ray closed in early 2002 after just four months of use. Now it is overgrown with weeds and serves as home to iguanas. Yet last week ABC News published a photo online of Camp X-Ray as if it were in use, five years after its closing.

Today, most of the detainees are housed in new buildings modeled after civilian prisons in Indiana and Michigan. Detainees receive three culturally appropriate meals a day. Each has a copy of the Koran. Guards maintain respectful silence during Islam’s five daily prayer periods, and medical care is provided by the same practitioners who treat American service members. Detainees are offered at least two hours of outdoor recreation each day, double that allowed inmates, including convicted terrorists, at the “supermax” federal penitentiary in Florence, Colo.

Standards at Guantánamo rival or exceed those at similar institutions in the United States and abroad. After an inspection by the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe in March 2006, a Belgian police official said, “At the level of detention facilities, it is a model prison, where people are better treated than in Belgian prisons.”

Critics liken Guantánamo Bay to Soviet gulags, but reality does not match their hyperbole. The supporters of David Hicks, the detainee popularly known as the “Australian Taliban,” asserted that Mr. Hicks was mistreated and wasting away. But at his March trial, where he pleaded guilty to providing material support to a terrorist organization, he and his defense team stipulated he was treated properly. Mr. Hicks even thanked service members, and as one Australian newspaper columnist noted, he appeared in court “looking fat, healthy and tanned, and cracking jokes.”

for the complete article
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/06/26/opinion/26davis.html?_r=1&oref=slogin

 

[Care4all]

Your post does abslolutely nothing to refute RetGySgt's. What the CIA classifies as "secret," if it does not meet the legal definition of "secret" is irrelevant. As we have already established, the special investigator sidestepped the issue of having Plame's status defined by law, and went instead with an arbitrary definition from a CIA employee.

Further, A document marked "Secret" may contain only ONE word classified as "secret." That one world will be identified with the letter "S" in parenthesis following the word, and with a letter "S" before the line of type it appears on.

All in all, it's a shady damned deal.

Gunny, he did not sidestep valerie plame's position. He CLEARLY showed that Plame was a covert undercover intelligence officer according to the law. He listed every criteria in the law's definition of covert and he then showed how Valerie Plame met EACH ONE OF THose Criteria.

Libby's lawyer could have REFUTED Fitzgerald's conclusion from the FBI Investigator's investigation, but Libby and his own lawyer DID NOT refute Fitzgerald on this....he could have challenged Fitzy's evidence and statements on this BUT HE DID NOT.

The only sound conclusion that I can get from this is that Libby and his defence knows that Valerie Plame is considered covert and undercover...or they would have entered their objections.



As far as the one and only Paragraph marked "S" secret in this classified document of 3 pages, it was the one paragraph that Described Valerie Wilson's relationship to Joe Wilson(her husband) and her position within the highly classified area that she worked in for the CIA.

Let me repeat, THE ONLY part of this classified document that has "S" secret marked next to it in this 3 page classified document was the ONE and ONLY paragraph describing Valerie Plame Wilson, her position and her relationship to Joe Wilson.

So, according to you, what do you think was the one word that was "S"secret in that paragraph?

-Her name?
-Her position within the CIA?
or
-Her marriage to JOe Wilson?

hmmmmmmmmmm.......?


Oh and btw, the Entire Document was stamped CLASSIFIED, only the paragraph describing Valerie Plame Wilson was marked "S" SECRET.
Care

 

[red states rule]

Care, no comment on the menu and accomodations the US provides the terrorists?

 

[Care4all]

and the unbaised liberal media "reported" this story last night

Brian Williams Highlights Letter Asking Bush to Stop Torturing Prisoners
Posted by Brad Wilmouth on June 26, 2007 - 00:48.
On Monday's NBC Nightly News, anchor Brian Williams highlighted a "surprise" letter presented to President Bush by high school students visiting the White House who wanted the President to "stop the practice of torture." Williams: "When they got there, 50 of them [out of 141] presented him with a handwritten letter that they had signed demanding that the United States stop the practice of torture."

During the 37-second segment, Williams recounted the story and at one point showed a copy of the letter on-screen with the sentence "We do not want America to represent torture" blown up so it was readable to viewers. The NBC anchor concluded by relaying the President's response. Williams: "The President told them the United States does not practice torture, the very same thing the President has said publicly in the past."
http://newsbusters.org/node/13732

Was this a true story? Yes. Therefore it is not propaganda or spin?

Should this not have been covered by the media?

 

[red states rule]

Was this a true story? Yes. Therefore it is not propaganda or spin?

Should this not have been covered by the media?

The point is, libs want it both ways. First they say we "torture" and "mistreat" the terrorists (eh, sorry - freedom fighters) yet they eat very well and live in better conditions then they ever have

 

[red states rule]

Was this a true story? Yes. Therefore it is not propaganda or spin?

Should this not have been covered by the media?

This is would be the liberal media if it was around in 1776

 

[CockySOB]

Gunny, he did not sidestep valerie plame's position. He CLEARLY showed that Plame was a covert undercover intelligence officer according to the law. He listed every criteria in the law's definition of covert and he then showed how Valerie Plame met EACH ONE OF THose Criteria.

Libby's lawyer could have REFUTED Fitzgerald's conclusion from the FBI Investigator's investigation, but Libby and his own lawyer DID NOT refute Fitzgerald on this....he could have challenged Fitzy's evidence and statements on this BUT HE DID NOT.

The only sound conclusion that I can get from this is that Libby and his defence knows that Valerie Plame is considered covert and undercover...or they would have entered their objections.

1. Libby was never indicted for any crime specifically involving a violation of the IIPA or other laws related to the illegal dissemination of classified information.
2. Fitzgerald NEVER presented any information about Plame's status during the Libby trial because Libby wasn't charged with a crime wherein such information would be material. True, Fitzgerald presented some arguments along those lines to the grand jury, and then again referred to his argument that Plame was covert during sentencing, but he NEVER presented anything of the like during the trial. As such, Plame's status under the law was never tested in court.
3. Your conclusion is faulty as has been shown time and time before in a number of threads. You want to believe something as fact without having to prove it as fact. Sounds like a faith-based belief rather than a legal fact.

You're either hopelessly naive, or pathetically partisan. Neither is an appealing choice for you.

 

[Care4all]

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
Holding a Criminal Term Grand Jury Sworn in on October 31, 2003
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA ) )
v.
I.
LEWIS LIBBY, )
also known as “SCOOTER LIBBY” )
Criminal No.
GRAND JURY ORIGINAL
Count 1: Obstruction of Justice (18 U.S.C. § 1503)
Counts 2-3: False Statements (18 U.S.C. § 1001(a)(2))
Counts 4-5: Perjury (18 U.S.C. § 1623)
INDICTMENT
COUNT ONE

(Obstruction of Justice)
THE GRAND JURY CHARGES:
1. At times material to this indictment: Defendant's Employment and Responsibilities
a.
Beginning on or about January 20, 2001, and continuing through the date of this indictment, defendant I. LEWIS LIBBY, also known as "SCOOTER LIBBY," was employed as Assistant to the President of the United States, Chief of Staff to the Vice President of the United States, and Assistant to the Vice President for National Security Affairs. In the course of his work, LIBBY had frequent access to classified information and frequently spoke with officials of the U.S. intelligence community, as well as other government officials, regarding sensitive national security matters.
b.
In connection with his role as a senior government official with responsibilities for national security matters, LIBBY held security clearances entitling him to access
to classified information. As a person with such clearances, LIBBY was obligated by applicable laws and regulations, including Title 18, United States Code, Section 793, and Executive Order 12958 (as modified by Executive Order 13292), not to disclose classified information to persons not authorized to receive such information, and otherwise to exercise proper care to safeguard classified information against unauthorized disclosure. On or about January 23, 2001, LIBBY executed a written “Classified Information Nondisclosure Agreement,” stating in part that “I understand and accept that by being granted access to classified information, special confidence and trust shall be placed in me by the United States Government,” and that “I have been advised that the unauthorized disclosure, unauthorized retention, or negligent handling of classified information by me could cause damage or irreparable injury to the United States or could be used to advantage by a foreign nation.”

The Central Intelligence Agency
c.
The Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) was an agency of the United States whose mission was to collect, produce, and disseminate intelligence and counterintelligence information to officers and departments of the United States government, including the President, the National Security Council, and the Joint Chiefs of Staff.
d.
The responsibilities of certain CIA employees required that their association with the CIA be kept secret; as a result, the fact that these individuals were employed by the CIA was classified. Disclosure of the fact that such individuals were employed by the CIA had the potential to damage the national security in ways that ranged from preventing the future use of those individuals in a covert capacity, to compromising intelligence-gathering methods and operations, and endangering the safety of CIA employees and those who dealt with them.

2
Joseph Wilson and Valerie Plame Wilson
e.
Joseph Wilson (“Wilson”) was a former career State Department official who had held a variety of posts, including United States Ambassador. In 2002, after an inquiry to the CIA bythe Vice President concerningcertain intelligence reporting, the CIA decided on its own initiative to send Wilson to the country of Niger to investigate allegations involving Iraqi efforts to acquire uranium yellowcake, a processed form of uranium ore. Wilson orally reported his findings to the CIA upon his return.
f.
Joseph Wilson was married to Valerie Plame Wilson (“Valerie Wilson”). At all relevant times from January 1, 2002 through July 2003, Valerie Wilson was employed by the CIA, and her employment status was classified. Prior to July 14, 2003, Valerie Wilson’s affiliation with the CIA was not common knowledge outside the intelligence community.

Events Leading up to July 2003
2.
On or about January 28, 2003, President George W. Bush delivered his State of the Union address which included sixteen words asserting that “The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa.”
3.
On May 6, 2003, the New York Times published a column by Nicholas Kristof which disputed the accuracy of the “sixteen words” in the State of the Union address. The column reported that, following a request from the Vice President’s office for an investigation of allegations that Iraq sought to buy uranium from Niger, an unnamed former ambassador was sent on a trip to Niger in 2002 to investigate the allegations. According to the column, the ambassador reported back to the CIA and State Department in early 2002 that the allegations were unequivocally wrong and based on forged documents.
3

4.
On or about May 29, 2003, in the White House, LIBBY asked an Under Secretary of State (“Under Secretary”) for information concerning the unnamed ambassador’s travel to Niger to investigate claims about Iraqi efforts to acquire uranium yellowcake. The Under Secretary thereafter directed the State Department’s Bureau of Intelligence and Research to prepare a report concerning the ambassador and his trip. The Under Secretary provided LIBBY with interim oral reports in late May and earlyJune 2003, and advised LIBBY that Wilson was the former ambassador who took the trip.
5.
On or about June 9, 2003, a number of classified documents from the CIA were faxed to the Office of the Vice President to the personal attention of LIBBY and another person in the Office of the Vice President. The faxed documents, which were marked as classified, discussed, among other things, Wilson and his trip to Niger, but did not mention Wilson by name. After receiving these documents, LIBBY and one or more other persons in the Office of the Vice President handwrote the names “Wilson” and “Joe Wilson” on the documents.
6.
On or about June 11 or 12, 2003, the Under Secretary of State orally advised LIBBY in the White House that, in sum and substance, Wilson’s wife worked at the CIA and that State Department personnel were saying that Wilson’s wife was involved in the planning of his trip.
7.
On or about June 11, 2003, LIBBY spoke with a senior officer of the CIA to ask about the origin and circumstances of Wilson’s trip, and was advised by the CIA officer that Wilson’s wife worked at the CIA and was believed to be responsible for sending Wilson on the trip.
8.
Prior to June 12, 2003, Washington Post reporter Walter Pincus contacted the Office of the Vice President in connection with a story he was writing about Wilson’s trip. LIBBY participated in discussions in the Office of the Vice President concerning how to respond to Pincus.
4
9.
On or about June 12, 2003, LIBBY was advised by the Vice President of the United States that Wilson’s wife worked at the Central Intelligence Agency in the Counterproliferation Division. LIBBY understood that the Vice President had learned this information from the CIA.
10.
On June 12, 2003, the Washington Post published an article by reporter Walter Pincus about Wilson’s trip to Niger, which described Wilson as a retired ambassador but not by name, and reported that the CIA had sent him to Niger afteran aide to the Vice President raised questions about purported Iraqi efforts to acquire uranium. Pincus’s article questioned the accuracy of the “sixteen words,” and stated that the retired ambassador had reported to the CIA that the uranium purchase story was false.
11.
On or about June 14, 2003, LIBBY met with a CIA briefer. During their conversation he expressed displeasure that CIA officials were making comments to reporters critical of the Vice President’s office, and discussed with the briefer, among other things, “Joe Wilson” and his wife “Valerie Wilson,” in the context of Wilson’s trip to Niger.
12.
On or about June 19, 2003, an article appeared in The New Republic magazine online entitled “The First Casualty: The Selling of the Iraq War.” Among other things, the article questioned the “sixteen words” and stated that following a request for information from the Vice President, the CIA had asked an unnamed ambassador to travel to Niger to investigate allegations that Iraq had sought uranium from Niger. The article included a quotation attributed to the unnamed ambassador alleging that administration officials “knew the Niger story was a flat-out lie.” The article also was critical of how the administration, including the Office of the Vice President, portrayed intelligence concerning Iraqi capabilities with regard to weapons of mass destruction, and accused the administration of suppressing dissent from the intelligence agencies on this topic.
5
13.
Shortly after publication of the article in The New Republic, LIBBY spoke by telephone with his then Principal Deputy and discussed the article. That official asked LIBBY whether information about Wilson’s trip could be shared with the press to rebut the allegations that the Vice President had sent Wilson.

LIBBY responded that there would be complications at the CIA in disclosing that information publicly, and that he could not discuss the matter on a non-secure telephone line.

14.
On or about June 23, 2003, LIBBY met with New York Times reporter Judith Miller. During this meeting LIBBY was critical of the CIA, and disparaged what he termed “selective leaking” by the CIA concerning intelligence matters. In discussing the CIA’s handling of Wilson’s trip to Niger, LIBBY informed her that Wilson’s wife might work at a bureau of the CIA.


Continued at link below...it has some pertinent info to this case.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CIA_leak_grand_jury_investigation#_note-29

Another interesting thing to note Cocky, and I will admit I have been wrong on my assertions on this.... Fitzgerald mention two different laws that he thought covered the leaking of Valerie Plame's name, and neither of them are the identities protection act, but both are laws regarding the leaking of classified information to unclassified people, such as the Press core, with information such as leaking the classified employment of an under cover agent.

So this made me reach in to my memory of what and how and who started the whole thing about plame not being covered by this particular act....and I remembered it was the republicans kept screaming and yelling and chnting that Plame was not covered under iipa...

Now I am asking myself, What was this all about?

Then I realized it was a deflection from the right, regarding the real issue of whether the Vp, Rove, Libby etc, BROKE THE LAWS that Fitzgerald listed and were part of the initial investigation in to the leaking of a Classified UNDERCOVER agent of the CIA.

So, this IIPA law that the ''right'' and Victoria T kept expounding on to deflect the attention away from the actual laws that these cronies alledgedly broke was just a roos (sp?)....something that you could repeat over and over again, making the Democrats go along with you only on the opposite side, while IGNORING THE FACT that Libby and Rove and others LEAKED classified information to the press...

Sooooooooo, going back to what I had said in a previous post that YOU CALLED ME OUT ON, it does not matter to me whether it is the iipa law or the other laws involving the handling of classified information, (the status of valerie plame was classified), something illegal was done, or all of us would not be talking about a classified agent of the CIA, Valerie Plame, right now.

Also, please NOTE!

I think you are being slightly naive to believe nothing is amiss here...

care

 

[CockySOB]

Care4All, get back to me once you comprehend that a grand jury is nothing more than a proceeding wherein ONLY the prosecution gets to present his evidence and argument to the grand jury in order to obtain an indictment - something which indicates probable cause for the defendant to be charged.

The only person being naive (or perhaps obtuse here) is you. There is NO legal finding of fact in a grand jury because the ONLY evidence and argument presented comes fro the prosecution. This is also why Libby's defense team never "protested" because they were not allowed to under the rules for a convened Federal grand jury. Then when the case was presented in the petit jury (known as the jury trial), Plame's alleged status was side-stepped by Fitzgerald and not even brought INTO court because it was not pertinent to the charges against Libby. Once Libby was convicted on the process crimes, Fitzgerald snuck Plame's alleged status back in during the sentencing phase in his sentencing recommendation - again side-stepping the legal process for making Plame's status under the law a fact of law.

Frankly toots, you're a tired, broken record who doesn't care about our country being a nation of laws under the rule of law. You want to make more of Libby's conviction than is there, and you persist in asserting something as fact when you should know quite well that it has never been established as such under the law.

Your reasoning is pathetic.

 

[Care4all]

Care4All, get back to me once you comprehend that a grand jury is nothing more than a proceeding wherein ONLY the prosecution gets to present his evidence and argument to the grand jury in order to obtain an indictment - something which indicates probable cause for the defendant to be charged.

The only person being naive (or perhaps obtuse here) is you. There is NO legal finding of fact in a grand jury because the ONLY evidence and argument presented comes fro the prosecution. This is also why Libby's defense team never "protested" because they were not allowed to under the rules for a convened Federal grand jury. Then when the case was presented in the petit jury (known as the jury trial), Plame's alleged status was side-stepped by Fitzgerald and not even brought INTO court because it was not pertinent to the charges against Libby. Once Libby was convicted on the process crimes, Fitzgerald snuck Plame's alleged status back in during the sentencing phase in his sentencing recommendation - again side-stepping the legal process for making Plame's status under the law a fact of law.

Frankly toots, you're a tired, broken record who doesn't care about our country being a nation of laws under the rule of law. You want to make more of Libby's conviction than is there, and you persist in asserting something as fact when you should know quite well that it has never been established as such under the law.

Your reasoning is pathetic.

Oh Dear God, you are hopeless! Yes the Grand Jury is not the same as the Petite Jury trial where the defendent gets to present his evidence to REFUTE what the INDICTMENT by the grand jury accuses him of...

A grand Jury does not pull shit out of the air mr know it all.

They have to present their legitimate legal reasoning with evidence that they have collected, of why they believe the accused should be indicted and for what crimes they should be prosecuted for...

The indictment is the first step in the trial process, it is habeas corpus being provided in a way, (without the jailtime) imo...

--------------------------------------------

Yes Cocky, Valerie Plame's status has not been a part in determining the conviction of Scooter libby for perjury with the Grand Jury, lying to the FBI, and Obstructing Justice.

But I do know that 2 Different Directors of Central Intelligence have said that she was a covert, classified undercover, Intelligence officer of the CIA working in a highly classified division.

I believe them.

--------------------------------------------------------------

I do need to renege what I said earlier, that I felt President Bush was not involved in the beginning on this...

BecauseI just read through one of Libby's grand jury testimonies, and he was asked if the president was aware of what he was doing and he testified , YES. He said that President Bush was aware that he was going to communincate this to Judith Miller back in June 03 and he gave the ok.

So either Libby was lying again or he was telling the truth, and President Bush WAS aware from the beginning.
-------------------------------------------------------------

And YES, one is innocent until proven guilty in our country. I realize no one has been charged with a crime.

I stand firm that Valerie Plame has been proven to be a covert officer with identities protection act coverage or with AT LEAST the coverage of classified SNF- "sensitive no foreign", which I read last night, was the status given to her in the paragraph where she was mentioned in the 3 page classified document.

Have you ever asked yourself how this woman could have worked for the CIA for 20 years, yet they have only acknowledged publicly that she has worked for the CIA ONLY SINCE January of 2002?

Yes, no one was charged with outing her or outing Sensitive classified information....I thoroughly understand this...it doesn't mean that justice has been served though....and there is nothing more frustrating than that, to me.


care

 

[red states rule]

Care, no reply to post #107?

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Oh Dear God, you are hopeless! Yes the Grand Jury is not the same as the Petite Jury trial where the defendent gets to present his evidence to REFUTE what the INDICTMENT by the grand jury accuses him of...

A grand Jury does not pull shit out of the air mr know it all.

They have to present their legitimate legal reasoning with evidence that they have collected, of why they believe the accused should be indicted and for what crimes they should be prosecuted for...

The indictment is the first step in the trial process, it is habeas corpus being provided in a way, (without the jailtime) imo...

--------------------------------------------

Yes Cocky, Valerie Plame's status has not been a part in determining the conviction of Scooter libby for perjury with the Grand Jury, lying to the FBI, and Obstructing Justice.

But I do know that 2 Different Directors of Central Intelligence have said that she was a covert, classified undercover, Intelligence officer of the CIA working in a highly classified division.

I believe them.

--------------------------------------------------------------

I do need to renege what I said earlier, that I felt President Bush was not involved in the beginning on this...

BecauseI just read through one of Libby's grand jury testimonies, and he was asked if the president was aware of what he was doing and he testified , YES. He said that President Bush was aware that he was going to communincate this to Judith Miller back in June 03 and he gave the ok.

So either Libby was lying again or he was telling the truth, and President Bush WAS aware from the beginning.
-------------------------------------------------------------

And YES, one is innocent until proven guilty in our country. I realize no one has been charged with a crime.

I stand firm that Valerie Plame has been proven to be a covert officer with identies protection act coverage or with AT LEAST the coverage of classified SNF- "sensitive no foreign", which I read last night, was the status given to her in the paragraph where she was mentioned in the 3 page classified document.

Have you ever asked yourself how this woman could have worked for the CIA for 20 years, yet they have only acknowledged publicly that she has worked for the CIA ONLY SINCE January of 2002?

Yes, no one was charged with outing her or outing Sensitive classified information....I thoroughly understand this...it doesn't mean that justice has been served though....and there is nothing more frustrating than that, to me.


care

You are aware that most legal scholars and such routinely joke that a competent Prosecutor could get a Grand Jury to Indict a Ham Sandwich?

 

[red states rule]

You are aware that most legal scholars and such routinely joke that a competent Prosecutor could get a Grand Jury to Indict a Ham Sandwich?

In this case it was a baloney sandwich

 

[Care4all]

You are aware that most legal scholars and such routinely joke that a competent Prosecutor could get a Grand Jury to Indict a Ham Sandwich?

I don't believe that one itty bit! And YOU shouldn't either!

Our Justice system would be a complete joke and overrun with useless, time taking cases, that had no merrit....which it is not.

There are INSTANCES where the prosecutor might try to manipulate the grand jury like in Nifong's case, but it is not the norm, by ANY means.

And yes, many grand jurys do indict an accused more often than not, but this is due to the fact that a grand jury is not usually called upon, UNLESS a prosecutor believes that he has a good case against the accused. This is only common sense.

Care

 

[red states rule]

I don't believe that one itty bit! And YOU shouldn't either!

Our Justice system would be a complete joke and overrun with useless, time taking cases, that had no merrit....which it is not.

There are INSTANCES where the prosecutor might try to manipulate the grand jury like in Nifong's case, but it is not the norm, by ANY means.

And yes, many grand jurys do indict an accused more often than not, but this is due to the fact that a grand jury is not usually called upon, UNLESS a prosecutor believes that he has a good case against the accused. This is only common sense.

Care

Does the name Billy Dale mean anything to you?

 

[red states rule]

The liberal media goes out of its way to plead the case of the terrorists and cast the US as the bad guy



Pushing the Envelope on Presidential Power

By Barton Gellman and Jo Becker
Washington Post Staff Writers
Monday, June 25, 2007

Shortly after the first accused terrorists reached the U.S. naval prison at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, on Jan. 11, 2002, a delegation from CIA headquarters arrived in the Situation Room. The agency presented a delicate problem to White House counsel Alberto R. Gonzales, a man with next to no experience on the subject. Vice President Cheney's lawyer, who had a great deal of experience, sat nearby.

The meeting marked "the first time that the issue of interrogations comes up" among top-ranking White House officials, recalled John C. Yoo, who represented the Justice Department. "The CIA guys said, 'We're going to have some real difficulties getting actionable intelligence from detainees'" if interrogators confined themselves to treatment allowed by the Geneva Conventions.

From that moment, well before previous accounts have suggested, Cheney turned his attention to the practical business of crushing a captive's will to resist. The vice president's office played a central role in shattering limits on coercion of prisoners in U.S. custody, commissioning and defending legal opinions that the Bush administration has since portrayed as the initiatives, months later, of lower-ranking officials.

Cheney and his allies, according to more than two dozen current and former officials, pioneered a novel distinction between forbidden "torture" and permitted use of "cruel, inhuman or degrading" methods of questioning. They did not originate every idea to rewrite or reinterpret the law, but fresh accounts from participants show that they translated muscular theories, from Yoo and others, into the operational language of government.

A backlash beginning in 2004, after reports of abuse leaked out of Iraq's Abu Ghraib prison and Guantanamo Bay, brought what appeared to be sharp reversals in courts and Congress -- for Cheney's claims of executive supremacy and for his unyielding defense of what he called "robust interrogation."

for the complete article
http://blog.washingtonpost.com/cheney/chapters/pushing_the_envelope_on_presi/index.html

 

[Care4all]

Does the name Billy Dale mean anything to you?

no?

But if it is an injustice, I am certain it is one of those rarities that I spoke about above....

good morning btw

care

 

[red states rule]

no?

But if it is an injustice, I am certain it is one of those rarities that I spoke about above....

good morning btw

care

Good morning to you as well


Billy Dale had worked in the White House travel office for three decades. He had served 7 presidents and one horse's *ss (and we are not counting Jimmy Carter as the horse's *ss). But Hillary Clinton wanted Dale and his associates gone. She wanted him gone very badly. Harry Thomason was owed a big favor for getting rape victim Elizabeth Ward Gracen out of the country on an acting gig during the 1992 campaign.


What had Dale done to Hillary? The answer is he had done nothing. Dale and six others were simply in the way of her plans.


Most Americans do not know that during the 1992 campaign, the Clintons used an Arkansas travel agency, World Wide Travel. They worked with a Clinton cousin, Catherine Cornelius. WWT provided a million dollars in deferred travel for the Clinton campaign, freeing up much needed cash for campaigning. Employees of the firm donated to the Clinton campaign.


It gets even better. The supposed investigation against Travel Office "accounting improprieties" was headed by…..are you ready…headed by none other than Cornelius herself just as she was planning with World Wide Travel for a reorganization that would put her in charge of the department. She gets a good job and Thomasson gets a hugely profitable business.


The Clintons had every right to simply dismiss Dale and the others and bring in their own people. Hillary, the brains behind the operation, not only had Dale fired, but also tried to send him to prison. Firing was not good enough. In May of 1993 the employees were given one hour's notice to clean out their desks, and they were escorted away in a windowless van. The replacement was made without competitive bid.


Dale was very popular with the White House press corps. He knew them all and treated them very well. The firing and trumped-up charges against Dale became a public relations nightmare, so Hillary had to distance herself. Keeping in mind that the first instinct of the Clintons is always to lie, that is exactly what she did. She claimed that he had nothing to do with the firing.


The nightmare grew worse for Dale as the FBI was brought in and he was charged with embezzling money from the Travel Office. At one point, the cost of trial would have been so prohibitively expensive that Dale tried to do a plea bargain to just make it go away. Fortunately, the government did not accept a plea bargain. When it came to trial, Dale was acquitted by the jury in under 2 hours. What they did to him was in incredible injustice. Not surprisingly, as has happened to most of the Clinton enemies, the IRS also came after him.


There are, however, more twists and turns to this story that most of America has either forgotten or never knew. In December of 1993, a request was made by the White House for Dale's FBI file. The reason for the request was to evaluate Dale for "access to the building." What? He had been fired seven months earlier. The Clintons, of course, along with the rest of their criminal enterprise, blocked and misled investigators looking into the treatment of Dale.


While Hillary claimed not to be involved in the firing, the following information exists:

"periodic reports from Vince Foster that [the] First Lady had inquired about [the] Travel Office and why wasn't action being taken_report was that they should be fired immediately and out of here by the end of the day."
-- Subpoenaed notes of David Watkins.

"went to Mac . . . Hillary wants these people fired . . . Mac wouldn't do it ... DW [David Watkins] didn't want to do it."
-- Lorraine Voles, deputy Press Secretary, noted that she had heard Susan Thomases say.


"[Patsy] Thomason comes back in DW's [office]_says he bumped into Hillary and she's ready to fire them all that day.''
-- Mr. Watkins' contemporaneous handwritten notes detail a conversation that he had with Harry Thomason.

"Harry says his people can run things better; save money, etc. And besides we need those people out_we need our people in_We need the slots_ . . . Is the real story to be told?''
-- David Watkins notes of a conversation with the First Lady on May 14, 1993.


Yes, Hillary was in this thing up to her eyeballs. It was abuse of power and an attempt to ruin the life of a civil servant. She was behind Travelgate just as she has been behind almost every abuse of power we witnessed for eight excruciatingly long years.


Robert Ray, who succeeded Ken Starr, apparently thought that an indictment of Hillary for perjury would not be good on his resume as he planned to seek elective office. One more gutless prosecutor and Hillary remains free.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/850133/posts