The most Kafkaesque paragraph from the latest NSA ruling

[n2doc]

BY ANDREA PETERSON

Earlier today a U.S. District Court judge, Justice William Pauley, dismissed an American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) lawsuit alleging that the National Security Agency's phone records program was unconstitutional, based primarily on his interpretation of the 1979 Smith v. Maryland Supreme Court ruling. But elsewhere in his ruling, the judge made what seems to be a slightly Kafkaesque argument to disregard the ACLU's statutory claim that the NSA was exceeding the bounds of section 215 of the Patriot Act:



Re-read that a few times and let it sink in. Pauley is essentially saying that the targets of the order have no recourse to challenge the collection of their personal data because Congress never intended for targets to ever know that they were subject to this sort of spying. And that the fact that everyone knows about it now, thanks to Edward Snowden, doesn't change the targets' ability to challenge the legality of the order.

That suggests a troubling possibility: that even if there were clear-cut evidence that the government was sending out illegal 215 orders, the people harmed by the government's illegal conduct might not have any way to stop it. Instead, the only recourse may be for the recipient of an order (such as Verizon) to challenge it in the notoriously secretive Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court. But Verizon isn't the one whose privacy is harmed by the order, so why would it expend legal resources to fight it?

While that outcome might seem a little crazy, it's not necessarily wrong as a matter of law. The Supreme Court has ruled in some cases, including Gonzaga v. Doe, that there can be cases where, even though the government's actions may be illegal, the individuals harmed can't sue to stop them. That still leaves room for challenging the statute on constitutional grounds. But in this case, Pauley dismissed the ACLU's constitutional arguments as well.

more

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-switch/wp/2013/12/27/the-most-kafkaesque-paragraph-from-todays-nsa-ruling/

[riderinthestorm]

1. A troubled and sad K&R nt

[blkmusclmachine]

42. Wow. That's some pretty f/ucked up "reasoning," right there from that Judge.

[enlightenment]

2. I feel rather ill after reading that.

What can be said about a position that holds that illegal spying is okay because no one should have known about it?

[reACTIONary]

35. What makes you think it's illegal? Even if it is...

...unconstitutional, it is being done in accordance with law, authorized, funded and overseen by Congress. The NSA has the responsibility to perform in accordance with the law and to carry out the programs that are mandated by congress. If the law is found unconstitutional, that isn't their fault - they did not do anything illegal.

[enlightenment]

48. Goodness - how protective you are of the NSA.

That's sweet.

I'll grant, it's not "illegal" - since Congress made the laws to support it - but it is unethical, authoritarian, and utterly contrary to principles of democracy.

[reACTIONary]

65. My significant other...

...thinks I'm a sweetie too.

So we've established that it isn't illegal.

In my opinion it isn't unethical for a country to spy on other countries to serve its interests in the world and to protect its citizens. It certainly isn't authoritarian, nor is it anti-democratic.

Neither is it immoral, authoritarian or contrary to the principles of democracy to enforce the law within the countries boundaries. What makes for authoritarianism is the content of the law or the absence of the rule of law, not the reasonable enforcement of justice. From what we have learned so far this program, and the way it has been run, is entirely consistent with democratic principles, the rule of law and the effective enforcement of just laws.

It is the responsibility of our government, of any democratic government, to protect our citizens and to enforce the law; effective espionage is necessary to that end.

[enlightenment]

67. I'm glad your SO feels that way.

I suspect it would be an uncomfortable relationship, otherwise.

I disagree with your opinion in the second matter, but feel no need to debate the issue. Your position is firm, as is mine, which makes debate unproductive.

edited for a missing "s"

[reACTIONary]

68. Thnx for the "enlightenment". (nt)

[GeorgeGist]

3. Ah, more wisdom ...

from Dumbfuckistan.

[bvar22]

4. Really?

So the government violation of 4th Amendment Protections is NOT illegal... or even wrong....because the victims weren't supposed to find about it.

Now THAT is tortured logic,
and I'm opposed to torture.

[merrily]

8. Yet, we submit to it.

[bvar22]

13. ..and there are those HERE who support this bullshit.

*

[cantbeserious]

15. + 1,000

eom

[merrily]

16. Two kinds of people here: Those who disapprove and submit anyway and those

who defend it, probably because it's a Democrat who's been caught abusing the Bill of Rights this time. I have a feeling that at least some of them would have gone batshit had Bush or imaginary President McCain been caught doing the same thing.

However, both groups enable, those who submit (including me) and those who defend.

[spin]

47. Obama might be under fire but remember this started all under Bush the Younger. ...

Sometimes it doesn't seem that it makes any difference who you vote for. Perhaps that's why many citizens fail to vote.

Published: June 7, 2013

Obama on Surveillance, Then and Now

Throughout his Senate career, Barack Obama was a fierce critic of surveillance efforts in the Patriot Act, and he vowed during the 2008 presidential campaign to end “illegal wiretapping,” casting the question of liberty versus security as a “false choice.” But over his years in the White House, Mr. Obama has increasingly spoken of needing to “make some choices as a society,” as he did on Friday when he addressed revelations about data collection of phone and Internet records by the National Security Agency.
http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2013/06/08/us/politics/08obama-surveillance-history-video.html?_r=0

[alato]

22. what do we do?

i mean, seriously, i feel like an oddball when i call this shit out to people.

i'm always relegated to a conspiracy theorist, but now i know that my beliefs are not crazy. i like to think i know what's going on, but at 30 it's stressful as shit. if i were able, i'd disregard politics in any manner...

[merrily]

33. Either we can do lots of things or we can do nothing; and I am not sure which is true.

But I'm pretty sure just posting doesn't change anything. Neither does calling the White House or our representatives, though I am sure they love us thinking it does something.

[klook]

51. Demand that our 4th Amendment protections be preserved. (n/t)

[truedelphi]

5. However what else can we expect? In a plutocracy, the judge gets paid off.

And the Totalitarian Surveillance agencies have billions of dollars at their disposal, so they can surely have the funds to offer any judge that gets obstinate over some silly notion, like a Constitution!

[zeemike]

6. If anyone still doubts we are in some kind of Orwellian state

This should settle it for them....unless they have come to love Big Brother and accepted the principles that slavery is freedom.
And they will be along any minute to tell us this is all just fine because we should be really scared of terrorist and stuff...and that Snowden is a criminal that fucked thing up for them.

[blkmusclmachine]

34. 9/11: A beginning, or an end?

[merrily]

38. both, or neither.

Maybe it ended America as we knew it (imagined it) and began a new regime.

Maybe all it actually ended was our government's lack of an excuse for spying on us that a majority of Americans would go along with, foolishly thinking it's keeping them and their loved ones alive.

[zeemike]

43. Or the beginning of the end?

[merrily]

7. Apart from doctrines like standing and mootness, people should be able to sue if something

affects them personally. I am not even crazy about the standing doctrine, but I can see why courts don't want every citizen who doesn't like a law filing a lawsuit over it.


The idea that laws should be secret, however, is troubling in itself. We pay for 100% of government. We are their bosses and their financiers. They have no right to keep their activities secret from us.

They've forgotten that--or pretend to.

Thing is, we seem to have forgotten that as well.

[blkmusclmachine]

37. "Just another brick in the wall..."

[spin]

9. It appear the terrorists will have won if this ruling holds. ...

“Those who surrender freedom for security will not have, nor do they deserve, either one.”
― Benjamin Franklin

Our nation will have indeed given up its freedom for a false sense of security.

Imagine what a future President similar to Richard Nixon will do with this unlimited power to gather data on all politicians and citizens who dare oppose his policies.

What reporter or news outlet will have the guts to publish an article that exposes corruption or maleficence in such an administration? Would a future Woodward and Bernstein and their editors expose a future Watergate?

Our nations experiment with Democracy is in grave danger.

[merrily]

36. I didn't realize there was still doubt that the terrorists won.

The Patriot Act and Homeland Security were mighty big clues.

[bbgrunt]

10. sounds like the twisted logic of bush v gore--but sadder. k and r

[Jerry442]

31. Yup. When you start with the verdict you want...

...and then cast around for any pseudo-legal reasoning you can find to support it, this is the kind of crap you get.

[Skip Intro]

11. What other secret laws exist? n/t

[merrily]

40. I can't tell you or they won't be secret anymore.

That's the beauty of the "logic."

[Skip Intro]

45. And if you did, then the govt would argue you're the bad guy

because you exposed the secret.

Secret power will equal abusive action at some point.

Does the Constitution still protect?

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

12. Trans: When the government breaks the law it is protected by the government that made the law.

Makes perfect sense...if you happen to be a fascist.

[bvar22]

14. Just another item revealed by Snowden that "everybody already knew about.

Can you believe that there are people here who STILL insist that Snowden didn't disclose anything that we didn't already know.

[merrily]

17. No, I can't. But even if "we" knew, every American did not know.

[bvar22]

28. This would not even be an issue today if it weren't for Snowden,

and for THAT, he is hated here by some.

The Whistle Blowers are protectors of our Democracy.

Rampant Government Secrecy and Democracy con not co-exist.

Secret Laws and Secret Courts and Democracy can not co-exist.

Government Surveillance of the citizenry and Democracy can not co-exist.

Persecution of Whistle Blowers and Democracy can not co-exist.

An informed citizenry is an essential component for a Democracy.

[merrily]

29. Praising Snowden can be construed as indirect criticism of Obama and/or

other elected Democrats. And no good American wants that.

Something cannot possibly be very, very wrong if a Democrat does it.

[kath]

57. great post. Although not related to issues of secrecy and surveillance, I would add this to your

List:

prisons- for-profit and a free society/democracy can not co-exist.

[questionseverything]

73. they are related

le is using illegal surveillance to fill for profit prisons

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-switch/wp/2013/08/05/the-nsa-is-giving-your-phone-records-to-the-dea-and-the-dea-is-covering-it-up/

[spin]

44. While I didn't know I suspected. ...

It's only logical that if a government allows the existence of "secret" organizations such as the CIA and the NSA, they will tend to grow more and more powerful overtime and those who control such agencies will seize opportunities to increase their power and influence.

911 and the passage of the Patriot Act offered such agencies an increased budget and tasked them with the almost impossible task of stopping any and all all future terrorist attacks on on our nation. The only way to accomplish this would be to set up a surveillance state that could monitor all citizens and be able to know quickly a potential terrorist had contact with. Obviously that would not be limited to foreign citizens but also to extremists within our own society.

It could be argued that these agencies have largely accomplished their mission as we have not been attacked on the scale of 911 since 2001 and I'm sure that some such activities were planned by terrorist groups.

In recent years I have read many articles discussing "data mining" used by both commercial companies and our government. I also am well aware that malware can be easily planted on a computer. Every month I install updates from Microsoft on my computer and I often wonder if I am not compromising my privacy by doing so.

But I am not a terrorist nor a militia member. I don't even cheat on my income tax. Why should I be worried?

What I fear is that without proper oversight the data collected could destroy freedom in our nation. Suppose a person with a lot of charisma got fed up with the way our nation was run and decided to run for public office. If his opponent who had support from those in power had total access to his personal life, he could use the information to ruin any chances of being replaced by this upstart. Or perhaps an elected politician opposes the use of our troops in some far off hell hole but he has a mistress on the side. He might get a telephone call or visit from someone that would suggest that if he didn't vote correctly, the information on his affair would be exposed and possibly not only ruin his marriage but his career.

I also worry about a future "Tricky Dick" Nixon being elected and being able to misuse collected data to destroy his opponents.

The problem is how to set up proper oversight that will protect the freedom of our citizens but also allow the meta data to be quickly available in case of the threat of a real terrorist attack. I personally feel this is extremely difficult but not impossible.

[grasswire]

54. the problem is when dissent is criminalized

the tools of absolute tyranny now exist and can be deployed by any person who can wrest the controls, whether that person(s) have evil or benign intent.

THIS is why even citizens such as you and me must oppose the surveillance state.

And to the threat of terrorism: you did read that no terrorist attempted attack has been thwarted by the surveillance state? It would be prudent to worry more about the watchers than any terrorists.

[spin]

69. Well the surveillance state failed to detect the Boston bombers despite warnings ...

from the Russians.

It would seem that if our surveillance programs were as as all-encompassing as reported and departments of our government were communicating with each other, the Tsarnaev brothers would have been flagged and closely monitored. Even if the monitoring failed the stop the bombing, the NSA should have been able to quickly identify the two brothers as prime suspects and notify the authorities.

Terrorism might be just an excuse to implement and empower the surveillance state to monitor all citizens with the actual goal being to stifle any serious dissent against the existing power structure and those who benefit from it.

Throughout history until the formation of our nation most nations were controlled by a powerful few. It could be argued that the best form of government is a benevolent dictatorship but if so few such dictators have existed and often were replaced by tyrants when they died.

Our experiment with representative democracy was an example to the world in the eighteenth century and led to major change in many nations at that time. Our rights and freedoms are still admired by many people in our current world and people in far off places would love to have them. That's why so many people hope to emigrate here to enjoy the opportunities and freedom that we take for granted.

If we lose our rights of privacy and our government is monitoring everything we do or say or where we go, will our from of government hold the same appeal it now does to the citizens of other nations? I seriously doubt it. Will we be respected and admired or hated as we not only monitor our citizens but citizens in other nations?

[Unknown Beatle]

18. That's like a spouse suing for divorce

because they hired a detective to spy into allegations of cheating by the other spouse. The judge then denies the divorce because without the detective, they never would have found out about the cheating.

Really twisted and maddening judgement.

[DeSwiss]

19. DOUBLETHINK

- You've hit the nail on the head. That's why the Patriot Act is completely unConstitutional. It subverts every right an American has, up to and including their murder without due process and judgement by their peers.

K&R

Here's another example of this:

“Doublethink means the power of holding two contradictory beliefs in one's mind simultaneously, and accepting both of them.” ~George Orwell, 1984

[alato]

25. i like you

thank you

[zeemike]

46. Lots of us like De Swiss

And welcome to DU.

[DeSwiss]

52. ....

[DeSwiss]

50. Be careful.....

...I have a reputation! And, and, and I have been barred from The BOG almost from the beginning!

- And I wasn't even trying!


''Wouldn't this be a great world if insecurity and desperation made us more attractive? If "needy" were a turn-on?'' ~Aaron Altman, Broadcast News 1987

[blackspade]

72. Yikes.

If this woman's story is true....wow...just wow.

[raouldukelives]

77. If ever anyhting was, this surely is. nt

[Blue_In_AK]

20. I don't like the phrase "level of absurdity"

What's absurd is the NSA's swooping up all our communications.

[Skip Intro]

24. Its absurd to question the government - its motives, its actions.

Simply absurd to question the government.

That's what they mean.

You'll be called racist and extremist if you push harder with the questions and objections. Either accept what you're told or be maligned. The government would never harm us. We who dwell in reality and pay attention and question the bullshit are the enemy. We're absurd.

[merrily]

30. I recall a lot of Democrats questioning government plenty not all that long ago.

Party loyalty has replaced morals, ethics, principles and other very good things.

[alato]

21. what. a. cool. country.

literally, 'no one would have known if it weren't for the tattle-tale'.

fuck this judge.

[BlueCheese]

23. That is completely absurd.

Honestly, it makes me lose faith in the entire judicial system that something like this can come out of it.

[merrily]

32. Our system of appointing judges is one of the many, many things about

government that needs to be junked and started over.

Obama's very first judicial nominee was someone recommended by Conservadem Bayh. That was because the open bench seat was in Bayh's state. Then there is some nonsense about reciprocity with Republicans. This is all custom and tradition, begun long ago, when MAYBE it made some sense. Whether it did then or not, it doesn't anymore.

Another way to make sure that elections don't have consequences and also to make sure that voters can't hold anyone in elected office accountable for anything. Those are two things that elected officials of both of the largest political parties in the nation have no trouble agreeing on.

And, even when they waive the filibuster, the biggest protector of re-elections (and gridlock), the waive applies only on appointees, which, as stated, have a couple of layers of bullshit built into the process before it ever gets to the point of filibuster.

[Dustlawyer]

39. You should see what is going down with BP and the Gulf oil spill litigation!

The Plutocracy has almost complete control. They control the mass media, much of the Judiciary, and both parties. They get us blaming and fighting each other, and we wonder why our politicians are so frequently "spineless." I hate to see that word used about Democratic politicians because it is never true. Democratic politicians are every bit as ambitious as Republicans. It is the word they want us to use. Next time you see where Democrats "caved" because they were "spineless," replace spineless with the phrase, "...were bought off" with legal (and possibly illegal) campaign contributions.
Our whole government is a farce that pretends to be the America we love, but scratch below the surface and you can smell the rotten stench of corruption and decay.

[cantbeserious]

56. +1,000

eom

[adirondacker]

58. Yup. I worked on the GE Hudson River PCB cleanup. They were still in full propoganda mode 40 years

later, convincing the townies that it was a bad idea to clean it up and it was better left alone. Whole Families DIED from that shit and many never saw a dime in restitution. One story I heard was a farmer noticed his cows getting sick and one by one died of "unknown causes". Later both his daughter and wife ended up with leukemia and died. By the time the courts got to his settlement (decades) he also died penniless. The town has cancer rates that were/are through the roof, yet they still buy the bullshit that these corporations produce. Pretty sick and sad.

[Uncle Joe]

26. That is the most ridiculous piece of shit doublethink that I've read in a long time.

Just trying to trash the Constitution in every way possible in regards to the Bill of Rights.

Thanks for the thread, n2doc.

[grahamhgreen]

27. Since it was never the bank robbers intent that the robbery be found out....

[blkmusclmachine]

41. Whoever's really running our Government...their Agenda keeps rolling along, doesn't it? And, here

comes their 30,000 Drones to patrol your neighborhood, courtesy of BHO.

[mrdmk]

49. My eyes went crossed as I was reading this ruling!

Time for a stiff drink or a plastic tube up my ass with a air compressor at the other end so I can see straight.

I hate too be a lawyer for the ACLU on that case, it would make me wonder why I went to school for six years...

Man-O-Man

[neverforget]

53. Well it's for our own good

[jsr]

55. POS ruling from a Wall Street lapdog

[Lordquinton]

59. Kafkaesque?

Nah, this is more Hellerian.

[treestar]

60. But we are a totalitarian authoritarian state

so how could the courts be handling it? How did the ACLU get to make this case without its members going to Gitmo?

If they agreed with you on the issues it would be OK?

What are the targets damages? Any evidence can't be used for criminal prosecutions.

Snowden is an idiot. He hasn't revealed anything that hurt anybody in any way but has compromised our security. Attention seeking idiot. The ACLU should not even lower itself.

[Egalitarian Thug]

62. Was this irony intentional? n/t

[treestar]

63. How the hell can people in a totalitarian state

go into court and argue against its actions?

Are you going to claim the court is just for show?

[Egalitarian Thug]

64. Wow. Thanks for the reply. n/t

[bvar22]

66. You sound like the Judge that issued the ruling in the OP.

How can it be illegal if the victims weren't ever supposed to know there had been a crime?

That bastard Snowden!!!!

[questionseverything]

74. evidence is illegally being used

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-switch/wp/2013/08/05/the-nsa-is-giving-your-phone-records-to-the-dea-and-the-dea-is-covering-it-up/

[Solly Mack]

61. K&R

[truebrit71]

70. Wow...becuase it was supposed to be a secret, you can't sue us for violating your rights...

And not just that, but even if you DID find out, you still can't sue...

Say whaaaaa???

[Octafish]

71. Chief Just-us John Roberts is a nice man. Maybe he can help?

Know your BFEE: John Roberts earned his Sgt. Pepper stripes as an Iran-Contra cover-up artiste.



The smarmy “Justice” John Roberts wasn’t around for the 5-4 decision that installed pretzeldent Junior George W Bush 43 into the Oval Office. The vote-suppressor supreme “Justice” William Rehnquist was at the top of that legal heap back in 2001.

But, if it wasn’t for young John Roberts workin’ his legal magic ‘n’ all back in 1986, it’s quite possible there never would have been a President Poppy George Herbert Walker Bush 41 in the first place.

The reason: John Roberts helped keep Pruneface Ronald Reagan from being impeached and the secret government arms-for-hostages Boland Amendment runaround ringleader Poppy Bush out of prison during Iran-Contra.

JR lawyered iran contra

The Smoking Gun: John Roberts "Lawyered" the Iran-Contra Scandal

Bob Fertik
Democrats.com
August 25, 2005

EXCERPT...

One file withheld, regarding the Iran-contra affair, was a draft memo from Roberts to his bosses with the heading "re: establishment of NHAO" -- referring to the Nicaraguan Humanitarian Assistance Office.

The office was one of the ways the Reagan administration got around what were known as the Boland amendments, which prohibited U.S. intelligence agencies from spending money to overthrow the Sandinistas. The office was a way the administration could get funds to the contras for nonmilitary purposes, but once there the money was used for all sorts of things.

In other words, John Roberts "lawyered" the Iran-Contra Scandal - one of the worst scandals in American history.

Now we know why Karl Rove is scrubbing Roberts' files!!!

CONTINUED…

http://www.democrats.com/roberts-iran-contra

Why does that matter? Well, Iran-Contra was treason of the highest order. Not only did the Executive circumvent Congress in carrying out its various warmongering treasons in the name of fighting godless communism, they were trading arms with the terrorists who had killed 240 United States Marines, 18 Navy and 3 Army personnel at the Beirut airport in 1983.

Firewall: Inside the Iran-Contra Cover-up

By Robert Parry
1995

EXCERPT…

Those combined interests likely will lead to very few favorable reviews of a new book by a man who put himself in the way of that cover-up -- Iran-contra independent counsel Lawrence Walsh. In a remarkable new book, Firewall: The Iran-Contra Conspiracy and Cover-up, Walsh details his six-year battle to break through the "firewall" that White House officials built around President Reagan and Vice President Bush after the Iran-contra scandal exploded in November 1986.

For Walsh, a lifelong Republican who shared the foreign policy views of the Reagan administration, the Iran-contra experience was a life-changing one, as his investigation penetrated one wall of lies only to be confronted with another and another -- and not just lies from Oliver North and his cohorts but lies from nearly every senior administration official who spoke with investigators.

According to Firewall, the cover-up conspiracy took formal shape at a meeting of Reagan and his top advisers in the Situation Room at the White House on Nov. 24, 1986. The meeting's principal point of concern was how to handle the troublesome fact that Reagan had approved illegal arms sales to Iran in fall 1985, before any covert-action finding had been signed. The act was a clear felony -- a violation of the Arms Export Control Act -- and possibly an impeachable offense.

SNIP…

&quot White House chief of staff Don) Regan, who had heard McFarlane inform the president and who had heard the president admit to Shultz that he knew of the shipment of Hawk (anti-aircraft) missiles, said nothing. Shultz and (Defense Secretary Caspar) Weinberger, who had protested the shipment before it took place, said nothing. (Vice President George) Bush, who had been told of the shipment in advance by McFarlane, said nothing. Casey, who (had) requested that the president sign the retroactive finding to authorize the CIA-facilitated delivery, said nothing. (NSC adviser John) Poindexter, who had torn up the finding, said nothing. Meese asked whether anyone knew anything else that hadn't been revealed. No one spoke."

CONTINUED…

http://www.consortiumnews.com/archive/story34.html

These are no mere gangsters. They are mass murderers dealing with mass murderers to advance their aims. And John Roberts let them get away with their corruptions and treasons.

Roberts & the 'Apex of Presidential Power'

By Nat Parry
September 6, 2005

EXCERPT...

In the 1980s, Roberts also provided legal advice to the Reagan administration on how to pick its way around the legal obstacles erected by Congress to limit military and other assistance to the Nicaraguan contra rebels who were fighting to overthrow Nicaragua’s leftist Sandinista government.

SNIP…

Conflict of Interest

Regarding the Hamdan case, Roberts also saw no impropriety in his simultaneous interviewing with senior administration officials for a life-time job on the Supreme Court and his judging of a case in which Bush was a defendant.

On April 1, Roberts was interviewed by Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, who had formulated many of the arguments for the “apex of presidential power,” including Bush’s right to override anti-torture laws.

Other interviews with Roberts were conducted by Vice President Dick Cheney; White House Chief of Staff Andrew Card; White House legal counsel Harriet Miers; Bush’s chief political strategist Karl Rove; and Cheney’s chief of staff Lewis Libby.

CONTINUED…

http://www.consortiumnews.com/2005/090605.html

Oh yeah. "No Poppy" means no one to appoint Associate Just-Us Tony the Fixer Scalia to the court in 1986. And everybody knows, Fangu Tony was da brains behind the 5-4 fiasco...uh ah uh, assisted by the lawyerly John Roberts, of course.

Roberts Gave GOP Advice in 2000 Recount

John G. Roberts, President Bush's nominee to the U.S. Supreme Court, played a role in the chaotic, 36-day period following the disputed 2000 presidential election.

by Gary Fineout and Mary Ellen Klas
Published on Thursday, July 21, 2005 by the Miami Herald

TALLAHASSEE -- U.S. Supreme Court nominee John G. Roberts provided legal advice to Gov. Jeb Bush in the weeks following the November 2000 election as part of the effort to make sure the governor's brother won the disputed presidential vote.

Roberts, at the time a private attorney in Washington, D.C., came to Tallahassee to advise the state's Republican administration as it was trying to prevent a Democratic end-run that the GOP feared might give the election to Al Gore, sources told The Herald.

SNIP...

U.S. Rep. Robert Wexler, a Boca Raton Democrat, seized on Roberts' participation in the 2000 recount and suggested it should be grounds for rejecting his nomination. Wexler suggested the nomination ``threw salt on the wounds of the thousands of Floridians whose voting rights were disenfranchised during the 2000 election.

''Judge Roberts worked to ensure that George Bush would become president -- regardless of what the courts might decide,'' Wexler said, relying on news accounts that suggested Roberts gave the governor advice on how the state Legislature could name Bush the winner. ``And now he is being rewarded for that partisan service by being appointed to the nation's highest court.''

CONTINUED...

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines05/0721-07.htm

Small world. And very, very bad.

The Lost Opportunity of Iran-Contra

Special Report: A quarter century ago with the breaking of the Iran-Contra scandal, the United States had a chance to step back from its march toward Empire and to demand accountability for White House crimes. But instead a powerful cover-up prevailed, reports Robert Parry.

By Robert Parry
ConsortiumNews
December 1, 2011

EXCERPT...

Walsh finally relented and agreed to shut down his investigation, meaning that one of the key lessons derived from Iran-Contra was that a determined cover-up of a national security scandal, backed by a powerful media apparatus and aggressive political allies, can work.

In the early 1990s when I interviewed the House Foreign Affairs Committee’s longtime Democratic chief counsel Spencer Oliver, he put Iran-Contra in exactly that historical place, as the polar opposite of Watergate when Richard Nixon’s abuses of power had real consequences, including Nixon’s forced resignation and prison terms for many of his subordinates.

“What [the Republicans] learned from Watergate,” Oliver said, “was not ‘don’t do it,’ but ‘cover it up more effectively.’ They have learned that they have to frustrate congressional oversight and press scrutiny in a way that will avoid another major scandal.”

The consequences of the failed Iran-Contra investigations have been long-lasting and profound. Not only did George H.W. Bush manage to get elected president in 1988 under the false claim that he had been “out of the loop” on the scandal, but the failure to hold him accountable in 1993 opened the door to the White House eight years later for his son, George W. Bush.

George W. Bush’s imperial presidency (and its costly “war on terror”) would have been virtually unthinkable if the full truth had been known about George H.W. Bush regarding Iran-Contra. Nor would it have been likely that the Republicans could have succeeded in elevating Ronald Reagan to his present iconic status.

CONTINUED...

http://consortiumnews.com/2011/12/01/the-lost-opportunity-of-iran-contra/

For all that, dealing with terrorists and going around the Congressional ban on dealing death on innocent people in Nicaragua, they all belong in the slammer for life.

Instead, John Roberts gets to head the nation’s highest court in the land for life.

Best of all, he gets to appoint the FISA judges -- all GOP friends. Coincidentally.

OP: http://www.democraticunderground.com/1002281926

[GoneFishin]

75. Equally scary - that if this stands it may be cited as precedent in future miscarriages. n/t

[woo me with science]

76. K&R