Ed Brayton is a journalist, commentator and speaker. He is the co-founder and president of 
The Senate Judiciary Committee held a remarkable hearing this week with testimony from former Deputy Attorney General James Comey (he was deputy under Ashcroft and resigned after Ashcroft did, but was universally respected and viewed as politically independent). Comey gave rather remarkable testimony about what happened on March 10, 2004 in regard to DOJ approval for that program. I'm not going to quote the whole thing, but I'm going to tell the story he told.
Apparently, the DOJ had to evaluate the NSA wiretapping progam and sign off on its legality, which they did originally when the program first came about. The deadline for reapproval was March 11, 2004 and the DOJ had been working for several weeks evaluating the program. Both Comey and Ashcroft, along with other senior DOJ officials, determined that the program had gone off the tracks and had begun to operate in a way that was unconstitutional. Comey and Ashcroft had a meeting about a week before that and determined that they could not approve the program as it was being run.
Within a few hours of that meeting, Ashcroft became very sick and was hospitalized, where he would remain for quite some time. Comey took over as acting attorney general in his absence. Comey told the White House that the DOJ would not sign off on the program as it was being run, but they weren't taking that answer. They wanted Ashcroft to overrule it, so they went to the hospital on March 10th to try and get him to sign it. And I'll quote this part directly because it reads like something out of a movie almost:
The next day was Wednesday, March the 10th, the night of the hospital incident. And I was headed home at about 8 o'clock that evening, my security detail was driving me. And I remember exactly where I was -- on Constitution Avenue -- and got a call from Attorney General Ashcroft's chief of staff telling me that he had gotten a call...from Mrs. Ashcroft from the hospital. She had banned all visitors and all phone calls. So I hadn't seen him or talked to him because he was very ill. And Mrs. Ashcroft reported that a call had come through, and that as a result of that call Mr. Card and Mr. Gonzales were on their way to the hospital to see Mr. Ashcroft.So I hung up the phone, immediately called my chief of staff, told him to get as many of my people as possible to the hospital immediately. I hung up, called Director Mueller and -- with whom I'd been discussing this particular matter and had been a great help to me over that week -- and told him what was happening. He said, "I'll meet you at the hospital right now." Told my security detail that I needed to get to George Washington Hospital immediately. They turned on the emergency equipment and drove very quickly to the hospital. I got out of the car and ran up -- literally ran up the stairs with my security detail.
I was concerned that, given how ill I knew the attorney general was, that there might be an effort to ask him to overrule me when he was in no condition to do that...
And so I raced to the hospital room, entered. And Mrs. Ashcroft was standing by the hospital bed, Mr. Ashcroft was lying down in the bed, the room was darkened. And I immediately began speaking to him, trying to orient him as to time and place, and try to see if he could focus on what was happening, and it wasn't clear to me that he could. He seemed pretty bad off.
I tried to see if I could help him get oriented. As I said, it wasn't clear that I had succeeded. I went out in the hallway. Spoke to Director Mueller by phone. He was on his way. I handed the phone to the head of the security detail and Director Mueller instructed the FBI agents present not to allow me to be removed from the room under any circumstances. And I went back in the room. I was shortly joined by the head of the Office of Legal Counsel assistant attorney general, Jack Goldsmith, and a senior staffer of mine who had worked on this matter, an associate deputy attorney general. So the three of us Justice Department people went in the room.
I sat down...in an armchair by the head of the attorney general's bed. The two other Justice Department people stood behind me. And Mrs. Ashcroft stood by the bed holding her husband's arm. And we waited. And it was only a matter of minutes that the door opened and in walked Mr. Gonzales, carrying an envelope, and Mr. Card. They came over and stood by the bed. They greeted the attorney general very briefly. And then Mr. Gonzales began to discuss why they were there -- to seek his approval for a matter, and explained what the matter was -- which I will not do. And Attorney General Ashcroft then stunned me. He lifted his head off the pillow and in very strong terms expressed his view of the matter, rich in both substance and fact, which stunned me -- drawn from the hour-long meeting we'd had a week earlier -- and in very strong terms expressed himself, and then laid his head back down on the pillow, seemed spent, and said to them, "But that doesn't matter, because I'm not the attorney general."
And as he laid back down, he said, "But that doesn't matter, because I'm not the attorney general. There is the attorney general," and he pointed to me, and I was just to his left.
The two men did not acknowledge me. They turned and walked from the room. And within just a few moments after that, Director Mueller arrived. I told him quickly what had happened. He had a brief -- a memorable brief exchange with the attorney general and then we went outside in the hallway.
A little while later, he got a call from Andrew Card, then the White House Chief of Staff and was summoned to the White House. Comey told them that he would not meet with them without a witness and he called Ted Olson, who was then the Solicitor General (#3 man in the DOJ) to go with him. They met with other senior DOJ officials before going to the White House. Comey didn't come out and say this, but if you read between the lines it looks like most of the senior DOJ staff was threatening to resign over it.
So the White House went ahead and reauthorized the NSA program without DOJ approval the next day, at which point Comey prepared a letter of resignation. And here's the stunning part - apparently, Ashcroft was going to resign too. Ashcroft's chief of staff asked Comey to wait on his resignation so that Ashcroft could resign with him. He agreed to do so.
At that point, things get a little confusing. Comey says he met with Bush privately, as did FBI Director Mueller, and that Bush told them to do what they thought was right and what was necessary to get the program on a legal footing. But Comey doesn't come out and say that anything about the program was changed. Still, he ended up not resigning, so one would assume that his legal concerns were assuaged somehow because he was quite insistent that he would not continue if the White House went ahead with the program without DOJ approval and that neither he nor Ashcroft would approve it as constituted at the time. As Orin Kerr put it at the Volokh Conspiracy, "It sounds like the President personally either gave in or reached a compromise with Comey (it's not clear to me which) that refashioned the program in a way that DOJ was willing to approve."
There are two appalling parts to this story. The first is the incredibly callous behavior of Card and Gonzales, going to the hospital to get Ashcroft to sign off on a program they had already determined was not operating legally. The second is the White House reauthorizing the program that their own DOJ said was not legal. Though Comey was clear to say that the DOJ's approval was not required by law, when your own DOJ officials, including their ideological compatriots in Ashcroft and Olson, say that the program is operating illegally and you ignore them and reauthorize it anyway, there's something rotten in Denmark.
Comments
Ed, I'm I reading this right?
Am I correct in interpreting this that FBI Director Muellor and US Attorney General Comey agreed that White House Counsel Alberto Gonzalez might attempt to assault and forcibly eject Comey from Ashcroft's hospital room, and that Comey's security detail was to do everything it its power to prevent that from happening?That doesn't read like a movie, that reads like a nightmare. That's coup-level scariness. The idea that that man, who has now been shown to be such an empty suit, is now and still Attorney General is shocking. To quote Brad DeLong, impeach them all, impeach them now.
Posted by: Elf M. Sternberg | May 17, 2007 10:19 AM
you sound like the typical far left type. I hope they monitored your calls.
Posted by: camel jockey | May 17, 2007 10:19 AM
Ashcroft wasn't perfect by any means, but he was a man who stood by his principles and did what he thought was best for the country. Certainly better than the little rat that took his place.
Just out of curiosity, has this story been verified by a 3rd party? It seems a little embellished to me.
Posted by: Brandon | May 17, 2007 10:27 AM
With the likes of Camel Jockey and their idiotic justification of this corrupt and inept administration no matter what is there any hope for the future of this country of ours?
Posted by: Librarian Annie | May 17, 2007 10:29 AM
"Typical far left type"
Ouch!
Shame on you for caring about civil liberties!
Posted by: MG | May 17, 2007 10:31 AM
Ed, just to point out, Comey never addressed which program was at the center of this drama. Today the washington post reports that the justice department is sticking by Gonzalez's previous sworn testimony that there was no disagreement about bush's NSA wiretapping program (Specifically in response to a question regarding rumors of the Comey incident). This seems to leave only two possibilities; that Gonzo has lied under oath (hardly impossible) and the DOJ is standing by him, or that Comey wand AG Ashcroft were concerned not about the NSA wiretappping program (the "President's Program"), but by a seperate spying program.
Also, it's worth pointing out that Mueller and the FBI were involved in this incident, not apparently the NSA. The FBI handles domestic investigations if I'm not mistaken.
I recommend reading Greenwald for more.
Posted by: JohnTheStudent | May 17, 2007 10:32 AM
You neglect to point out that the call that got Mrs Ashcroft to allow these people to see her husband, despite his abyssmal condition, came from the Office of the President. Whether or not it was the President himself is not clear, but it seems likely that under the circumstances, he was the only person who could have gotten through.
Posted by: John S | May 17, 2007 10:43 AM
you sound like the typical far left type. I hope they monitored your calls.
Hmmm... Imelda Marcos is posting now.
Posted by: dr x | May 17, 2007 10:57 AM
Comey said he didn't resign on March 12th as intended because the Madrid train station bombings occurred the day before.
Posted by: Joe | May 17, 2007 11:02 AM
This administration is going to do whatever they want to whomever they want to succeed in their own personal agenda without any regard to the rule of law. I am living proof of this.
Posted by: anne Gibbs | May 17, 2007 11:02 AM
This administration is going to do whatever they want to whomever they want to succeed in their own personal agenda without any regard to the rule of law. I am living proof of this.
Posted by: anne Gibbs | May 17, 2007 11:02 AM
It is clear that the WH was trying to do an end run around Comey by sending Gonzales and Card to Ashcroft. But why would Comey anticipate being evicted from Ashcroft's room? Had he been warned off? Had the security detail been so instructed? If so, by whom? And why would Mueller also go there personally? Doesn't this point to a parallel attempt by the WH to do an end run around Mueller's authority over Ashcroft's security? Congress can find out whether a call was made from WH to security. What they probably can't do is get a copy of the document that Gonzales/Card wanted Ashcroft to sign. It would have had to have been back-dated, so as to avoid Comey's official authority. I see four fundamental misdemeanors here, in an unsuccessful attempt to commit what is a clearly defined crime.
Posted by: John | May 17, 2007 11:07 AM
This is another Bush disgrace that history will record. This is one more snapshot of Bush, Cheney, & Rove dismantling the Constitution to increase exec power and remove citizen rights. They think themselves above the law and despise the best gifts previous generations gave forward. I'm convinced the Bush legacy will be seen as one of the worse periods of American history. His legacy will consist of the trampled and dead Constitution, a crippled nation in historic debt, and a world in turmoil. The fine print of his legacy will read like a guidebook of incompetence.
Posted by: Steve | May 17, 2007 11:27 AM
It makes you wonder when they are going to subpoena Ashcroft to testify?
Posted by: Miguelito | May 17, 2007 11:46 AM
I really think that not following the constitution on purpose should be considered treason and treated as such.
Posted by: Bill | May 17, 2007 11:56 AM
Don't you see that the constitution is just a "piece of paper"? We can trample on it all we want, and remove the rights of the people as along as we make sure they are scared enough to require the "security" we provide for them. If you don't agree, you might just be a terrorist.
-GWB
Posted by: George Sherff, III | May 17, 2007 11:58 AM
Bush deserves a title shot as the worst president ever, but all he has to do is charity and nobel-type peace work as an ex-pres and his hoodwinking campaign will earn him love for about 100 years when the History Channel will finally expose him for all his dirty thug work. And that's how it will go.
Posted by: Rock Jones | May 17, 2007 12:10 PM
I strongly disliked Ashcroft when he was in office; I disagree with the man on many points of law and ethics.
That said, this sounds like not only a man with serious cojones, but a man of principle and some degree of inner strength - Lawful Evil rather than Neutral Evil, if you will.
Posted by: M | May 17, 2007 12:26 PM
Sorry to disagree with all the libs here but I read the wsj article on what really happened. I guess if you lie to enough gullible bush haters you can get them to respond as such.
Posted by: BC | May 17, 2007 1:10 PM
Whatever my government does to protect me and my family is OK with me. If it's not OK with you, perhaps are are really an enemy of America.
Posted by: Gary Dorman | May 17, 2007 1:13 PM
First let's review the background. On March 10, 2004, then-White House Counsel Alberto Gonzales and White House Chief of Staff Andrew Card visited John Ashcroft in the hospital as he recuperated in intensive care. According to Mr. Comey, the purpose of the visit was to get Attorney General Ashcroft to sign off on the NSA's wiretapping authority, which Mr. Comey himself had declined to do.
In the hearing, Mr. Comey spared no dramatic detail. As Mr. Gonzales and Mr. Card came into the hospital room, Mrs. Ashcroft supposedly stood by the bed "holding her husband's arm." As they queried him on the matter, Mr. Ashcroft "lifted his head off the pillow . . . and in very strong terms expressed himself, and then laid his head back down on the pillow, seemed spent." This is the kind of stuff that can get you into the Oprah Book Club.
In Mr. Comey's spirited retelling, Messrs. Gonzales and Card were trying to "end run" his authority as acting attorney general by taking advantage of a "very sick man" who had delegated his AG powers to Mr. Comey. In a series of events that followed, Mr. Comey, under the guidance of Mr. Schumer, presented himself as further harassed--summoned to the White House to meet with Mr. Card, and later with President Bush himself.
The implication is that the White House was trying to lean on Justice to do something illegal. But listen to what Mr. Comey actually said as Mr. Specter questioned him. Was he pressured by Mr. Card, Senator Specter asked? No. "I don't know that he tried to pressure me, other than to engage me on the merits and make clear his strong disagreements with my conclusion."
Did they threaten him, or suggest he could be fired? "No sir, I didn't feel threatened, nor did he say anything that could reasonably be read [as threatening]." And what about Mr. Bush, did he twist arms in the Oval? Through FBI director Robert Mueller, Mr. Comey explained, "The President said the Justice Department should do what the Department thinks is right."
So where's the smoking gun here? When the program was reauthorized by the President alone, Mr. Comey and others planned to resign in protest. So, Mr. Specter asked, does that mean the program went forward illegally? Again, negative: "The Justice Department's certification . . . was not [required] as far as I know." That's because, as even Mr. Comey conceded, many judges and scholars believe a President has the Constitutional authority to approve such wiretaps, especially in wartime.
In other words, per Mr. Comey's testimony, nothing illegal was done, he was never threatened by White House officials, and the President told him to do what he felt was right. The Gonzales-Card hospital intrusion was unusual, and politically unwise, but their motive at the time was to gain approval for a program the President thought vital to national security and was about to expire.
By the way, March 10, 2004, the date of Mr. Comey's visit to Mr. Ashcroft's bedside is a historic day for another reason: It was the eve of 3/11 and the Madrid train bombings, which killed 191 and injured 2,000. It was, in other words, the kind of event that brings home the global nature of terrorism, as well as the sophisticated coordination required to execute attacks of such brutality.
What's really going on here is a different form of political theater: Democrats are trying to whip up an aura of "illegality" to create the political leverage to strip a Republican President of his surveillance authority in wartime. They've tried to do this since the program was revealed, and back in 2006 Russ Feingold compared it to Watergate. But unfortunately for the Democrats, wiretapping aimed at America's terrorist enemies is politically popular.
So, rather than arguing the legal merits, Democrats are spinning a yarn about shady deeds perpetrated in a hospital room at night. They are using half-truths to achieve a partisan goal that is dangerous policy, and they shouldn't get away with it.
RESPOND TO THIS ARTICLE READ RESPONSES E-MAIL THIS TO A FRIEND PRINT FRIENDLY FORMAT
HOME TOP OF PAGE BOOKMARK THIS SITE ARCHIVE
Posted by: BC | May 17, 2007 1:15 PM
While i also didn't agree with Ashcroft in many areas, he has an actual ethical spine, as does Comey. Thank you sirs.
What a sad case that they both resigned & Bush & Gonzales remained.
A case of the good people being pushed out & the bad remaining. Like they say with money the bad money pushes out the good.
I personally think the 2004 election was stolen,
so IMO an unelected imposter from the Whitehouse & his criminal gang are looting America & running it over a cliff.
Posted by: george | May 17, 2007 1:19 PM
Comey didn't resign because the bombings in Madrid sometime in the next 24-36 hours and he felt it important to stick around until August. I am thus under the impression that the program wasn't changed to suit him or the DOJ.
Posted by: WD | May 17, 2007 1:19 PM
I'm with Brad.
IMPEACH
THE
S.O.P.
...
Oh, and my phone number is already on file with them,
so they can listen to me talk to my grandson all they want.
...
And to think I spent 20 years defending this "P. O. S." excuse for a government.
Capt, USAF, (Ret)
Posted by: Chuck | May 17, 2007 1:20 PM
I'm with Brad.
IMPEACH
THE
S.O.P.
...
Oh, and my phone number is already on file with them,
so they can listen to me talk to my grandson all they want.
...
And to think I spent 20 years defending this "P. O. S." excuse for a government.
Capt, USAF, (Ret)
Posted by: Chuck | May 17, 2007 1:20 PM
BC, I too read the WSJ. However, I don't like that article for two reasons: 1) The author accused of others for not covering Senator Spector's questions on the nature of the DoJ's certification, but he too, conveniently skipped Senator Shumer's closing remarks on the legality issue, which proved that Senator Spector was misleading if not cheating. 2) At the end of the WSJ article, the author used the Madriad subway bombing case to remind his reader of the importance of Big Brother's protection. However, anyone familiar with the bombing would recall that the Spanish government was thrown out by its people following the bombing. With little or none information, the then Spanish government conveniently pointed the finger to its domestic rival. Jumping on a mass public tragedy to make political gain on suppressing criticism is exactly what this administration has been doing, and why many American people are not happy.
Posted by: Ryan Smith | May 17, 2007 1:22 PM
Just out of curiosity, has this story been verified by a 3rd party? It seems a little embellished to me.
Well, it was testified to under oath, and one of the people present is currently the AG of the United States. I suspect that if there were even a tiny pinch of embellishment, it would certainly have been amplified to deafening proprtions by now.
Side note to Gary Dorman.
As citizens, our loyalty is to the Constitution of The United States. Consider that carefully before you spout off about who the "enemy" might be.
Posted by: Paul Dirks | May 17, 2007 1:24 PM
Al Gore is my real president , or er John Kerry that crazy bush just dang gummed outsmarted us liberals, yuck yuck and then he bombed the twin towers . I sey Impeach impeach. And to think I gave up 6 years in the navy protecting this louzy country. Im moving to canaduh or spayne or somewhere nice
Posted by: Ben dover | May 17, 2007 1:27 PM
I hope America can survive the likes of Gary Dorman, who writes, Whatever my government does to protect me and my family is OK with me. If it's not OK with you, perhaps are are really an enemy of America.
The real enemy of America is the one who's willing to trash our values so that he can feel protected.
Posted by: Popper | May 17, 2007 1:27 PM
WASHINGTON -- Sen. Chuck Hagel on Wednesday became the latest Republican to call for Alberto Gonzales' resignation, saying revelations about a sick bed visit to his predecessor have undermined his moral authority to lead the Justice Department.
Undermined his moral authority to lead the Justice Department? How can you undermine what didn't exist in the first place?
Posted by: Popper | May 17, 2007 1:36 PM
Gonzales and Card doing what the king orders and to think they are such great christians and patriots..20 more months of these smiling hypocrites..Bush,Cheney and Rove will go down like dirty dogs and then complain that the government just doesn't work. Cheney and Haliburton should be prosecuted for starting this war and I hope the congress does someting.
Posted by: G.E. Higgins | May 17, 2007 1:40 PM
Gonzales and Card doing what the king orders and to think they are such great christians and patriots..20 more months of these smiling hypocrites..Bush,Cheney and Rove will go down like dirty dogs and then complain that the government just doesn't work. Cheney and Haliburton should be prosecuted for starting this war and I hope the congress does someting.
Posted by: G.E. Higgins | May 17, 2007 1:40 PM
BC wrote: "The Gonzales-Card hospital intrusion was unusual, and politically unwise, but their motive..."
unusual?
politically unwise?
Are you on effing drugs?
They were attempting to get an illegal domestic spying program (Ashcroft and Comey's considered opinion) approved of by someone who they knew lacked the legal authority to sign off on it.
The correct words are "criminal" and "conspiracy!"
I thought you right-wingers were not into relativism and moral quibbling over words.
And no one is trying to "strip a Republican President of his surveillance authority in wartime." We are advocating that the law be followed. There is a legal process for getting surveillance approved, even 72 hours after the fact. The law should be obeyed by those sworn to uphold it. No "enemy" is big enough of a threat to justify breaking the rule of law. No true patriot, sir or madam, would advocate such!
Posted by: SharonB | May 17, 2007 1:53 PM
BC (what an appropriate handle!) appears to have quoted an unspecified article, of which I find the following paragraph:
By the way, March 10, 2004, the date of Mr. Comey's visit to Mr. Ashcroft's bedside is a historic day for another reason: It was the eve of 3/11 and the Madrid train bombings, which killed 191 and injured 2,000. It was, in other words, the kind of event that brings home the global nature of terrorism, as well as the sophisticated coordination required to execute attacks of such brutality.
First, the Madrid bombing has absolutely nothing at all to do with any DOJ program discussed here. Second, the author (whoever he/she is) makes no attempt to connect any such DOJ program to the bombing, but merely implies, in a spineless mealy-mouthed sort of way, that "the global nature of terrorism" somehow means we can't question Dear Leader. Or something.
Posted by: Ragikng Bee | May 17, 2007 1:58 PM
BC-
You reprint the WSJ article, but it doesn't actually say anything relevant. No one has claimed that the visit to the hospital was illegal, so what's the point of spending all that effort to point out that it wasn't illegal? The point is that it's ghoulish and underhanded. The more important point is completely ignored: the White House set up the ground rules for their program, including the requirement that the DOJ - run by their own hand-picked and very conservative Attorney General - certify that the program is operating within constitutional limits. It would be one thing to dismiss the views of Comey, who was never a partisan at all, but when even John Ashcroft and Ted Olson, both highly partisan Republican appointees, say the program isn't operating within the bounds of the law, it is absurd to pretend otherwise. The WSJ misleadingly cites the exchange between Specter and Comey over whether going forward with the authorization itself was illegal; as Comey makes clear, there was no statutory requirement for the DOJ to sign off on the program's legality. But his testimony does make clear that all of the senior DOJ staff - again, including highly partisan Republicans, Bush appointees and even family friends (Ted Olson) - agreed that the program, as it was run, could not be certified as legal. That the White House re-authorized the program despite such advice speaks volumes about their disregard for the rule of law.
Posted by: Ed Brayton | May 17, 2007 2:24 PM
BC said but I read the wsj article on what really happened.
That was no article. That was an editorial with typical partisan spin.
Posted by: Popper | May 17, 2007 2:59 PM
Regardless of any issue of technical legality, trying to get someone hospitalized under such circumstance to sign a legal document, in order to bypass that individual's previous decision and the standing decision of their subordinate now acting in their stead, exhibits a level of personal corruption that we should not tolerate in any government official. What makes that event appalling, assuming it occurred as told, is not the issue of what crimes might have been broken, though those are important, but the utter and complete lack of integrity shown by the actors involved. That kind of trickery is simply unconscionable. If any lawyer tried that with a friend or relative of mine, while I was in the hospital room, they would be lucky to make it to a disbarment proceeding, and I would be lucky to avoid trial for defenestrating said lawyer.
Posted by: Russell | May 17, 2007 3:09 PM
Amazing story, Ed. Thank you for posting this one.
-Crow
Posted by: Crow | May 17, 2007 3:15 PM
Gary Dorman said;
"Whatever my government does to protect me and my family is OK with me. If it's not OK with you, perhaps are are really an enemy of America."
Benjamin Franklin said;
"Those who would sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither and will lose both."
Posted by: Lorri Talley | May 17, 2007 3:19 PM
No one has claimed that the visit to the hospital was illegal, so what's the point of spending all that effort to point out that it wasn't illegal?
It seems like the last, and sometimes also the first, defense for many of the Bush Administration's actions is always "yeah, but it wasn't illegal".
I'm almost starting to suspect that this defense isn't put forward in a spirit of "so that makes it okay" so much as "so nyah nyah, you can't do anything about it".
Either way, it does seem like they're completely given up on trying to justify their actions as correct or ethical.
Posted by: Coin | May 17, 2007 3:27 PM
Wow, I missed this comment the first time through them. Gary Dorman wrote:
Whatever they do? Including ignoring the Constitution? Sorry, anyone who takes that position is the enemy.
Posted by: Ed Brayton | May 17, 2007 3:32 PM
Sir, you are the one who is an enemy of America. You dont care about the country at all. You dont care about the soldiers dying in Iraq for no reason. You dont care about the abused convicts at Guantanamo. All you care about is your own flesh and blood.
Posted by: Baratos | May 17, 2007 3:44 PM
Here here!
There is something so frightening about living in a world with Gary Dormans running around. People so adverse to intelligent thought remind me of zombie movies.
Posted by: JohnTheStudent | May 17, 2007 3:51 PM
personal nit-pick: war has not been declared (unless you count GWB declaring himself a "war president" a proper declaration). If war has not been declared, then people should not even bring the president's rights and responsibilities during times of war into the discussion.
Presidents have been doing an end-run around that particular clause for too long and I can't figure out why they are allowed to get away with it!
/nit-pick
Posted by: Kate | May 17, 2007 3:53 PM
So lets get this straight the wallstreet journal was not an article it was an editorial with typical partisan spin. So what are we reading here?
Posted by: BC | May 17, 2007 4:01 PM
Regarding those poor "abused " prisoners at Gauntanamo did you hear that 6 of them that were released were found to be fighting us in afghanistan? Of course they probaly had no choice , the devil made them do it. By the way have any of you been personally wiretapped and do you mind?I thought it was for monitoring muslim terrorists and people who have overseas contacts and may be helping the enemy. They can wiretap me anytime they like, I just order parts talk to the old woman etc, nothing to hide, glad to cooperate
Posted by: BC | May 17, 2007 4:11 PM
Regarding those poor "abused " prisoners at Gauntanamo did you hear that 6 of them that were released were found to be fighting us in afghanistan? Of course they probaly had no choice , the devil made them do it. By the way have any of you been personally wiretapped and do you mind?I thought it was for monitoring muslim terrorists and people who have overseas contacts and may be helping the enemy. They can wiretap me anytime they like, I just order parts talk to the old woman etc, nothing to hide, glad to cooperate
Posted by: BC | May 17, 2007 4:11 PM
I think that it is also significant that Gonzales and Card were trying to get Ashcroft to authorize the program even though he had no authority to do so since at that point Comey was the Attorney General. At that point Ashcroft had no more legal authority to authorize anything than you or I.
A small point that no one seems to have picked up on is that Comey is using technical medical terminology when he describes trying "to orient [Ashcroft] as to time and place". This isn't the way the average person talks. These terms come from the standard description of the mental status examination that forms part of a neurological examination. Either Comey had been discussing Ashcroft's mental status with a physician or he has some medico-legal knowledge himself. Either way, although he doesn't quite come out and say it, it is clear that he was trying to determine whether Ashcroft was medically competent to act as Attorney General and that he did not think he was. (That's why he was so surprised when Ashcroft apparently had a brief cogent outburst.)
Posted by: Bill Poser | May 17, 2007 4:12 PM
Funny, BC, but you didn't respond to a single argument about the Comey situation or the Wall Street Journal article you cited.
Posted by: Ed Brayton | May 17, 2007 4:13 PM
BC asks:
You're reading a transcript of testimony by James Comey to the Senate Judiciary committee about events he witnessed when he was acting Attorney General. I think the appalling nature of what Comey describes comes through more clearly, listening to the testimony itself. I encourage listening to it here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fmm1W-H8L-4
Posted by: Russell | May 17, 2007 4:13 PM
BC,
Assuming that it is true that six men released from Guantanamo are fighting US forces in Afghanistan, and we don't actually know that, what does that prove? It isn't a crime to oppose the US. Moreover, it is quite possible that they wouldn't have fought the US if they hadn't been sent to Guantanamo. If you were captured by bounty hunters and sold to a foreign government, or picked up by foreign forces for no good reason, sent halfway around the world to an abusive prison camp, held there for several years with no prospect of release and minimal opportunity to occupy yourself (its not like they have a gym or much of a library or computers or a woodshop or anything like that), on finally being released wouldn't you be mad as hell at the people who did that to you?
Posted by: Bill Poser | May 17, 2007 4:20 PM
The WSJ is also a transcript of what wasnt printed or said elsewhere. I am so glad to see the new "leadership" accomplishing so much so fast, its refreshing to witness how the get the job done. Bill poser thanks for rationalizing for the terrorists I knew someone would. Like I said the devil made them do it. What do you think you guys would say if GWB didnt go into Iraq and Saddam continued getting his money for oil, continued sending and paying bombers to blow up Israelis. Then we got attacked again, like 911. Would you guys say, we knew they had wmd's allbright said it , Gore said it, Clinton ,Kerry they all said he had weapons money and means. That stupid Bush should have done something about it , but he didnt.All of those qoutes by dems are online and available
Posted by: BC | May 17, 2007 4:38 PM
-- Former Guantanamo detainees have organized a jailbreak in Afghanistan, kidnapped Chinese engineers and taken leadership positions with the Taliban, the U.S. military said Tuesday.
The former detainees were released from the prison at the Guantanamo Bay Naval Base in Cuba between 2002-2004 by claiming to be innocent or low-level figures, the military said in a statement, responding to questions about ex-prisoners who have allegedly resumed fighting.
The Pentagon gave brief descriptions of six detainees, including two it said were killed in fighting in Afghanistan, which the U.S. invaded to oust the Taliban regime following the Sept. 11, 2001 terrorist attacks in the United States.
The statement suggested that the six were released from Guantanamo by mistake.
"These former detainees successfully lied to U.S. officials, sometimes for over three years," said Navy Cmdr. Jeffrey Gordon, a Pentagon spokesman.
Last week, a Pentagon official, Joseph Benkert, testified to Congress that about 30 former detainees have rejoined the fight against the United States. Other U.S. officials have made similar claims about prisoners at Guantanamo, where the military now holds about 380 men mostly on suspicion of links to al-Qaida or the Taliban. As your Hero would say , one mans terrorist is another mans freedom fighter. Shouldnt they be labled cold blooded ruthless murderers
Posted by: BC | May 17, 2007 4:42 PM
>>Whatever my government does to protect me and my family is >>OK with me. If it's not OK with you, perhaps are are really >>an enemy of America.
>>Posted by: Gary Dorman | May 17, 2007 01:13 PM
In that case please call them to come pick you up and take your spineless ass out of the gene pool. America doesnt need sheep like you. Let those of us who still believe in truth and freedom in America carry her forward. Or better yet why dont you go to Iran or Syria or somewhere where they have the kind of dictators you want.
Posted by: JJ | May 17, 2007 5:07 PM
BC-
Why do you keep changing the subject rather than answering arguments? This post had absolutely nothing to do with Gitmo. The excerpt you posted from the WSJ didn't answer anything I said, it only attempted to answer an argument that no one made. So far you've offered non sequiturs and straw men, but no substantive arguments. I think you're in way over your head here.
Posted by: Ed Brayton | May 17, 2007 5:10 PM
BC
I'm not going to respond to you further since you mischaracterize what other people write and are incoherent, but for the record, I did not "rationalize for the terrorists". Rather, I explained how Guantanamo could turn low-level or even innocent people into enemies. That doens't make them any less enemies, but it shows the folly of the Bush Administration's approach, which has failed conclusively to defeat the Taliban in Afghanistan, inflamed the Muslim world, and destabilized the Middle East, and made Iraq a hotbed for terrorists that it was not under Saddam Hussein. Because of Bush and his buddies we are much less safe than we were on 9/11. Thanks a bunch.
And by the way, not everyone fighting the US in Afghanistan is a terrorist. Those who fight US forces are enemy soldiers, not terrorists.
Posted by: Bill Poser | May 17, 2007 5:10 PM
I rather thought that the righties would... the right-wingers are after all the ones that are driving around the monster SUVs and therefore funding terrorism directly through their gas purchases.
Posted by: AM | May 17, 2007 5:15 PM
"Democrats are spinning a yarn": Oh, that explains why Republicans are starting to call for the AG's resignation.
Posted by: Bruce | May 17, 2007 5:30 PM
Poser 8 % of our gas comes from there. Maybe you can get your "leadership to let us drill for more oil that we know we have. Or they could cut us a break on the tax they impose.Oil companys only make 13 cents a gallon, the government 18.4. Read George Wills insightful column on gas in todays paper. Oh forgot you have to get your news from the big 3 tonite, gulp gulp gulp please sir may I have more
Posted by: BC | May 17, 2007 5:30 PM
There is a lot of attempt here to distract from the underlying act that is being reported. This isn't chiefly about the legality of any Bush program. It is interesting that John Ashcroft and his staff, who fought for the Patriot Act, thought that some Bush program was illegal. But that just sets the stage. The real news here is about a cabal of men so corrupt that they would use a colleague's hospitalization as an opportunity to run to his bed and trick him into signing something that he refused to sign in the days previous. That is not a disagreement about law. That is just plain rottenness and deceitfulness, of the worst possible sort. It no longer surprises me that Ashcroft was going to resign, and was stopped from doing so only by the bombings in Madrid.
It absolutely boggles my mind that people are so dedicated to their political leaders that they will work overtime to defend such behavior. Or as we have seen here, try to distract from it.
Posted by: Russell | May 17, 2007 5:46 PM
But unfortunately for the Democrats, wiretapping aimed at America's terrorist enemies is politically popular.
So, rather than arguing the legal merits, Democrats are spinning a yarn about shady deeds perpetrated in a hospital room at night. They are using half-truths to achieve a partisan goal that is dangerous policy, and they shouldn't get away with it.
Posted by: BC | May 17, 2007 5:53 PM
They are using half-truths
What half-truths?
Posted by: Coin | May 17, 2007 5:57 PM
BC said:
I think it would help if we understand the word "Transcript." It means a written rendition of testimony, in this case given under oath by an eyewitness. Not the WSJ article, in other words.
If the administration feels the need to correct the record as to this event, Card, Gonzales and Mr. and Mrs. Ashcroft are available. As no such defense has been mounted, we might assume that none is available.
As for Gitmo, who has been in charge of the prisoners and releasing them? Just how does the fact that some have been "mistakenly released" redound to the benefit of the administration?
Posted by: kehrsam | May 17, 2007 5:58 PM
Seems some of you would like to assume anyone held at Gitmo is guilty (we wouldn't hold them there unless they were ruthless killers; trust us). If our only goal is our safety, and morality be damned, maybe we should:
1. Round up all Muslims
2. Exterminate them (lots of info from Nazi Germany on how to do this efficiently)
3. Nuke the entire Middle East
Posted by: Bruce | May 17, 2007 6:00 PM
Some one set me straight on this:
Putting aside whether the wire taps were legal to begin with(not to disregard it, just to jump ahead)
didn't the FBI find that as the program progressed that within the taps there were illegal taped conversations? Even if the intelligence services and the administration had the authority to tape enemies within, wasn't there a breach of even that authority?
In other words, much like if the police have a warrant for an address, bust in the house, turn everything inside out,discover nothing and find out the warrant was actually for the house next door. The warrant is invalid as acted upon.
Didn't I read that these mistakes were made? Am I mistaken?
Posted by: dan | May 17, 2007 6:03 PM
So, rather than arguing the legal merits
Actually, they have been argued all along.
You'd know that, if you were paying attention.
Posted by: gwangung | May 17, 2007 6:09 PM
That is getting carried away with rounding up Muslims! Do we have any proof at all that they cause terror or are terrorists? Have they blown up , say airplanes, skyscrapers, ships, embassys, innocent tourists in Bali, Austarlia, Israel? I mean come on do we have any proof of plots, like in canada , britain, fort dix, where is the proof. All I can say is if they have done anything we mustve made them mad we should just say sorry we wont do it again, our bad
Posted by: BC | May 17, 2007 6:13 PM
BC says So, rather than arguing the legal merits, Democrats are spinning a yarn about shady deeds perpetrated in a hospital room at night.
This was not a "yarn" spun by Democrats. It was testimony by a former Assistant Attorney General in the Bush administration.
Posted by: Popper | May 17, 2007 6:13 PM
I'm beginning to think that BC doesn't believe a word he says and is just having a little fun with us to provoke discussion. Either that, or he gets all of his news from Fox and the WSJ editorial pages.
Posted by: Popper | May 17, 2007 6:16 PM
BC's last post doen't even make sense. Does anyone have any idea what he was trying to say in his 6:13 post?
Posted by: Tulle | May 17, 2007 6:39 PM
Who is trying to distract from the subject at hand? I realize the president and congress read and take cues from this blog( Rush who?} I understand the importance of staying on task. Hey by the way anyone watch the bulls pistons series , itsa goody. Go bulls. Utah is lookin good too, Deron Williams and Dee {one man fast break} Brown , good old U of I alums.
Posted by: BC | May 17, 2007 6:43 PM
In my 6.13 post I was responding to Bruce And you hit the nail on the head there is no connection! Thanks for clarifying my point
Posted by: BC | May 17, 2007 6:52 PM
Okay, BC's 6:43 post confirms it. He's just messing with us.
Posted by: Seraph | May 17, 2007 7:01 PM
Okay BC, you're done here. You're just too stupid to participate in a rational conversation. I'll be deleting your comments from now on. Perhaps Free Republic would be more your speed.
Posted by: Ed Brayton | May 17, 2007 7:05 PM
Re BC
1. Mr. BC is just following the example of his hero, Joseph Goebbels. When you tell a lie make it a big one, tell in loudly and tell it ofter; eventually people will come to believe it.
2. A question for Mr. BC. What happened to the weapons of mass destruction that Saddam Hussein had, according the pot smoking, coke snorting, draft dodging liar in the White House?
3. Mr. BC relies on the Wall Street Journal editorial page for his information. The only sources of information less reliable then that were Der Sturmer, Pravda, and Isvestia.
Re Gary Dorman
Mr. Dorman would have been as happy as a clam in Nazi Germany or Soviet Russia. No terrorists there.
Posted by: SLC | May 17, 2007 7:18 PM
I have a question and I'm not trying to be wise guy.
First let me say that I'm no capitulationist to facisim, nor do I think that the US must concede to the United Nations view of who or what we are or how we should conduct ourselves.
Having said that, if like BC, we say that our policies in the middle east and the rest of the world create no ripple effects and do not breed resentment and terrorits why then did the 911 commision state just that? Moreover, if that is the case, why then do we not bomb Iran's nuclear facilities say with nukes?
I wonder what the fall out(no pun intended) would be?
Posted by: Dan | May 17, 2007 8:04 PM
And that last post... is a cut and paste of an article printed in worldnetdaily in 2004???
Is "open mind" BC under a different name, or did he get linked here by the same website or something? The amount of effort in this thread to distract people into talking about something, anything, other than James Comey's Congressional testimony is kind of surprising.
Posted by: Coin | May 17, 2007 9:07 PM
Yep, he apparently has a difficult time understanding what "go away you idiot" means. And understanding that tracking IP addresses is quite easy to do.
Posted by: Ed Brayton | May 17, 2007 9:38 PM
When the books are written on this administration, I think one of the main themes will be the elevation of hacks to the highest positions, followed by the complete disregard for law. 9/11 mixed with jesus gave them the righteousness necessary to disregard basic American principles.
Posted by: steve s | May 17, 2007 10:10 PM
Brandon wrote:
Ashcroft wasn't perfect by any means, but he was a man who stood by his principles and did what he thought was best for the country. Certainly better than the little rat that took his place.
Do you know anything about Ashcroft? About the mandatory prayer meetings in the Justice Department? This is the man who gave a commencement address at Bob Jones University and declared,
"Unique among the nations, America recognized the source of our character as being godly and eternal, not being civic and temporal. And because we have understood that our source is eternal, America has been different. We have no king but Jesus."
His biggest supporters at his confirmation were Pat Robertson and the Christian Coalition and he ran the Department as though they were his bosses. He issued a directive that doctors who complied with the Oregon assisted suicide law were to be treated as criminals and punished, solely because the law conflicted with his personal religious beliefs. It wasn't until 2006 that the Supreme Court stomped on that scheme. That's just one example of many.
Gonzales is just a mediocre political hack, Ashcroft was an vicious man with a one track agenda. To suggest that his disastrous tenure at Justice showed any respect for the Constitution is ludicrous.
Posted by: tomh | May 17, 2007 10:21 PM
It seems this story is causing even the loyal Bush supporters to have some qualms. So far, there is nary a word about it by the freepers or on LGF. That is pretty indicative.
Posted by: Russell | May 17, 2007 10:22 PM
TomH: That's appalling. What relevance does it have to the commendability of Ashcroft refusing to sign off on an illegal spying program despite the administration's persistence and his own compromised condition?
Posted by: Azkyroth | May 17, 2007 11:26 PM
Azkyroth wrote: That's appalling.
Appalling? I'm sorry I offended you. I was responding to the comment "... he was a man who stood by his principles and did what he thought was best for the country." No matter what may have happened in a hospital room that statement is at odds with his entire career.
Posted by: tomh | May 18, 2007 12:32 AM
tomh -
While many of his principles and what he thinks is best for the country is appalling, never the less, he was standing by his principles. I have very similar feelings for Reagan. He did loathesome, horrible things to this country, but he did so in the honest belief that it was the best thing for the country. There is nothing wrong with appreciating that someone has the honor to stand up for what they think is right, even when they are so unbelievably misguided.
Don't get me wrong, the fact that they firmly believe they are right doesn't mean that I don't find either of those men and what they stand for, reprihensible. It just means that I can have a certain amount of respect for them - and others that I find just as odious, who never the less stand for what they believe.
Posted by: DuWayne | May 18, 2007 1:48 AM
And Ashcroft is definately a far better man than his replacement - though that is not saying much.
Posted by: DuWayne | May 18, 2007 1:53 AM
The testimony quoted at the beginning suggests to my mind that Comey feared that Gonzales and company were planning to exploit Ashcroft's illness to get a signature on an approval document of some sort. They may have hoped that the illness had diminished Ashcroft's mental capacity enough that he would not know what he was doing. His wife appeared in the testimony to have been distressed by the idea that the demands of his office were being imposed when his health was so fragile, and also that some heavy influence had clearly been applied to breach her and Ashcroft's request for isolation.
In the course of this Administration, my faith in the goodwill of our "leaders" has fallen to the point that I seriously entertain the possibility that Ashcroft would have been smothered in bed after signing. Perhaps this is what his wife anticipated as well.
Posted by: Daniel Kim | May 18, 2007 6:22 AM
Let me rephrase: the behavior you describe is appalling, not your choosing to mention it (the latter being merely a bit tangential). As a specific response it makes sense. I guess this is kind of a case of "Even a stopped clock is right twice a day?"
Posted by: Azkyroth | May 18, 2007 6:22 AM
Re IP addresses
Mr. Brayton should be aware that an IP address can be changed by unplugging the DSL or cable modem for 10 or 15 seconds. I do this all the time to bypass the free download limits on downloading services like Rapidshare and Megaupload.
Posted by: SLC | May 18, 2007 9:19 AM
SLC: That depends on your ISP. My IP address is fixed, cannot be changed by unplugging the DSL modem, and was assigned by my provider who included it in the introductory letter so I could enter it into the modem configuration.
Even if the IP address does change when the DSL/cable modem is unplugged, it will be assigned from a small pool. If there's enough similarity between two IP's and two apparent commenters, one might be able to justifiably assume that they're the same person.
Posted by: Inquisitive Raven | May 18, 2007 8:06 PM
Re Inquisitive Raven
I can only say that I haven't had any trouble bypassing the free download limits imposed by Rapidshare, Megaupload, and Bodongo when the unplugging/replugging operation is carried out, I can only conclude that the IP has changed as that is what these download sites test for. My ISP is Verizon.
Posted by: SLC | May 18, 2007 8:38 PM
IP address changing or no, it's just as easy to read the post and look for sentences with commas hanging out in the middle of nowhere. Problem solved.
Posted by: Troublesome Frog | May 19, 2007 1:19 PM
Sounds like a CYA to me, to be honest.
Posted by: Migeru | May 30, 2007 4:07 PM
Maybe Comey was afraid Card and Gonzales were going to smother Ashcroft with a pillow.
If it had been a movie, Ashcroft would have had a stroke after saying "because I am not the Attorney General, that is the Attourney General".
Posted by: Migeru | May 30, 2007 4:11 PM