Posted on 12/13/2001 6:02:13 AM PST by Oldeconomybuyer
Edited on 04/13/2004 2:39:12 AM PDT by Jim Robinson. [history]
Ethical lawyers don't.
You have no evidence of that, of course; it comes from the cogs of your little JBS-conspiracy-filled mind.
Simpletons think things are simple, Harry.
Stop being a simpleton.
"why"
The same reason the Tribunals will be secret
The same reason the names and information concerning the hundreds of people that are being held is secret.
If it is secret, then no one knows what you are doing. Therefore, you are more free to do what you want to without those pesky citizen and their congressional representative comparing your actions with those given to you by the Constitution.
I suspect even ethical lawyers, when discussing the strategy of a case, don't tell their clients everything.
Why don't you call for Dan Burton to release the deliberations of his committee with legal counsel? They are, after all, our elected representatives too.
I have to go with Dan Burton about this one. He did everything he could and the polititians stopped him at every turn during the Clinton days.
Now looks like AG Ashcroft is taking it up since AG Reno is gone.
To: horsewhispersc
He's hiding sumptin methinks!
I wanna know!
He's playing it close to the vest.
Otherwise the perps will know exactly what's going on.
Seems good investigative procedure to me.
# 11 by ladtx
************************
Really?
It seems like Clinton to me.
If the evidence is there,
what difference does it make who knows it?
After eight years of Clinton,
only the party-faithful will accept
executive priviledge without a snicker.
You again.
tberry, FR's resident terrorist defender.
Every single person being held is being held on visa violations.
It's all legal. If it weren't, the ACLU would have already sprung the perps.
It is not about secrecy, it is about withholding evidence.
If somthing is leaked prosecute the leaker.
To: ChaseR
Bush Withdrawing From ABM Treaty Now! Live!
# 13 by RedBloodedAmerican
************************
Finally!
President Bush has finally done something that I like.
I'm reading up on Iran-Contra right now, and one of the main problems with what happened, and my apologies for being so simplistic, is that Congress was able to pull the rug out from under important foreign policy issues, and then when the !@#$ hit the fan, instead of resolving the power struggle between Congress and the Executive branch over foreign policy, nearly everyone focused on covering themselves. That allowed the weakening of the Executive branch to continue.
I think President Bush may be using his "political capital" to try to better define the boundaries of the Executive branch with regard to Congress and particularly with regard to Congressional oversight of the Executive branch. It's also quite possible, maybe even likely, that the President wants the Executive Branch to examine the abuses of the previous administration, rather than having Congress do it--again to re-assert some independece in the Presidency.
This may be a very important thing to settle. One of the ways you do that is to test certain boundaries in order to better define them.
-penny
WAS INVOKED BY THE VERY FIRST PRESIDENT!
I hate to hear of Rep. Burton LYING.
Here is George Washington on "executive privilege:" Click here
'The House of Representatives established an investigative committee on March 27 1792, "to call for such persons, papers and records, as may be necessary to assist their inquiries." (20 5 Annals of Congress (1796), 771, 782-783.)
The investigating committee requested from the president Washington the testimony and documents regarding St. Clair's failed expedition. This was the first time Congress tested what is now known as executive privilege and Washington set the benchmark for all future presidents.
Washington noted the group's determination:
"We had all considered, and were of one mind, first, that the House was an inquest, and therefore might institute inquiries. Second, that it might call for papers generally. Third, that the Executive ought to communicate such papers as the public good would permit, and ought to refuse those, the disclosure of which would injure the public: consequently were to exercise a discretion. Fourth, that neither the committees nor House has a right to call on the Head of a Department, who and whose papers were under the President alone; but that the committee should instruct their chairman to move the House to address the President. (20 5 Annals of Congress (1796), 773.)'
Thomas Jefferson:
http://etext.lib.virginia.edu/jefferson/quotations/jeff1220.htm "With respect to papers, there is certainly a public and a private side to our offices. To the former belong grants of land, patents for inventions, certain commissions, proclamations, and other papers patent in their nature. To the other belong mere executive proceedings. All nations have found it necessary, that for the advantageous conduct of their affairs, some of these proceedings, at least, should remain known to their executive functionary only. He, of course, from the nature of the case, must be the sole judge of which of them the public interest will permit publication. Hence, under our Constitution, in requests of papers, from the legislative to the executive branch, an exception is carefully expressed, as to those which he may deem the public welfare may require not to be disclosed." --Thomas Jefferson to George Hay, 1807. ME 11:232
"The respect mutually due between the constituted authorities, in their official intercourse, as well as sincere dispositions to do for every one what is just, will always insure from the executive, in exercising the duty of discrimination confided to him, the same candor and integrity to which the nation has in like manner trusted in the disposal of its judiciary authorities." --Thomas Jefferson to George Hay, 1807. ME 11:233
To: Oldeconomybuyer
While any attempt by a government official to hide evidence from the public is not good, please keep in mind that when Congress subpoenas these documents they do not have to release them to the public themselves.
Ask yourself if someone like Maxine Waters should have any access to privileged information under any circumstances.
# 16 by Alberta's Child
************************
The short answer is yes, Alberta's Child.
Maxine Waters is a public official, put in power by the voters in her district.
She has a real need for access to information in order to do her job.
If she abuses that sacred trust, impeach and procecute her.
Prosecutors are the people's lawyers. The "people" is the prosecutor's client. Were the committee seeking to pierce the shield of privilege between the president and his council I would be agreeing with you. However, the case here is a third party is keeping information from the client.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.