Transterrestrial Musings

Comments

This passage, however, is a little more difficult to argue with:

On commuting the prison sentence of Cheney aide Lewis Libby: "If Libby gets pardoned, then he should not have the cover of the Fifth Amendment. He's going to have to come clean and tell the truth. Now, he could get Gonzales-itis [referring to U.S. Attorney General Alberto Gonzales], you know, with 71 lapses of memory within a two-hour period."

And while bringing up the Reichstag fire is indeed a dumb moonbat thing to do it remains true that the PATRIOT ACT is a massive over-reaction that does much to increase the police power of the Federal Government while doing little to protect us against terrorism.

Posted by Bill White at July 10, 2007 07:42 AM

"If Libby gets pardoned, then he should not have the cover of the Fifth Amendment. He's going to have to come clean and tell the truth.

Since when does a presidential pardon mean someone has to give up their 5th Amendment rights? Name one person in US history who was compelled to give up their 5th Amendment rights in exchange for a pardon? Why should Libby be an exception?

Posted by Larry J at July 10, 2007 07:54 AM

This passage, however, is a little more difficult to argue with

Not much, except to conspiracy mongers. Oh, sorry. Guess I'm being "rude" again.

Posted by Rand Simberg at July 10, 2007 07:56 AM

LarryJ,

Obviously, Congress adds immunity to the package.

Posted by Bill White at July 10, 2007 07:57 AM

BW "doing little to protect us against terrorism."

Well Bill, SOMETHING has been protecting us from terrorism seeing how we've not suffered another attacked in almost 6 years now. What is it, just luck?

Posted by Cecil Trotter at July 10, 2007 08:07 AM

Its not luck. The terrorists are just too stupid or too poor to get here......or so that's what the left tends to think.

Posted by Mac at July 10, 2007 08:09 AM

Cecil, recall the distinction between correlation and causation.

A more likely explanation is that there is a vanishingly small pool of wannabe jihadis with the English language skills, ability to enter the US & technical abilities to actually launch an attack.

Also, we did come heart-breaking-ly close to stopping 9/11 even with the lax pre-9/11 attitudes. Recall that FBI memo from the summer of 2001 warning about Arabs taking flight lessons.

Having law enforcement simply pay attention increases our security substantially without the need for a massive increase in federal police power.

Finally, once Flight 93 fought back, perhaps the War on Terror was won right then and there. No need for a "Great Leader" to protect us, just ordinary Americans willing to do the needful. Like that guy in Scotland who jumped on that burning terrorist and kicked him in the the nuts.

Don't need no stinkin' PATRIOT ACT for that.

Posted by Bill White at July 10, 2007 08:19 AM

Or maybe, just MAYBE, the fact that we put a hundred thousand armed soldiers right into the middle of Afghanistan and Iraq, drawing well-resourced operatives and wannabe suicide-bombers alike into combat more direct than sneaking through airport metal detectors had something to do with it.

Just sayin', y'know.

Posted by Big D at July 10, 2007 09:30 AM

Big D -

The idea that al Qaeda would deploy agents capable of infiltrating the US or the UK in Iraq strikes me as absurd.

Any jihadi capable of getting a US entry visa would be far to valuable to waste fighting America in an Arab land. There are plenty of angry Arabs who do not speak English to use in that capacity.

Posted by Bill White at July 10, 2007 09:39 AM

Bill: "there is a vanishingly small pool of wannabe jihadis"

Bill, you just validated the Presidents strategy of killing them elsewhere rather than on US soil.

Posted by Cecil Trotter at July 10, 2007 09:46 AM

The idea that al Qaeda would deploy agents capable of infiltrating the US or the UK in Iraq strikes me as absurd.

Uh huh, and in 2000 the thought of terrorists blowing up our buildings with planes was somewhat absurd too. We've made mistakes, granted, but what makes you think AQ is so smart that they never make mistakes?

Posted by Mac at July 10, 2007 10:05 AM

Cecil, you write:

Bill: "there is a vanishingly small pool of wannabe jihadis"
Bill, you just validated the Presidents strategy of killing them elsewhere rather than on US soil.

If this is indeed the strategy then we invaded the wrong country since 15 of the 19 9/11 hijackers were Saudi and NONE were Iraqi or Afghan.

2 from the UAE;

1 from Egypt;

1 from Lebanon.

Cecil, our being in Iraq does NOTHING to interdict and arrest/kill those who fit the profiles of the 9/11 attackers. That said, Saddam removal and nation building was a good and noble liberal objective even if it had nothing to do with 9/11.

= = =

Mac, the Columbine kiddies fantasized about crashing airliners into the WTC and Tom Clancy and Tom Ricks wrote novels in which crashing an airliner filled jet fuel was used as a terrorist weaspon.

Clueless Condi's "No one could have anticipated tells us more about her than it does about al Qaeda."

And of course there was an Islamic plot to crash an airliner into the Eiffel Tower. When the plane landed to re-fuel (with hostages on board) French commandos boarded the plane and shot the terrorists dead.

Yup. Cheese eating surrender monkeys, those French.

Posted by Bill White at July 10, 2007 10:25 AM

Bill, if you were paying attention, you'd know that many of the "foreign fighters" that we're busy killing in Iraq are from Saudi Arabia.

Posted by Rand Simberg at July 10, 2007 10:30 AM

Rand, that brings us full circle.

WHY would al Qaeda send Saudi operatives capable of entry into the US to Iraq?

Posted by Bill White at July 10, 2007 10:45 AM

They don't have to "send them." They're perfectly willing and capable of going to Iraq on their own. Getting to the US is much more difficult (and less attractive, when they can kill Americans, or at least attempt to, closer to home).

Posted by Rand Simberg at July 10, 2007 10:48 AM

OK let me see if I have your theory straight Bill:

We've had no further terrorist attacks on US soil because the pool of attackers is depleted, but the fact that they're being depleted on the battlefields of Iraq and Afghanistan is unrelated.

The second highest-ranking ahole in Al Qaeda has declared that IRAQ is THE central front in its war against the United States. But you, Reid, Clinton, Obama and the rest of the DNC say it is not. Am I to believe that you and the DNC crew know more about where AQ is expending its resources these days than AQ does?

And we don't even have to take AQ's word for it either. We can see the effects in Iraq, we see the bombs, beheadings and murdered children.

Just forget all the death and destruction that will be visited on the Iraqi people for a moment; we know that if we leave Iraq it WILL hand a great propaganda victory to AQ as well as Iran. Both will be emboldened to fight even harder because they will know that if they do so the US does not have the will to carry on a long and bloody fight. This is such an oft proven historical fact that it should be beyond debate. The most recent example was our pull out from Somalia. We now know the message that action sent to AQ. The fallout from our abandoning Somalia will pale in comparison to the fallout from our leaving Iraq.

Posted by Cecil Trotter at July 10, 2007 10:55 AM

Cecil, my original point was merely about the PATRIOT ACT.

How any increase in "safety" strikes me as being minute when weighed against a substantial increase in federal police power.

Likewise, perhaps a few Saudis have been killed in Iraq however I am very far from being persuaded that having 150,000 troops in Iraq makes the "next 9/11" less likely in any material respect.

Of note: Saddam removal and nation building simply is within the best liberal traditions of America, if done well, but is tangential to domestic security of the 9/11 variety.

Posted by Bill Whte at July 10, 2007 11:24 AM

Cecil, do you assert that people having the credentials to obtain US entry visas together with the language skills and technical expertise needed to be an effective terrorist INSIDE the United States are being wasted blowing up markets in Baghdad?

That is what I find very hard to believe.

Posted by Bill White at July 10, 2007 11:31 AM

I never asserted that Bill. It was your idea that the pool of likely candidates has dried up, I was simply going along with you and proposing a theory for their disapperance.

How do you propose that the pool has been dried up? Were there just never that many smart Arabs to begin with?

Personally I don't think the pool has dried up, I believe security measures have prevented further attacks. I also believe that our having troops in Iraq and Afghanistan has diverted the fight from our soil to middle east soil. But both would require the Bush admin to be given some credit, and dems could never allow that.

Posted by Cecil Trotter at July 10, 2007 11:40 AM

Bill –

It would be very hard to believe if two conditions were met:

a) The people you described are disciplined soldiers who go to fight and die where ordered

b) AQ is a top-down organization with coordinated overall strategy, and commanders who give such orders

Neither condition is true. English-speaking, technically proficient, yet yearning for glorious death Saudis do not sit and wait patiently for their marching orders to wherever their death will benefit global jihad most. They use their money to get as quickly as possible to wherever they can kill infidels as spectacularly as possible. Which is Iraq, and certain parts of Riyad.

Posted by Ilya at July 10, 2007 11:46 AM

Obviously, Congress adds immunity to the package.

If Congress has to grant Liddy immunity, why does he have to give up his 5th Amendment rights? It simply makes no sense. Besides, Novak already said that Liddy wasn't the one who told him about Plame. It appears the Liddy case is one of "gotcha prosecution" - keep asking him questions over multiple sessions until you detect an inconsistency then prosecute.

Posted by at July 10, 2007 11:48 AM

If there is immunity there is no "right" not to testify.

The Senate (and the House) can and has given witnesses immunity to guarantee that testimony given under subpoena will not result in criminal prosecution. The distinction between use immunity and transaction immunity is often hotly negotiated.

Anyway, give Libby immunity and he MUST answer or be in contempt of Congress -- except that without a pardon, his current convictions on appeal provide a Fifth Amendment basis to refuse to answer. A pardon changes that.

Posted by Bill White at July 10, 2007 11:59 AM

Bill, we're still waiting for you to tell us the species and size of the whale that you're looking for on this fishing expedition.

We'll repeat it again, since you seem a little slow. A pardon only pardons him from the crime for which he was convicted--perjury before the grand jury. With regard to any other crime, he is in the same position as any other unpardoned citizen--he retains his fifth-amendment rights not to testify. You haven't explained why he would want immunity, and from what, when he can simply refuse to testify. What underlying crime do you (like your fellow moonbat Congressman Ellison) fantasize is being covered up here?

Posted by Rand Simberg at July 10, 2007 12:13 PM

Step by step . . .

Libby could refuse to testify concerning any topic that is remotely related to the convictions on appeal by claiming the Fifth Amendment. Remand for a new trial is one possible appellate result therefore Libby has the right to not be compelled to testify concerning any aspect of the convictions on appeal.

A pardon for all those convictions now on appeal terminates those cases and precludes Libby claiming the Fifth Amendment with respect to the charges/convictions now on appeal.

As for future hypothetical charges, a grant of immunity would preclude a Fifth Amendment based refusal to testify to Congress, for example.

But unless pardons for the current convictions on appeal are combined with immunity for future hypothetical charges, Libby can lawfully and appropriately refuse to testify.

= = =

It isn't a "great white whale" when Libby's lawyer told us Libby believed he was being set up as the fall guy for Karl Rove.

I strongly deny that we need a crime to justify close scrutiny of the Niger memo forgery especially in light of the President's promise to get to the bottom of this, a promise now being swept under the rug with calls of:

"But no crime was committed!"

The more I am told to ignore the man behind the curtain, the more convinced I am there is stuff being hidden.

Posted by Bill White at July 10, 2007 01:18 PM

It isn't a "great white whale" when Libby's lawyer told us Libby believed he was being set up as the fall guy for Karl Rove.

Of course it is, since there wasn't any crime to be set up as a fall guy for.

This has nothing to do with a "Niger memo forgery." And they did get to the bottom of it. Armitage told Novak that Wilson's wife was a CIA employee. That's it.

The more I am told to ignore the man behind the curtain, the more convinced I am there is stuff being hidden.

Yes, that's how all paranoid conspiracy mongers think.

Posted by Rand Simberg at July 10, 2007 01:40 PM

Rand. you may take Novak and Armitage at face value but no that is not "it" and "no" the whole story has not come out.

But if you are correct, let Bush pardon Libby and let Congress give immunity and let Libby explain the whole story under oath in a Senate hearing room. If you are correct about Novak and Armitage, then let Libby explain WHY he lied and obstructed justice and no harm will come of it. To anyone.

And yes the topics are related since Joe Wilson went to Niger to investigate the claim that Saddam was actively trying to buy yellow-cake.

Linked topics because back in Spring 2003 we had to invade Iraq NOW otherwise Saddam was going to nuke America. Smoking gun mushroom clouds and all that.

Posted by Bill White at July 10, 2007 01:52 PM

Rand. you may take Novak and Armitage at face value but no that is not "it" and "no" the whole story has not come out.

Yes, it has. You're sounding like a Kossian moonbat. Why would either Novak or Armitage lie about it? Neither of them supported the war.

But if you are correct, let Bush pardon Libby and let Congress give immunity and let Libby explain the whole story under oath in a Senate hearing room.

Libby doesn't want a pardon. He wants a retrial, and to clear his name. And he has no interest in discussing anything with Congress. Why should he?

Posted by Rand Simberg at July 10, 2007 02:09 PM

Could someone point Bill to a timeline and please remind him that the "forged Niger document" came up *after* Joe Wilson started peddling his story?

Meanwhile, the Brits still stand by their claim. Nobody ever seems to remember that.

And finally, Bill, it just might have some effect on AQ's attempts to attack us here that they're spending their time, effort, money (they're burning a considerable amount fighting us), and resources in Iraq and Afghanistan. That doesn't help them set up attacks here. Notice that the attacks in Europe are growing weaker and less planned. Individual operatives and fellow travelers are having to make do with less support from the professional bombers and murderers.

Plus, of course, our intelligence operations--you know, the ones that NYT demanded we start on 9/12 and then started revealing on their front pages as soon as they learned of them--have probably hurt the enemy's resources significantly as well.

Posted by Big D at July 10, 2007 02:22 PM

Bill White,
If you pardon Libby, grant him immunity and sit him down at the table, he could lie and no one would know the difference.

Let's see. We are attacked, new security measures are put in place and there are no attacks for 6 years. Bill says we don't need security measures because there have been no attacks. How round does that sound

Posted by Bill Maron at July 10, 2007 03:28 PM

I hate when I get distracted from the main point of the post(Keith Ellison) by someone hijacking the thread. What the Strib doesn't tell you(and never will) is KE was a follower of Nation of Islam for years and has dissembled about his positions at every turn. Not once did the Stib question him about the NoI ties, his friendship with a gang leader in the Twin Cities and a host of other questionable actions. He can say today, go forth and be athiests and down the road? Who knows? Because that doesn't jibe with his NoI period and his support from CAIR.

Posted by Bill Maron at July 10, 2007 07:31 PM

Anyway, give Libby immunity and he MUST answer or be in contempt of Congress -- except that without a pardon, his current convictions on appeal provide a Fifth Amendment basis to refuse to answer.

You think Libby would agree to that? If so, what is the imagined gain for Libby? You can't force immunity on someone, in order to give up their fifth amendment protection. So why would Libby give up his rights, particularly when we know he didn't commit the crime that wasn't a crime?

You may think there is a larger crime here, but without Libby's testimony (liberal belief), then you have nothing. So again, why would Libby want to put himself in jeopardy, which is what liberals want to offer (take immunity and answer correctly, or be sent to jail for contempt).

Also, how is this viewpoint of liberals, uh, liberal? Sounds like the maximum use of political pressure to hold a person's civil liberty hostage.

Posted by at July 10, 2007 09:53 PM

Post a comment