...And so we are suppposed to engage in civil discourse with people who behave like this?...

Seems to me that civil discourse is possible _about_ Cheney but _with_ Cheney, no. The problem, of course, is that the only people who can directly legally binding words toward Cheney are the DoJ and Congress and neither of those institutions seem at all inclined to engage Cheney, shall we say, on the merits.

Every time there's a story of contemptuous lawbreaking combined with strongarm tactics, Addingtons name comes up. Tough prick or bully? I bet my life savings the latter.

"I was disappointed that rather than engage on the substance of an issue, some people would resort to that…"

Timidity is so pathetic. There is a time when words like "disappointed" just don't cut it, and we're long past that time. To paraphrase Mugatu (the villain from Zoolander), am I on crazy pills??!?!?!!

Dan, I'm with you. What would it take for us ordinary people to induce Leonard to say "full of shit" in place of "rather remarkable position"? I think we could support such a cause.

EdNSted wrote on December 26, 2007 12:44 PM:
And so we are suppposed to engage in civil discourse with people who behave like this? That's like asking the con artist who just stole your life's savings to pretty please bring your money back if it wouldn't inconvenience him too much.

I keep needing to reiterate this, but he's got enough blackmail on congressional Democrats to prevent impeachment. This is what happens in EVERY country that allows warrantless wiretapping, without question it will always be used for spying on political opponents and to manage the crypt of secrets within their own party.

I can't think of why these spineless democrats are afraid of the skeletons in their closets over the future of this country should Cheney and Bush be allowed to walk on 1.20.09. Do they understand that such inaction is legitimizing the entire clusterfuck of an administration this was??

I comment only to say: the front page headline refers to this gentleman as an "archiver" -- surely he is an "archivist"?

Would someone seriously bring David Addison up on Treason charges - I mean come on - this guy has try everything to circumvent our laws.

CONGRESS - BRING HIM UP ON TREASON CHARGES - just do it.

Just as George Bush's prerogatives are defined solely by George Bush, so are Dick Cheney's. Their rationales differ only slightly in that Bush's stem solely from the fact that he was "elected" President and thereafter seizes unto himself all that powers as unitary executive and commander-in-chief that he himself defines and that he is not explicitly and overwhelmingly denied by the Congress (Seen any of those lately?) Whereas, Dick's prerogatives stem not from his position as VP per se but from the bizarre proposition that he has put forth (with tacit support from George) that no one in the government has any authority over him and he is not subject to oversight of any kind, because the office of VP is not specifically and explicitly defined unambiguously in the Constitution (his contention) and no one has the cajones to challenge him on this thoroughly outrageous proposition. Bush and Cheney continue to be successful in maintaining these absurd notions of their powers by virtue of the fact that most members of Congress, on a really good day, are spineless wimps. My advice is, don't blame Dubya or Dick for their criminal behavior...we've had enough evidence to date to warrant impeachment and incarceration ten times over...blame your cowardly Senators and Representative.

32 CFR 2800

Wakeup, everyone. We went through this non-sense last year with the Raw Story report: Look at the link: We discussed the concerns, and issues with ISOO. [Scroll through the link "Same old story" and to see ISOO-related information/comments in the CFR and OVP.]

Rather than mobilizer to enforce the law, the country is saying, "Oh, isn't this remarkable." No, it's the emperor's new clothes.

His "reaction": Disappointment. Wow. Someone in the MSM was "diappointed". Is that all it takes for the public to grovel on the ground?

Support Wexler's effort to start this impeachment investigation of VP.

- How was the OVP security classification requirements in 32 CFR 2800 related to the adequate retention, review, and destrutdion of the CIA tape?

- When Addington and others reviewed the CIA tape before destrution, how were the ISOO standards in 32 CFR 2800 reviewed or not reviewed?

- What effort did the OVP Security Officer take to ensure the tapes -- as OVP staff discussed them in re destruction -- were safeguarded?

- When the issues of ICC prosecution arose in 2001 going forward, how did OVP ensure the tapes as war crimes evidence was adeqauately safeguarded for possible ICC prosecution?

- Why did WH-EOP-OVP sign off on MCA language that included funding for prosecution by the ICC if this CIA tape destrution was not an issue; and all the evidence was retained per all 32 CFR 2800 requirements?

Since Cheney presents the curious claim of being both of the legislative and the executive branches, but held to the rules of neither, perhaps he should face charges in both roles.

Addington seems to have his fingerprints on every unwise decision this administration makes, makes you wonder who is in charge at OVP.

Kent and Dee

Perhaps?
the POTUS can't pardon?
Really?

They can and have and will continue to do whatever the hell they want to do with impunity because no one...absolutely no one...will bring any of them to heal. No one. They are a law unto themselves. There is no accountability. Period. (see also Vichy Democrats in Congress)

I have always wondered how this administration avoids turning over the documents required by law in the Presidential Transition Act of 1963. Now I get it.

Section 2201:2203 of Title 44 US code defines that the American people own the records of the President and deals with the proper transfer from administration to administration. It also states the OVP is treated the same under the above US code sections.

Let’s say that the OVP generated most of the infamous paper regarding torture, sedition and general Constitutional assaults. They stake an early claim that he is not exclusively part of the Executive branch; in essence he can choose what “Presidential Records” are.

Slippery little bastards aren’t they

* Assertion of "Rules-Non-Relevance": Geneva Impliciations *

Lawful combatants must have lawful orders. If Addington says the law does not apply to him, then those orders are not lawful. Addington, by implication, is leading an unconventional-illegal-unlawwul force that is in violation of Geneva.

If Addington will not comply with records retentions related to anything, then what about the records related to the decision to invoke that decision; and all e-mails coordinated to put that decision to exclude into effect.

Or is Addington saying there was no coordination, and no emails to coordinate this policy?

If so, under Geneva, he cannot argue that he's maintaining control over resources and assets. This is the same as saying he's not complying with Geneva; and his policies -- or lack of compliance -- is evidence that he's overseeing unlawful combatants.

By impliciation, if Addington's assertions are taken for what they are, he's implicitly asserting that he's leading a rogue army outside the Geneva protections. He, himself, could be classified as an unlawful combatant; and providing unlawful direction. If he's "doing nothing" what is he getting paid to do? There's no apparent evidence he's doing anything but making frivolous legal arguments, of interest to ICC for purposes of attaching war crimes to OVP staff counsel.

For discussion purposes only, not intended to be accurate, or legal advise: Link under "FOIA for OVP e-mail" goes into a lengthy, detailed, plain-English discussion into problems with OVP legal arguments in re data retention.

Link suggests a secondary line of FOIA requests. Current FOIAs appear to narrowly focus only on the OVP data, but do not appear to expand the inquiry into the OVP e-mails related to that _post-deliberative_ e-mail discussion.  This approach would target not the OVP data Addington appears to hope to shield, but the _OVP e-mails_ related to the _decision to exclude_ OVP from the security classification requirements. A similar approach was used during Congressional e-mail discovery into the US Atty firings.

The discussion is long, incorporates a number of Addington's premises, and highlights which of OVP legal arguments can apparently be exploited in this new line of inquiry.

FOIA request appears to put OVP in a no-win situation, and would be of interest to ICC and war crimes prosecutors. OVP would most likely provide inconsistent legal arguments to "justify" not responding to this secondary FOIA, also of interest to those prosecuting alleged Geneva violations. OVP responses to this FOIA request would most likely also be allegedly frivolous, raising the risk OVP legal counsel could be attached to underlying alleged evidence destruction in re Geneva violations.

Not intended to be legal advice. For discussion purposes only.

December 28, 2007 5:40 AM:

Al,

Raw is linking to an article partially addressing your concerns. If you are interested in pursuing your objective, please encourage your friends to contact the VT State AG. Turley's article [Cited above] addresses the VT State AG's public reluctance.

Thanks again for your energy, attention, and concern.