On Tuesday, we found that Atty. Gen. Ashcroft refused to answer questions about or release memos to Congress concerning the torture at Abu Ghraib, without any legal grounds for such refusal - not even claiming "Executive Priveledge". According to many senators, he is in contempt of Congress if he doesn't have a good reason for the refusal.

Apparently, the Bush admin. thinks they can do anything they want with impugnity. Can someone show me that this is NOT a fascist regime?

He was just upset because the Senators didn't ask the question and put, "pretty pretty pretty please with sugar on top," as was his request.

On Tuesday, we found that Atty. Gen. Ashcroft refused to answer questions about or release memos to Congress concerning the torture at Abu Ghraib, without any legal grounds for such refusal - not even claiming "Executive Priveledge". According to many senators, he is in contempt of Congress if he doesn't have a good reason for the refusal.

Apparently, the Bush admin. thinks they can do anything they want with impugnity. Can someone show me that this is NOT a fascist regime?
Maybe he's invoking his right to remain silent?

Maybe he's invoking his right to remain silent?

No, because I saw it live on C-SPAN, and when directly asked what legal basis he was invoking for his stonewalling, he said he wasn't invoking anything, just that he was refusing to speak about or produce the memos.

here's all you need to know about this administration's regard for the laws, and what they can do. from one of the terror memos:

To protect subordinates should they be charged with torture, the memo advised that Mr. Bush issue a "presidential directive or other writing" that could serve as evidence, since authority to set aside the laws is "inherent in the president."

and as josh marshall goes on to opine:

So the right to set aside law is "inherent in the president". That claim alone should stop everyone in their tracks and prompt a serious consideration of the safety of the American republic under this president. It is the very definition of a constitutional monarchy, let alone a constitutional republic, that the law is superior to the executive, not the other way around. This is the essence of what the rule of law means -- a government of laws, not men, and all that.

by their opinion, this president is free to do whatever and however he pleases, without regard to the rules of any law. it has never been held in any legal ruling that the office of the president is above and beyond the law. if this was so, then there would have been no impeachment proceedings against clinton, as he could have simply stated, "well, those laws don't apply to me because i'm the president". nixon wouldn't have faced impeachment over watergate. these guys are really a pice of work in their arrogance and smugness, and their sense of entitlement. they need to be removed from office as soon as possible.

they need to be removed from office as soon as possible.


WORD! :)