Will Harriet Miers have to recuse herself on any cases involving terrorism?
By Aussiegirl
Dr. Krauthammer is correct, and I'm surprised that no one else has brought up the issue of Ms. Miers' having to recuse herself on any issues that come before the court having to do with the war on terror -- she has a dreadful conflict of interest as the person intimately involved in the drafting of the White House's policies.
Townhall.com :: Columns :: Retreat by Charles Krauthammer: " This, say her advocates: We are now at war and therefore the great issue of our time is the Article II powers of the president to wage war. For four years, Miers has been immersed in war-and-peace decisions and therefore will have a deep familiarity with the tough constitutional issues regarding detention, prisoner treatment and war powers.
Perhaps. We have no idea what her role in these decisions was. But to the extent that there was any role, it becomes a liability. For years -- crucial years in the war on terror -- she will have to recuse herself from judging the constitutionality of these decisions because she will have been a party to having made them in the first place. The Supreme Court will be left with an absent chair on precisely the laws-of-war issues on which she is supposed to bring so much.
posted by Aussiegirl @ 3:20 PM
3 Comments:
I disagree with you and Chuck. First let me make clear I am not supporting the President. I am disagreeing with you and Chuck. I think you have spent too much time in the Ivory towers of the Ivy League. It would be nice if we all did this . But in the real world no one steps aside when they get a chance to pass judgment on their own work. I can give you hundreds of specifics from the last 45 years. I will go over one for now. If you want more; ask.
For the last 18 months Curt Weldon has been fighting liberals in both this Admin (Sec Def) and its predecessor (AG) to get the truth out on 911. A few years back the taxpayers spent hundreds of millions of $ on a “911 Commission” to do this. Curt told us 3 months ago that Mohamed Atta (the leader of the illegal aliens that flew the planes into buildings that day) had been fingered by military intelligence (as an old exJarhead I think the term military intelligence is an oxymoron.) as a Muslim terrorist over a year before the attacks. The Name of the intelligence group was AbleDanger. They were not allowed to pass their info on to the FBI and the CIA because of rules and policies put in place by the prior admins AG. They presented this info the the “911 Commission” One of the members of the “911 Commission” was the #2 person in the Clinton AG office. But more specifically she was the one who wrote the policy and the rules that forbad the military from sharing their info. When the “911 Commission” issued their report they conveniently left out all references to AbleDanger and any reference to Mohamed Atta relating to 1999 or 2000.
The fact that “The Wall” was designed and implemented by one of the members of the Commission did not bother anyone other than the succeeding AG John Ashcroft. It does not bother our current AG, nor anyone else except Curt Weldon.
Your reason are not valid , in my opinion. Because they are not real world.
I've already commented on another thread about the Jamie Gorelick thing, a situation of which I am well aware.
I don't know whether the law would require Miers to recuse herself, but serving on the Supreme Court and being a member of a commission are two very different things. And the other difference is that she is a conservative nominee who would be ruling on the policies implemented by her boss on her own advice, and as such would face a media and democrat firestorm. This same issue was credibly raised when Gonzales was mentioned as a potential nominee, because of his role in drafting the so-called "torture memo".
Thanks for consigning me to the ivory towers of the Ivy League, but you could not imagine how completely far from the truth you are, and I wonder what gave you that idea. That I champion achievement and accomplishment and excellence? Yes, unequivocally -- because that is a conservative value. And yes, admittance to high prestige institutions is based on high standards and it is not elitist in the least to say that a person can be judged on their accomplishments. Otherwise how are we to judge? You don't hire your brother's best friend to be your surgeon.
this statement to me seems very ivor towerish -
Perhaps. We have no idea what her role in these decisions was. But to the extent that there was any role, it becomes a liability. For years -- crucial years in the war on terror -- she will have to recuse herself from judging the constitutionality of these decisions because she will have been a party to having made them in the first place. The Supreme Court will be left with an absent chair on precisely the laws-of-war issues on which she is supposed to bring so much.
I think I have explained my reasoning. You may not agree with me, some very smart people sometimes do not, but that is my reason.
PS your word verification is very close to a vulgar AngloSaxon term, Design?
Post a Comment
<< Home