« The Constitutional Right to a Press Pass | Main | Mukasey Confirmed »

November 08, 2007

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d83451b97969e200e54f7ded0a8833

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Compartmentalization, Syrian Airstrike Style:

Comments

I just have to wonder... Do they compartmentalize the information to keep OTHERS from learning the secrets, or to make sure that their loyal troops get ONLY the information they want them to know? It is probably a combination of the two, but either way, they are sure doing some damage.

I don't know why Pelosi insists on keeping impeachment off the table, but if she continues with that, it is time to see what kind of charges can be filed against her and other congressional leaders for dereliction of duty...

sojouner

Interesting question, that.

Is it to keep Hoekstra in the koolaid, or to keep us from learning the truth?

Curiouser and curiouser. I, too, don't really believe the story of the Korean nuclear supported site but what I find most difficult is that Syria has made little or no comparative fuss about this incursion.

If, say, the site was nothing more than an aspirin factory, for instance, the Syrians could have easily raised a real ruckus and taken reporters around and been truly outraged. Strangely, of course, they've been nearly silent so there must be something at that site though what it is is anyone's guess.

Seems like the IAEA ought to be attempting some evaluation and answer to the question of what it was. Whats up with that? Like the Syrians, it is not like El Baradei has any compunction about poking a stick in the Bush Administration's eye; it is also curious there has not been more out of him. I believe I recall an early off the cuff comment that he has no information indicating any nuclear facility and was never contacted by the US or Israelis; still it seems there should be more...

FWIW, the Wikipedia entry for Operation Orchard seems to keep track of all the various world-wide reporting and blogging (even the rumors) regarding this "Syria Strike".

I am watching one of the most surreal scenes I have ever seen on CSPAN. Chuck Schumer is making an eloquent and impassioned speech on why Bush ought to be impeached and Alberto Gonzales should be criminally prosecuted. Only problem is the purpose of the speech is to explain why Mukasey is his guy and has to be confirmed. Hey, its either Mukasey or the President will make good on his threat to abandon the United States Department of Justice to twist in the wind for the rest of his term, what you gonna do?

We DFHs in the blogosphere keep insisting that Congress put "impeachment" back on the table, but N-n-n-n-ancy will have none of it.

Since "impeachment" can be a tool used against almost anyone in the Executive branch, might I suggest we start banging our plates on the table for "impeachment" of any of a multitude of nefarious underlings?

While N-n-n-n-ancy won't serve us any impeachment of Junya and Deadeye (yet), might she not be amenable to impeaching let's say David Addington? Or how about Elliot Abrams? Or maybe Howard J. Krongard, the State Department's inspector general?

The idea is to start with the soft underbelly, get the ball rolling so-to-speak, and then pounce when the fire finally gets blazing on the most senior criminalistas like Deadeye or Junya?

I have a most technical question for EW and Mad Dogs (and anyone else who cares to respond)...

What is it that defines the status of being a "DFH"? Is it a state of mind? Is it a way of life? Does blogging push one over the edge to become a DFH?

By day, I am a meek, mild grey-haired IT manager, but my blogging at night or at opportune moments would qualify me to use the term, maybe ;-) Are there any registration materials required to attain that status?

LOL sojourner!

By day, I am also a mild still mostly brown-haired IT techie (I gave up managing eons ago).

As for being a DFH, tis but a state of mind held either by the viewer, or the viewee, or both.

To some, it is their worst nightmare. To others, a badge of honor.

Registration is optional. Card-carrying members enjoy rememberances of smoke-filled days gone by. Some of those flashbacks memories were even real.

Mad Dogs--

I asked one of my Congressman's staffers about Addington a couple of months ago after his "one bomb away" comment. She looked into it and said that Addington is not Senate-confirmed, and therefore not impeachable.

That said, I've gotten wrong information from staffers before.

In his WSJ op-ed, Hoekstra is peeing in his pants because Congress had just closed a deal with North Korea to shut-down their Reactors and remove NK from the State Sponsors of Terror List - When Bush and Cheney hustle him into a room and show him *Proof* that North Korea is exchanging nuclear technology and/or know-how with Evil Syria, Friend of Iran.

Crazy Pete is shocked in his Op-Ed that we could be removing NK from the SSTL by Dec. 31st, while at the same time NK has been *caught* proliferating nuclear technology!

Since then, Bush has been busy compartmentalizing the Syria Shed Bombing story - which we all know is what he and Cheney do when they want to Hide a Mistake.

And after being stepped-on like toy poodles by Bush, Hoekstra and Ros-Lehtinen then ran out screaming the sky was falling, only now it's all a Roseanne Rosannadanna moment - Oh, Nevermind!

Such are the people who got stampeded into War with Iraq...

Prof. Foland and Mad Dogs - Article II, Section 4 of the Constitution states "The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors." There is no requirement that the "civl officer" be Senate confirmed. In fact, even a US Senator, Blount from Tennessee, was once impeached, although the action ended without trial in the Senate because the Senate had already expelled him.

Andrew,

I wonder about that purported limitation of "Senate-confirmed". There doesn't seem to be any specific restriction in the Constitution other than what it states:

"Article 2, Section 4. The President, Vice President and all civil officers of the United States, shall be removed from office on impeachment for, and conviction of, treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors."

LII Backgrounder on Impeachment provides some good info, but not the specificity to determine the totality of "who" can be impeached.

Another resource, the ABA's "FAQs and Web Resources on the Impeachment Process" states that impeachment applys to Cabinent Officers (lending credence to your "Senate-confirmed" point), but it doesn't clearly state that no other types of Executive office-holders can be impeached.

I hope our fine legal eagles chime in here. My guess, and IANAL, is that the definition of just "who" can be impeached does not have a judicially-finite definition, but I can be easily corrected and convinced otherwise. *g*

Mad Dogs, there is a lot to be said for just doing a job and going home. I don't much care for the management gig... ;-)

Maybe I am going through a later-life crisis, but I am beginning to fully understand the DFH attitude from the 60s... I probably would have made a good one! Now, if I could just find a VW Vanagon and put some flowers on it, I would be good to go!

Musharraf has placed Benazir Bhutto under house arrest. See how well he listens to his master's voice. Chimpy asks him to please stop being nasty and selfish and restore the elections; in return Musharraf arrests his likely opponent hours before she is scheduled to attend a rally. Democracy, as some one said not too long ago, is messy.

What I want to know is, how in the hell did Hoekstra become this god of intelligence matters and foreign policy?

The man worked at a freaking furniture factory for the majority of his adult life!

How on earth is he an intelligence and foreign policy expert? Why do people listen to him like he has any clue what he's talking about? He doesn't... He's furniture guy for christ sake!

I know why Cheney and company make sure that he's always the one they brief, it's because he's a furniture guy and has no freaking clue what they're telling him.

Isn't Hoekstra skating on thin ice, urging this state secret obtain wider exposure? I thought he was big on limiting disclosure of information. He's one of the most vocal proponents of keeping the scope of government surveillance a matter of state secret; and of closing down the Hepting and similarly pointed trials that aim to learn about the scope of the Terrorist Surveillance Program.

On a separate subject, I was really struck by the House Foreign Affairs Committee lighting into Yahoo for obeying a lawful snoop order from the Chinese government. The same conduct by AT&T in the US touted as "doing patriotic duty."

cboldt

I don't call them "utilitarian postmodernists" for nothing, you know.

The comments to this entry are closed.

Where We Met

Blog powered by Typepad