<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><!-- generator="wordpress/1.5.1.3" -->
<rss version="2.0" 
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/">
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: The Purge</title>
	<link>http://www.mahablog.com/2007/01/19/the-purge/</link>
	<description>Exposing the ugly truths about the Bush Administration.</description>
	<pubDate>Mon, 01 Dec 2008 18:18:23 +0000</pubDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=1.5.1.3</generator>

	<item>
		<title>by: The Mahablog &#187; Speedy Gonzales</title>
		<link>http://www.mahablog.com/2007/01/19/the-purge/#comment-74910</link>
		<pubDate>Sat, 27 Jan 2007 14:34:27 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://www.mahablog.com/2007/01/19/the-purge/#comment-74910</guid>
					<description>[...] For background on the U.S. Attorney scandal &amp;#8212; it&amp;#8217;s not generally acknowledged to be a scandal, but it should be &amp;#8212; see old Mahablog posts U.S. Attorneys: It’s the Replacing, Stupid and The Purge. In a nutshell, the White House is using a provision inserted into the Patriot Act last year to fire U.S. attorneys and replace the without (constitutionally mandated) Senate approval. [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[	<p>[&#8230;] For background on the U.S. Attorney scandal &#8212; it&#8217;s not generally acknowledged to be a scandal, but it should be &#8212; see old Mahablog posts U.S. Attorneys: It’s the Replacing, Stupid and The Purge. In a nutshell, the White House is using a provision inserted into the Patriot Act last year to fire U.S. attorneys and replace the without (constitutionally mandated) Senate approval. [&#8230;]
</p>
]]></content:encoded>
				</item>
	<item>
		<title>by: GDAEman</title>
		<link>http://www.mahablog.com/2007/01/19/the-purge/#comment-73632</link>
		<pubDate>Sat, 20 Jan 2007 15:42:14 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://www.mahablog.com/2007/01/19/the-purge/#comment-73632</guid>
					<description>&lt;a href=&quot;http://gdaeman.blogspot.com/2006/01/revolutionary-power.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;&lt;b&gt;Revolutionary Power&lt;/b&gt;&lt;/a&gt;

What we're witnessing are more examples of what Henry Kissinger called a &lt;a href=&quot;http://gdaeman.blogspot.com/2006/01/revolutionary-power.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Revolutionary Power&lt;/a&gt; in his PhD thesis. Krugman writes about it in the introduction of his book &quot;The Great Unraveling.&quot;

One Small Step:  Contact the US Atty Gen:
http://www.usdoj.gov/contact-us.html</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[	<p><a href="http://gdaeman.blogspot.com/2006/01/revolutionary-power.html" rel="nofollow"><b>Revolutionary Power</b></a></p>
	<p>What we&#8217;re witnessing are more examples of what Henry Kissinger called a <a href="http://gdaeman.blogspot.com/2006/01/revolutionary-power.html" rel="nofollow">Revolutionary Power</a> in his PhD thesis. Krugman writes about it in the introduction of his book &#8220;The Great Unraveling.&#8221;</p>
	<p>One Small Step:  Contact the US Atty Gen:<br />
<a href='http://www.usdoj.gov/contact-us.html' rel='nofollow'>http://www.usdoj.gov/contact-us.html</a>
</p>
]]></content:encoded>
				</item>
	<item>
		<title>by: Zeus</title>
		<link>http://www.mahablog.com/2007/01/19/the-purge/#comment-73544</link>
		<pubDate>Sat, 20 Jan 2007 06:59:15 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://www.mahablog.com/2007/01/19/the-purge/#comment-73544</guid>
					<description>How does one get rid of a corrupt Attorney General when the only one that can do it it is corrupt himself?    Perhaps Ms. Pelosi can add a few more hours to the first 100 to find a solution.

I am adding Gonzales to my impeachment wish list.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[	<p>How does one get rid of a corrupt Attorney General when the only one that can do it it is corrupt himself?    Perhaps Ms. Pelosi can add a few more hours to the first 100 to find a solution.</p>
	<p>I am adding Gonzales to my impeachment wish list.
</p>
]]></content:encoded>
				</item>
	<item>
		<title>by: kerryinalaska</title>
		<link>http://www.mahablog.com/2007/01/19/the-purge/#comment-73531</link>
		<pubDate>Sat, 20 Jan 2007 03:38:57 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://www.mahablog.com/2007/01/19/the-purge/#comment-73531</guid>
					<description>Sure does seem like we have been witness to a slow coup in this country. While we were all watching tv the coup took place and now we see it in full form. Constitution be damned; rule of law, smule of law; signing statements. Man, I'm pretty sure these people aren't going to give up power without a fight. GWBushit needs a bigger war and every &quot;good&quot; american will line up behind him and the rest of us will be shipped off to detention centers, for our own good. Maybe I'm just in a bad dream.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[	<p>Sure does seem like we have been witness to a slow coup in this country. While we were all watching tv the coup took place and now we see it in full form. Constitution be damned; rule of law, smule of law; signing statements. Man, I&#8217;m pretty sure these people aren&#8217;t going to give up power without a fight. GWBushit needs a bigger war and every &#8220;good&#8221; american will line up behind him and the rest of us will be shipped off to detention centers, for our own good. Maybe I&#8217;m just in a bad dream.
</p>
]]></content:encoded>
				</item>
	<item>
		<title>by: paulywood</title>
		<link>http://www.mahablog.com/2007/01/19/the-purge/#comment-73524</link>
		<pubDate>Sat, 20 Jan 2007 03:20:38 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://www.mahablog.com/2007/01/19/the-purge/#comment-73524</guid>
					<description>Is there a constitutional method for the removal of an attorney general?  The Constitution clearly and unambigously describes habeus corpus as &quot;the privilege of habeus corpus&quot;.  Look up &quot;privilege&quot; in the dictionary, Mr. Gonzalez.  This man is advocating positions that outright contradict the constitution.  In all seriousness - isn't that a crime?  Couldn't the legislature make it so if not?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[	<p>Is there a constitutional method for the removal of an attorney general?  The Constitution clearly and unambigously describes habeus corpus as &#8220;the privilege of habeus corpus&#8221;.  Look up &#8220;privilege&#8221; in the dictionary, Mr. Gonzalez.  This man is advocating positions that outright contradict the constitution.  In all seriousness - isn&#8217;t that a crime?  Couldn&#8217;t the legislature make it so if not?
</p>
]]></content:encoded>
				</item>
	<item>
		<title>by: biggerbox</title>
		<link>http://www.mahablog.com/2007/01/19/the-purge/#comment-73191</link>
		<pubDate>Fri, 19 Jan 2007 16:37:09 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://www.mahablog.com/2007/01/19/the-purge/#comment-73191</guid>
					<description>Gonzales' contempt for the Senate was pretty much rolling off him in waves during the hearing. His go-round with Feinstein about even putting a number on the USA's being replaced was an example. He postured that he was somehow limited by some privacy concern in a minor HR matter, when he is a man who casually denies the right of habeas corpus to whole swaths of humanity. Detain people without charges in solitary confinement for years, no problem, but get anywhere near accidentally providing information about somebody's personnel file, no way! There are just some things Mr. Gonzales doesn't want to risk!

 It was the bureaucratic equivalent of farting in response to the Senator's question.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[	<p>Gonzales&#8217; contempt for the Senate was pretty much rolling off him in waves during the hearing. His go-round with Feinstein about even putting a number on the USA&#8217;s being replaced was an example. He postured that he was somehow limited by some privacy concern in a minor HR matter, when he is a man who casually denies the right of habeas corpus to whole swaths of humanity. Detain people without charges in solitary confinement for years, no problem, but get anywhere near accidentally providing information about somebody&#8217;s personnel file, no way! There are just some things Mr. Gonzales doesn&#8217;t want to risk!</p>
	<p> It was the bureaucratic equivalent of farting in response to the Senator&#8217;s question.
</p>
]]></content:encoded>
				</item>
	<item>
		<title>by: sachem515</title>
		<link>http://www.mahablog.com/2007/01/19/the-purge/#comment-73187</link>
		<pubDate>Fri, 19 Jan 2007 16:13:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://www.mahablog.com/2007/01/19/the-purge/#comment-73187</guid>
					<description>Heck of a job Gonzo!

Quoting Prof Turley from Wed's Countdown (re Gitmo):

&quot;Well, you know, Gonzalez has always acted more general than attorney in his position.  He seems just inherently hostile to the rule of law.  This administration for a long time said the problem was with these defendants.  They shouldn‘t be allowed in court.  And then the problem became the attorneys.  And they prevented attorneys from meeting them.  Then the problem became habeas corpus.  And now the problem is the judges. &quot;

At some point, I want to see the signing statement W issued on his oath of office.  With Gonzo's utterance to a stunned Sen Specter that

“The Constitution doesn’t say every individual in the United States or citizen is hereby granted or assured the right of habeas corpus. It doesn’t say that. It simply says the right shall not be suspended”

the tortured logic is extremely dangerous.  It's odd to still feel like the loyal opposition with a majority in Congress.  From 
http://consortiumnews.com/2007/011807.html, is this:

&quot;Applying Gonzales’s reasoning, one could argue that the First Amendment doesn’t explicitly say Americans have the right to worship as they choose, speak as they wish or assemble peacefully. The amendment simply bars the government, i.e. Congress, from passing laws that would impinge on these rights.&quot;

Though this may seem somewhat off topic, the fish rots from the head down.  This administration's legacy continues to shape up as a well executed fraud of incompetency.  It going to have to be unravelled one Cully Stimpson at a time.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[	<p>Heck of a job Gonzo!</p>
	<p>Quoting Prof Turley from Wed&#8217;s Countdown (re Gitmo):</p>
	<p>&#8220;Well, you know, Gonzalez has always acted more general than attorney in his position.  He seems just inherently hostile to the rule of law.  This administration for a long time said the problem was with these defendants.  They shouldn‘t be allowed in court.  And then the problem became the attorneys.  And they prevented attorneys from meeting them.  Then the problem became habeas corpus.  And now the problem is the judges. &#8221;</p>
	<p>At some point, I want to see the signing statement W issued on his oath of office.  With Gonzo&#8217;s utterance to a stunned Sen Specter that</p>
	<p>“The Constitution doesn’t say every individual in the United States or citizen is hereby granted or assured the right of habeas corpus. It doesn’t say that. It simply says the right shall not be suspended”</p>
	<p>the tortured logic is extremely dangerous.  It&#8217;s odd to still feel like the loyal opposition with a majority in Congress.  From<br />
<a href='http://consortiumnews.com/2007/011807.html' rel='nofollow'>http://consortiumnews.com/2007/011807.html</a>, is this:</p>
	<p>&#8220;Applying Gonzales’s reasoning, one could argue that the First Amendment doesn’t explicitly say Americans have the right to worship as they choose, speak as they wish or assemble peacefully. The amendment simply bars the government, i.e. Congress, from passing laws that would impinge on these rights.&#8221;</p>
	<p>Though this may seem somewhat off topic, the fish rots from the head down.  This administration&#8217;s legacy continues to shape up as a well executed fraud of incompetency.  It going to have to be unravelled one Cully Stimpson at a time.
</p>
]]></content:encoded>
				</item>
	<item>
		<title>by: Donna</title>
		<link>http://www.mahablog.com/2007/01/19/the-purge/#comment-73144</link>
		<pubDate>Fri, 19 Jan 2007 15:11:11 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://www.mahablog.com/2007/01/19/the-purge/#comment-73144</guid>
					<description>With respect to the practice of replacing all US attorneys whenever a different party comes into the White House......I have a concern that this practice could hobble or even kill ongoing investigations that need years of preparation [Enron, ADM....].    Such a blanket replacing of US attorneys does seem to allow, and/or reflect, the presence of politics and campaign contributions deep inside the heart of judicial practice.   If I were a US attorney, I would hate to have years of work on an important case vulnerable to such.   This blanket replacement upon changing presidents may have become the usual practice [as you explained], but that does not make it ideal, nor should it be considered a 'given' that is immune to corrections that could protect ongoing work at the justice department.  

Within the context of presidents having such power over the justice's attorneys, the Bush team's blatant use of presidential power to replace, in midstream, up to seven US attorneys who just happen to be on the trail of Republican malfeisance is, well,  like a boil coming to a head.   I think it just shows how sick the system has been [under the skin], though few citizens would have realized that without this blatant self-serving action erupting into our awareness.   

Whatever corrections might conceivably be entertained should take into consideration the protection of ongoing investigations.  At any rate, isn't it amazing that this president and his previous Republican enablers have so misbehaved that even their own selected justice attorneys aren't biased enough to satisfy their desire to somehow avoid prosecution.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[	<p>With respect to the practice of replacing all US attorneys whenever a different party comes into the White House&#8230;&#8230;I have a concern that this practice could hobble or even kill ongoing investigations that need years of preparation [Enron, ADM&#8230;.].    Such a blanket replacing of US attorneys does seem to allow, and/or reflect, the presence of politics and campaign contributions deep inside the heart of judicial practice.   If I were a US attorney, I would hate to have years of work on an important case vulnerable to such.   This blanket replacement upon changing presidents may have become the usual practice [as you explained], but that does not make it ideal, nor should it be considered a &#8216;given&#8217; that is immune to corrections that could protect ongoing work at the justice department.  </p>
	<p>Within the context of presidents having such power over the justice&#8217;s attorneys, the Bush team&#8217;s blatant use of presidential power to replace, in midstream, up to seven US attorneys who just happen to be on the trail of Republican malfeisance is, well,  like a boil coming to a head.   I think it just shows how sick the system has been [under the skin], though few citizens would have realized that without this blatant self-serving action erupting into our awareness.   </p>
	<p>Whatever corrections might conceivably be entertained should take into consideration the protection of ongoing investigations.  At any rate, isn&#8217;t it amazing that this president and his previous Republican enablers have so misbehaved that even their own selected justice attorneys aren&#8217;t biased enough to satisfy their desire to somehow avoid prosecution.
</p>
]]></content:encoded>
				</item>
	<item>
		<title>by: Jaimie</title>
		<link>http://www.mahablog.com/2007/01/19/the-purge/#comment-73109</link>
		<pubDate>Fri, 19 Jan 2007 14:54:42 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://www.mahablog.com/2007/01/19/the-purge/#comment-73109</guid>
					<description>You can find the entire Krugman piece here
http://welcome-to-pottersville.blogspot.com/2007/01/paul-krugman-surging-and-purging.html

(sshhhh)</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[	<p>You can find the entire Krugman piece here<br />
<a href='http://welcome-to-pottersville.blogspot.com/2007/01/paul-krugman-surging-and-purging.html' rel='nofollow'>http://welcome-to-pottersville.blogspot.com/2007/01/paul-krugman-surging-and-purging.html</a></p>
	<p>(sshhhh)
</p>
]]></content:encoded>
				</item>
	<item>
		<title>by: Doug Hughes</title>
		<link>http://www.mahablog.com/2007/01/19/the-purge/#comment-73057</link>
		<pubDate>Fri, 19 Jan 2007 14:32:41 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://www.mahablog.com/2007/01/19/the-purge/#comment-73057</guid>
					<description>Gonzales does not have to incriminate himself in testimony. He might legitimatly decline to answer in open session, provided he would make full disclosure in closed session. There are secrets which don't need to be broadcast on C-Span. He seems to think he can answer ony the questions he wants to answer, and won't perjure himself but will stonewall. Are there no consequences???</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[	<p>Gonzales does not have to incriminate himself in testimony. He might legitimatly decline to answer in open session, provided he would make full disclosure in closed session. There are secrets which don&#8217;t need to be broadcast on C-Span. He seems to think he can answer ony the questions he wants to answer, and won&#8217;t perjure himself but will stonewall. Are there no consequences???
</p>
]]></content:encoded>
				</item>
</channel>
</rss>
