Obama Administration Defending John Ashcroft's "absolute immunity"

[BrandonE]

https://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3036677/vp/39731486#39731486

It's one thing for Obama to not want to prosecute Bush and Cheney as war criminals, as although it sets a horrendous precedent, he has priorities, and prosecuting former presidents could create further rifts in a country when we need to heal. When he defends a war criminal, however, it is inexcusable. Now he's sent a message that if you're in government and do something wrong, not only will we not punish you for it: nobody can punish you for it.

I can no longer defend this President. I am looking forward to a primary challenge.

Thoughts?

 

[Livewire]

Prosecuting Ashcroft would have the same effect as prosecuting Bush/Cheney. It would only serve to create more division, and it would set several dangerous/Interesting precedents. Should he be held accountable? Yes. But he won't be. Plus, the conservative Roberts Court will not do anything to Ashcroft anyways. This is basically his only option, given the current political atmosphere.

And I highly doubt a Conservative President, like George Bush himself, would act any differently. This is just another example of President Obama cleaning up another one of George Bush's messes.

I still think Keith is one of the best investigative journalists there is.

 

[BrandonE]

Prosecuting Ashcroft would have the same effect as prosecuting Bush/Cheney. It would only serve to create more division, and it would set several dangerous/Interesting precedents. Should he be held accountable? Yes. But he won't be. Plus, the conservative Roberts Court will not do anything to Ashcroft anyways. This is basically his only option, given the current political atmosphere.

And I highly doubt a Conservative President, like George Bush himself, would act any differently. This is just another example of President Obama cleaning up another one of George Bush's messes.

I still think Keith is one of the best investigative journalists there is.

People might defend unjust presidents, but I'm pretty sure no one is gong to jump to defend a disgraceful AG.

And, again, he's actively defending this guy, not just choosing not to prosecute. He's effectively saying that what John Ashcroft did was "good."

 

[Livewire]

A defense attorney defends criminals in court, not because we think what they did was good, but because we have to. Same concept. He's by no means saying what Ashcroft did was "good". This is his only option, at this point.

Remember, Obama is still a politician. Prosecuting the former AG of the United States a month before Mid term elections would be insanity on his part. His hands are pretty much tied. Even if he brought charges against Ashcroft, the Roberts Court would never allow it, seeing as they'd never indite a contemporary of theirs and they're pretty good at undermining everything Obama tries to do anyway.

If anything, Blame the Supreme court:

https://www.politicsdaily.com/2010/10/19/will-the-supreme-court-rescue-john-ashcroft-again/

 

[Melody]

...seriously this is one of those stupid political cat fights. Someone didn't get their way back in the Bush era and now they're stirring up trouble for this guy now, because they think they have a reason for it. If the law SAYS he has legal immunity, then HE DOES have immunity. Period.

It's a waste of time to be trying to test those limits...the 'crimes' they claim this guy committed aren't crimes at all, he was doing HIS JOB under the Bush Administration. He can't be punished for that. If anything...blame the Bush Administration.

 

[BrandonE]

A defense attorney defends criminals in court, not because we think what they did was good, but because we have to. Same concept. He's by no means saying what Ashcroft did was "good". This is his only option, at this point.

Isn't the position of Attorney General supposed to be mainly one of prosecution, not defense? Why would the federal government feel the need to defend a now private citizen? More importantly, even if they have to defend him, this mention of absolute immunity is utter bunk. To even imply that any person is completely above the law is absurd.

It's a waste of time to be trying to test those limits...the 'crimes' they claim this guy committed aren't crimes at all, he was doing HIS JOB under the Bush Administration. He can't be punished for that. If anything...blame the Bush Administration.

His job was to detain a citizen and not give them any legal consult? I think you're mixing up "doing his job" with "breaking the law in a gross abuse of power."

 

[donavannj]

Like the other two have said, it ties into politics. His hands are tied until at least until after midterms, and the present Supreme Court will not convict one of their contemporaries because our courts aren't immune to partisan politics in any way, shape, or form, so, even then, he cannot do anything.

However, I see NOTHING ABOUT Obama DEFENDING Ashcroft in this article, which is the first to pop up in a search for "John Ashcroft" on Google:

https://www.politicsdaily.com/2010/10/19/will-the-supreme-court-rescue-john-ashcroft-again/

His job was to detain a citizen and not give them any legal consult? I think you're mixing up "doing his job" with "breaking the law in a gross abuse of power."

Law enforcement likes to circumvent the law as it pertains to them much as possible. And

Isn't the position of Attorney General supposed to be mainly one of prosecution, not defense? Why would the federal government feel the need to defend a now private citizen? More importantly, even if they have to defend him, this mention of absolute immunity is utter bunk. To even imply that any person is completely above the law is absurd.

Not exclusively one of prosecution, however.

Don't ask me, I'm not among the feds.

That doesn't change the fact that he has immunity, however, no matter how absurd it is to grant someone such immunity.

 

[FreakyLocz14]

A defense attorney doesn't necessarily have to believe his/her client is innocent to defend him. The attorney is also responsible for making sure their client's legal rights are honored, and responsible for forcing the prosecution to prove their case beyond a reasonable doubt. Innocence is not the question at trial, guilt is.

And furthermore, calling Bush, Cheney and Ashcroft "war criminals" are loaded, radical accusations no President would want to take part in.

 

[BrandonE]

A defense attorney doesn't necessarily have to believe his/her client is innocent to defend him. The attorney is also responsible for making sure their client's legal rights are honored, and responsible for forcing the prosecution to prove their case beyond a reasonable doubt. Innocence is not the question at trial, guilt is.

And furthermore, calling Bush, Cheney and Ashcroft "war criminals" are loaded, radical accusations no President would want to take part in.

I just don't get it; is it Eric Holder's responsibility as AG to take this case? Or, did he volunteer to represent him? If the former, why does a war criminal have the privilege of having the most powerful attorney in the country to defend him? If the latter, EVEN IF the Obama administration doesn't want to prosecute him, why have they volunteered to defend him?

 

[FreakyLocz14]

I just don't get it; is it Eric Holder's responsibility as AG to take this case? Or, did he volunteer to represent him? If the former, why does a war criminal have the privilege of having the most powerful attorney in the country to defend him? If the latter, EVEN IF the Obama administration doesn't want to prosecute him, why have they volunteered to defend him?

It's a radical statement to call Ashcroft a war criminal, and Obama's administration is already being accused of radicalism by the GOP during this election year, and he has to fact re-election himself in 2012. He doesn't want to be a radical because it's not good for his political career.

 

[BrandonE]

It's a radical statement to call Ashcroft a war criminal, and Obama's administration is already being accused of radicalism by the GOP during this election year, and he has to fact re-election himself in 2012. He doesn't want to be a radical because it's not good for his political career.

That's not what I asked. That said, I don't care if you call it radical or not: John Ashcroft is a war criminal. More importantly, I couldn't care what the GOP thinks, and neither should Obama, as we all know well that no level of appeasement is going to stop them from calling him a radical. Thus, you might as well represent who put you in the White House, Mr. President. If I wanted a president who would defend Republican values, I would vote Republican.

 

[FreakyLocz14]

That's not what I asked. That said, I don't care if you call it radical or not: John Ashcroft is a war criminal. More importantly, I couldn't care what the GOP thinks, and neither should Obama, as we all know well that no level of appeasement is going to stop them from calling him a radical. Thus, you might as well represent who put you in the White House, Mr. President. If I wanted a president who would defend Republican values, I would vote Republican.

Well it looks like the people in power disagree with your opinion of John Ashcroft. And yes, Obama does care about what the GOP thinks about him because his party is already set to lose their majority in Congress in less than a month, and he might lose the White House in 2 years if he does things that the electorate wants. Not only Democrats put Obama in the White House, and, given the hell he had passing the health bill, not all Democrats share Obama's views. He has to appeal to more right-leaning Democrats, independents, and even some Republicans in order to be re-elected. This election season, a good chunk of Obama's 2008 voters are voting Republican this year. Given that, yes, Obama has an interest in not pressing this matter further.

And I should add that the President of the United States represents all the American people, not just those who have political beliefs similar to his.

 

[BrandonE]

Well it looks like the people in power disagree with your opinion of John Ashcroft. And yes, Obama does care about what the GOP thinks about him because his party is already set to lose their majority in Congress in less than a month, and he might lose the White House in 2 years if he does things that the electorate wants. Not only Democrats put Obama in the White House, and, given the hell he had passing the health bill, not all Democrats share Obama's views. He has to appeal to more right-leaning Democrats, independents, and even some Republicans in order to be re-elected. This election season, a good chunk of Obama's 2008 voters are voting Republican this year. Given that, yes, Obama has an interest in not pressing this matter further.

And I should add that the President of the United States represents all the American people, not just those who have political beliefs similar to his.

Obama's set to lose majority in the White House because the base that elected him are frustrated with his lack of meaningful change. He's hurting himself by continually trying to appease the people that will disapprove of him regardless of what he does. And AGAIN, he's not merely choosing not to prosecute John Ashcroft; he's defending him.

 

[FreakyLocz14]

Obama's set to lose majority in the White House because the base that elected him are frustrated with his lack of meaningful change. He's hurting himself by continually trying to appease the people that will disapprove of him regardless of what he does. And AGAIN, he's not merely choosing not to prosecute John Ashcroft; he's defending him.

His administration is also defending laws he vowed to overturn, like the Defense of Marriage Act. And a lot of independent voters voted for Obama, and he needs them again in 2012 in order to win.

 

[BrandonE]

His administration is also defending laws he vowed to overturn, like the Defense of Marriage Act. And a lot of independent voters voted for Obama, and he needs them again in 2012 in order to win.

I completely agree; he should do what he promised he would do or expect that the people who put him into office will not do the same again in 2012.

So, going back to the original topic; for me, this is the straw that broke the camels back. Again, I'm no expert on the position of an Attorney General and who he has to prosecute / defend (Although I'm pretty sure they merely prosecute and defend "The United States"), but unless someone can explain to me that Eric Holder was forced, by law to defend John Ashcroft, a now private citizen, or that Obama has condemned him doing so, I am supporting a primary challenge in 2012. Please, please tell me I'm wrong.

 

[FreakyLocz14]

I completely agree; he should do what he promised he would do or expect that the people who put him into office will not do the same again in 2012.

So, going back to the original topic; for me, this is the straw that broke the camels back. Again, I'm no expert on the position of an Attorney General and who he has to prosecute / defend (Although I'm pretty sure they merely prosecute and defend "The United States"), but unless someone can explain to me that Eric Holder was forced, by law to defend John Ashcroft, a now private citizen, or that Obama has condemned him doing so, I am supporting a primary challenge in 2012. Please, please tell me I'm wrong.

If the events in question happened while Ashcroft was in political office, he has immunity, whether or not he's a private citizen or a politician now.

And you have the right to support a primary challenger in 2012. A President who loses a filibuster-proof majority so quickly will probably take a lot of heat from Democrats in 2012, hell, the Democrats today are distancing themselves from him.

 

[BrandonE]

If the events in question happened while Ashcroft was in political office, he has immunity, whether or not he's a private citizen of a politician now.

And you have the right to support a primary challenger in 2012. A President who loses a filibuster-proof majority so quickly will probably take a lot of heat from Democrats in 2012, hell, the Democrats today are distancing themselves from him.

I need to know what law says that the Attorney General can knowingly break the law and be immune for it, and, again, what obligations Eric Holder has to defend him. If it was illegal for Nixon, a president, to cover up a spying operation, I don't understand how it wouldn't be legal for Ashcroft, and Attorney General, to detain a man without a legal consult. Hell, W. publicly held a spying operation that half the country supported (Patriot Act).

 

[Melody]

His job was to detain a citizen and not give them any legal consult? I think you're mixing up "doing his job" with "breaking the law in a gross abuse of power."

Actually no. I'm mixing nothing up. He had immunity at the time he supposedly committed this crime, as much as that sucks for you obviously it's a fact that you must come to accept. If lawyers did not have such an immunity we would have precious few legal counselors and judges to turn to for decisions, and the country would STAND STILL.

Seriously, grow up and accept that fact. In the scope of anyone in power, they have a tremendous and TERRIBLE burden. Sometimes for the sake of the greater good, they must take action, even if it is controversial.

Theodore Roosevelt once said: "In any situation, the best thing you can do is the right thing; the next best thing you can do is the wrong thing; the worst you can do is nothing."

 

[FreakyLocz14]

I need to know what law says that the Attorney General can knowingly break the law and be immune for it, and, again, what obligations Eric Holder has to defend him. If it was illegal for Nixon, a president, to cover up a spying operation, I don't understand how it wouldn't be legal for Ashcroft, and Attorney General, to detain a man without a legal consult. Hell, W. publicly held a spying operation that half the country supported (Patriot Act).

The detention was presumed to be lawful under current law, issued by executive order. If that law was unconstitutional, than the Supreme Court could, and did overturn the law. But that does not mean that Ashcroft committed a crime, only that the law that he detained said man by was unconstitutional, therefore the law was struck down.

And the Patriot Act is also valid law. It was passed by both Houses of Congress, was considered in various Congressional committees before being voted on in the first place, and finally signed by the President. That is the process required for a bill to become law. If that law is unconstitutional, than the Supreme Court can strike it down (or portions of it) as well, but no one can be charged with a crime.

 

[BrandonE]

Actually no. I'm mixing nothing up. He had immunity at the time he supposedly committed this crime, as much as that sucks for you obviously it's a fact that you must come to accept. If lawyers did not have such an immunity we would have precious few legal counselors and judges to turn to for decisions, and the country would STAND STILL.

Seriously, grow up and accept that fact. In the scope of anyone in power, they have a tremendous and TERRIBLE burden. Sometimes for the sake of the greater good, they must take action, even if it is controversial.

Theodore Roosevelt once said: "In any situation, the best thing you can do is the right thing; the next best thing you can do is the wrong thing; the worst you can do is nothing."

I've asked multiple times where there's a law that says he's immune. I'm not saying there isn't one; I'm saying I'd like to see one. Could you please provide that? I don't know why you'd consider it immature to ask for a citation.

Now, I'm sure you can debate the legal side of this, but when you start defending his actions at face value, that's when I must object. There was nothing to benefit from his actions, both in this case and with many other useless things he did (Operation Pipe Dreams).

The detention was presumed to be lawful under current law, issued by executive order. If that law was unconstitutional, than the Supreme Court could, and did overturn the law. But that does not mean that Ashcroft committed a crime, only that the law that he detained said man by was unconstitutional, therefore the law was struck down.

And the Patriot Act is also valid law. It was passed by both Houses of Congress, was considered in various Congressional committees before being voted on in the first place, and finally signed by the President. That is the process required for a bill to become law. If that law is unconstitutional, than the Supreme Court can strike it down (or portions of it) as well, but no one can be charged with a crime.

Now, if you're telling me that he never actually committed a crime, that's a different story. The semantics of the defense states that he is immune, which implies he DID do something wrong, but could not be held accountable. Those are two very different things.

I never said the Patriot Act wasn't a valid law. I was merely comparing it to Watergate, something that a politician might have actually gotten prosecuted for, which I believe is much less harmful than John Ashcroft did.