PDA

View Full Version : Obama's FBI Pick No Friend of the Constitution




sailingaway
06-02-2013, 05:03 PM
http://www.thenewamerican.com/media/k2/items/cache/246adfa6b5ee191ff0ce8f3559bae9d6_M.jpg


James B. Comey (shown), the man reported to be President Obama's choice to succeed Robert Mueller as director of the FBI, vigorously supported the decision to imprison Jose Padilla indefinitely as an "enemy combatant." Padilla, a U.S. citizen, was arrested at O'Hare International Airport in May 2002 for what then-Attorney General John Ashcroft said was his participation in a plot to detonate a radioactive "dirty bomb" in a major city somewhere in the United States. He was held without charge and without trial in a solitary confinement at a U.S. Navy bring in Charleston, South Carolina, for three and one-half years before being tried in a civilian court in Miami on charges unrelated to the alleged "dirty bomb."

Padilla and two co-defendants were found guilty by a federal jury of conspiracy to murder, kidnap, and maim overseas, and of conspiring to provide and of providing material support for terrorists. Padilla is currently serving a sentence of 17 years and four months in a federal prison in Florence, Colorado. His lawyers claimed he was unable to participate in his own defense at trial after years of solitary confinement in a nine-foot-by-seven-foot cell, where, they said, he was frequently chained in painful "stress positions" and injected with mind-altering drugs.

Comey, a Republican, was a U.S. attorney for the Southern District of New York at the time of Padilla's arrest. He "aggressively defended" the designation of Padilla as an enemy combatant designation, according to the New York Times.

Comey also prosecuted attorney Lynne Stewart on charges arising from her representation of Omar Abdel-Rahman, who was convicted of seditious conspiracy and is now serving a life sentence. Stewart ran afoul of the special administrative measures governing public statements about a terror suspect, as well as communications between the suspect and his attorney. Stewart read at a press conference a statement of Rahman's that authorities interpreted as an encouragement to violent insurrection in Egypt. She was convicted in 2003 of obstruction of justice and conspiracy to provide, and providing, material support to terrorism. She was sentenced to 10 years in prison.

Aside from the free speech issues involved in prosecuting an attorney for a public statement made on behalf of her client, some of the evidence used against Stewart was obtained through the use of wiretaps and secret cameras to record her conversations with Rahman. The electronic eavesdropping, authorized under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, makes a mockery of the longstanding legal principle of privileged conversations between attorney and client.

more: http://www.thenewamerican.com/usnews/constitution/item/15587-obama-s-fbi-pick-no-friend-of-the-constitution

Anti Federalist
06-02-2013, 05:22 PM
Obama's FBI Pick No Friend of the Constitution

Wow, imagine my shock and amazement.

phill4paul
06-02-2013, 06:07 PM
Wow, imagine my shock and amazement.

FLOORED I tell ya.

oyarde
06-02-2013, 07:10 PM
There are no friends of the Constitution working in the FBI .

Anti Federalist
06-02-2013, 08:45 PM
FLOORED I tell ya.

Well, I've had enough, damn it.

I'm going to write a strongly worded letter, in ALL CAPS, and declare my intention to vote Republican next elec...


Comey, a Republican, was a U.S. attorney for the Southern District of New York at the time of Padilla's arrest. He "aggressively defended" the designation of Padilla as an enemy combatant designation, according to the New York Times.

...oh, wait.

Anti Federalist
06-02-2013, 08:49 PM
Why Think Obama Different Than Bush?

Posted by Michael S. Rozeff on June 1, 2013 09:10 AM

http://www.lewrockwell.com/blog/lewrw/archives/138373.html

Naturally, Obama has emphasized his own pet schemes, but on the big matters having to do with the structure and reach of the state and empire, why would anyone have voted for Obama thinking that he'd institute serious change? I ask that after reading Glenn Greenwald's article on Obama's FBI chief appointment, which once again adds to the solidification of Bush's illegal behavior and the disappointment in certain quarters. Why? These people had the wrong models of Obama's behavior, and so they predicted and expected outcomes that Obama has not supplied. Some thought that a Democrat would behave differently from a Republican on a range of "national security" and bill of rights issues. This was wrong. Others thought that Obama's promises were ones he meant to keep. Not so. Others thought that a black man would behave differently in the White House. They were wrong. Some could not see that Obama was conning them, and so they were wrong. Some thought that Obama was strong enough to resist pressures from various quarters. This was wrong. Others thought that Obama would resist the lure of power. Fat chance. What actually has happened is that Obama was vetted as a candidate for emperor, became elected emperor, and has behaved as an emperor. What actually has happened is that he has sought to hold and enhance the powers of the imperial presidency. The best model was to view Obama as a "man of empire". This is a man strongly committed to power and wielding power, on behalf of the American state and the American empire and on behalf of the interests behind it. Shrinkage of the emperor's powers and the empire's domain are not predicted by this model. Some thought that since Obama was a constitutional lawyer, he'd understand and respect the Constitution. Not so. Rights of U.S. citizens are distinctly secondary in his value scheme in the "man of empire" model, whereas stability and order within the Empire's home territory are paramount.

LibertyEagle
06-02-2013, 09:56 PM
Well, I've had enough, damn it.

I'm going to write a strongly worded letter, in ALL CAPS, and declare my intention to vote Republican next elec...



...oh, wait.

When did we ever just vote for a political party? Never, as far as I know, so I don't get your point.

Anti Federalist
06-02-2013, 10:10 PM
When did we ever just vote for a political party? Never, as far as I know, so I don't get your point.

Just a statement of my ongoing frustration and anger at "the system".