Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Foreign Affairs Discussion Group -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Karen Lawrence who wrote (52921)	10/18/2002 2:13:31 PM
From: stockman_scott	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 281500

Judge Orders Release of Documents Hidden at Presidential Sites 10/18/02 dailyenron.com Mind Your Business, Part 10 They continue to hide relevant documents. They snub their noses at legal mandates to comply. They repeatedly obstruct attempts to verify their claims. Who? Iraq? No - the Bush administration. Yesterday US District Judge Emmet G. Sullivan ran out of patience. Judge Sullivan once again ordered the Bush White House to turn over documents that chronicle Vice President Dick Cheney's energy task force meetings last year. The administration has been sued several times over the documents - including one case brought by its own General Accounting Office. Federal judges in those other cases have ordered the Energy Department to turn over thousands of pages of many key documents relating to Cheney's meetings with energy firms - including Enron - that were spirited off to the White House for safekeeping. Yesterday's hearing was especially contentious and was marked by several sharp exchanges between Sullivan and Shannen W. Coffin, the Justice Department attorney handling the case for the White House. Coffin has refused to produce the documents being sought by plaintiffs, the Sierra Club and Judicial Watch, stating that having to do so "would impose upon the executive unconstitutional burdens." But, Coffin did not specify precisely what would be unconstitutional, and he specifically did not declare the documents were "privileged." A clearly infuriated Judge Sullivan told Coffin he could not have it both ways. "You have to produce the non-privileged documents and assert the [executive] privilege for those that are," he told Coffin. "You refuse to assert the privilege and won't respond to court orders." Coffin countered by contending that the document request would place an "undue interference" on executive branch operations, and that "the consideration of undue interference requires special treatment by this court in this context." Sullivan wasn't buying it. He set a November 5 deadline for the White House to either cough up the documents or return to the court with a formal declaration of executive privilege. That's when things got really interesting. As the judge was preparing to adjourn the hearing, Coffin asked for an extension. The reason, he said, was that they could not determine what documents might or might not be privileged since they had not inspected them yet. Judge Sullivan hit the roof. "That is a startling revelation!" the judge said twice. "How can you be asserting this is privileged information if you haven't looked at it?" "We haven't completed the review," Coffin said. "We've done enough to know our arguments" are correct, he said. "How could you misspeak on something as significant as that?" Sullivan shouted back. Now Judge Sullivan knows what it's like to be a weapons inspector in Iraq. They continue to hide relevant documents. They snub their noses at legal mandates to comply. They repeatedly obstruct attempts to verify their claims. Who? Iraq? No - the Bush administration. Yesterday US District Judge Emmet G. Sullivan ran out of patience. Judge Sullivan once again ordered the Bush White House to turn over documents that chronicle Vice President Dick Cheney's energy task force meetings last year. The administration has been sued several times over the documents - including one case brought by its own General Accounting Office. Federal judges in those other cases have ordered the Energy Department to turn over thousands of pages of many key documents relating to Cheney's meetings with energy firms - including Enron - that were spirited off to the White House for safekeeping. Yesterday's hearing was especially contentious and was marked by several sharp exchanges between Sullivan and Shannen W. Coffin, the Justice Department attorney handling the case for the White House. Coffin has refused to produce the documents being sought by plaintiffs, the Sierra Club and Judicial Watch, stating that having to do so "would impose upon the executive unconstitutional burdens." But, Coffin did not specify precisely what would be unconstitutional, and he specifically did not declare the documents were "privileged." A clearly infuriated Judge Sullivan told Coffin he could not have it both ways. "You have to produce the non-privileged documents and assert the [executive] privilege for those that are," he told Coffin. "You refuse to assert the privilege and won't respond to court orders." Coffin countered by contending that the document request would place an "undue interference" on executive branch operations, and that "the consideration of undue interference requires special treatment by this court in this context." Sullivan wasn't buying it. He set a November 5 deadline for the White House to either cough up the documents or return to the court with a formal declaration of executive privilege. That's when things got really interesting. As the judge was preparing to adjourn the hearing, Coffin asked for an extension. The reason, he said, was that they could not determine what documents might or might not be privileged since they had not inspected them yet. Judge Sullivan hit the roof. "That is a startling revelation!" the judge said twice. "How can you be asserting this is privileged information if you haven't looked at it?" "We haven't completed the review," Coffin said. "We've done enough to know our arguments" are correct, he said. "How could you misspeak on something as significant as that?" Sullivan shouted back. Now Judge Sullivan knows what it's like to be a weapons inspector in Iraq.

To: Karen Lawrence who wrote (52921)	10/18/2002 2:24:44 PM
From: Nadine Carroll	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

Is Iraq a threat to the US? NO. Al Qaeda is. Is Al Qaeda supported by Iraq. No evidence of that, no evidence of nuclear weapons. No, no, no. Let's review what we know about the connection between Iraq and terrorists, shall we? Iraqi intelligence was involved in the first WTC bombing The Republican guard run terrorist training camps in Salman Pak Career terrorist Abu Nidal just 'happened' to retire in Baghdad. The Israelis are finding Iraqi-trained Palestinian terrorists Saddam has spent $15 million paying Palestinian terrorists There are definite reports of Al Quaeda men inside Iraq now. Al Qaeda is threatening attacks to prevent the US invasion of Iraq The Kurds report Iraqi intelligence working with Ansar al Islam in Northern Iraq Agents of Saddam Hussein attempted to assassinate Bush 41 and Laura Bush As for 'no evidence of nukes', be serious: Saddam was within a year of getting nukes in 1991 He agreed to disarm as part of the armistice agreement He blocked the inspections at every turn, in violation of the agreement The inspectors nevertheless thought they had destroyed most of his program, until Defectors told them they had missed half of it Then inspectors were thrown out in 1998 Saddam has had four years to work and hide his labs More defectors tell us he is doing just that, and is within a year or two of getting nukes -- though if has succeeded in buying fissile material, he might even have one now. All Iraq observers agree, that Saddam is besotted with the idea of getting nukes -- for good reason, as it will likely protect him from regime change. A little here, a little there, this starts to amount to real evidence after a while. Saddam works with terrorists. Saddam is trying desperately to get nukes, and is probably close. We have evidence. This line of "only Al Qaeda is a threat" is absurd. You are forced to admit that Al Qaeda is a threat because of 9/11. Before 9/11, you would also have denied that Al Qaeda was a threat, because their attacks had been minor and dismissable up to that point. So far Saddam has been clearly linked to the first WTC attack and to the attempted assassination of the first President Bush. These attacks are also minor enough that you dismiss them. I would prefer not to wait until you are forced to acknowledge that Iraq is a threat, because it would mean that Saddam had successfully launched a major attack. Before 9/11, we ignored the threats and minor attacks of one avowed enemy. Now you want us to keep ignoring the threats and minor attacks of Saddam, another avowed enemy. I don't think that's a good idea at all.