What Happened To Discipline, the oath?

I'm interested in the CREW legal perspective: What does it feel like to be in a legal profession where legal peers in OVP-EOP-OVP-DoJ are doing this: Apparent recklessness.

I'd like to hear what the appropriate oversight is needed to clean up this problem.

- What changes are needed in oversight?

- Is there a problem with self-regulation of the legal community?

- What Federal Oversight Rules are required?

- Is the only way to change the legal community to make them the lawful targets of no-notice performance audits; or create powers for the States to better discipline, oversee, regulate, and monitor atty conduct?

I'd really like to know what its like to be part of a legal profession that appears to have failed in ensuring illegal conduct is checked timely. This has gone on since 2001, and the legal community -- as measured by the DOJ Staff implosion -- is only now happening. That's glacial.

What's your view on Congress having an NSA-like monitoring system to randomly audit legal counsel's compliance with various legal requirements?

US citizens are told we have to put up with warrantless searches on e-mail and web surfing. Why isn't the legal community going to assent to those same non-standards to ensure they are similarly monitored for inappropriate conduct. Or does the Constituion only exist to shield lawyers from oversight; but is not fully protected when it comes to WE the People and your clients?

A New Constituting would put some teeth in the Atty Standards of Conduct: The oath is to the Constitution, not to a profession, or an apparent common agreement to do nothing about war crimes.

When evidence is destroyed, it means the claim of privilege was dubious: People who honestly believe a privilege claim is valid should reasonably act consistent with that expectation and preserve evidence. Let's hear it from the CREW lawyers: Once WH Counsel is linked with RNC e-mail destruction, they cannot credibly claim their expectation of executive privilege had any merit Rather, its' reason able to make the adverse inference that the document destruction was linked with one goal: To hide evidence legal counsel knew would implicate the lawyers for the original illegal activity which had been illegally shielded by privilege.

Not impressed with the American legal community. ON the table are the illegal orders, unlawful warfare, FISA violations, Geneva buses, and it has taken this long to focus attention on the problem: The reckless DOJ-EOP-OVP-WH legal community that has been complicit with document destruction, and efforts to hide a connection between the legal community and the illegal activity.

Very unimpressed.

Always playing without a full deck, aren't you?

She wiped you clean off your clock with those statements. Clearly, the only way to know if there WAS a concerted effort to disclose her identity is to take depositions in court and take it right into court where it belongs....

http://cryptome.org/edmonds-turks.htm

http://justoneminute.typepad.com/main/2007/05/valerie_plame_s.html

Armitage shouldn't have anything to hide, right? It was just an innocent mistake, and he never meant for the information to get out and felt "so so bad" about it...

"One other firm I want to point out is the neo-con group, M.I.C. Industries Inc. who boast of some “Ultimate Building Machine” on their web site (it was worth a $60 million contract with Russia back in ’97). Their board consists of amongst others, William Cohen (Cohen Group/ATC) and Richard Armitage (PNAC/Valerie Plame outing) and is headed up by one Michael Ansari who once teamed up with Alexander Haig in a corporation called US-CIS Venture Inc. which was established to assist in “developments” in Central Asia as well as establishing oil and gas pipeline projects through the region. M.I.C. Inc. is also one of the Livingston Group’s top clients."

http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/HL0610/S00451.htm

Nail this asshole to the wall.