Many folks seem to not have a good grounding on defunding and the lessons that the Iran-contra scandal provides for how defunding works. This post reviews Iran-Contra and how Congress' decision to defund the Contras triggered the Reagan Administration's illegal actions.

The Iran-Contra scandal relates to illegal Reagan Administration efforts to fund the contras in Nicaragua after the Congress passed legislation defunding Us efforts to support them:

The Reagan administration's most serious foreign policy problem surfaced near the end of the president's second term. In 1987 Americans learned that the administration had secretly sold arms to Iran in an attempt to win freedom for American hostages held in Lebanon by radical organizations controlled by Iran's Khomeini government. Investigation also revealed that funds from the arms sales had been diverted to the Nicaraguan contras during a period when Congress had prohibited such military aid.

(Emphasis supplied.) The question related to defunding that this raises is why would the Reagan Administration have to direct the secret sale of missiles to Iran (and seek donations from private indiviudals, the Sultan of Brunei, Saudi Arabia and missiles from Israel) to fund the contras if defunding legislation (the Boland Amendment) was not effective to cut off US government funding to the contras? The answer is obvious - because the defunding measure WAS effective. More.

In line with this. Frank Askin explains:

[U]nder historic and undisturbed law, Congress can enforce its own orders against recalcitrant witnesses without involving the executive branch and without leaving open the possibility of presidential pardon. And a Supreme Court majority would find it hard to object in the face of . . . entrenched legal principles.

More.

Impeachniks will say anything to forward their preferred approach. Here KagroX goes fraudster (a species of activist that ignores all facts and insists all elections are stolen by electronic means)and proposes that the Bush Administration will not be stymied by NOT funding the Iraq Debacle based on well, nothing. In essence, KagroX proposes that Bush will enact his own funding despite the fact that every Bush official, up to and including Bush himself, has stated in unequivocal terms that the Congress can end the war by not funding it. The theory of the Unitary Executive and its proponents, including the likes of John Yoo, says this. But those inconvenient facts are not addressed by impeachniks. And let me be clear, impeachment proponents are NOT impeachniks. Impeachment proponents can be honest advocates for a constitutional remedy and still respect the facts. ImpeachNIKS, like Kagro, do not respect the facts. They are like fraudsters. They are different than impeachment proponents. For example, Bruce Fein, impeachment proponent, not impeachNIK, said:

BRUCE FEIN: . . . [W]e do find this peculiarity that Congress is giving up powers voluntarily. Because there's nothing right now, Bill, that would prevent Congress from the immediate shutting down all of George Bush's and Dick Cheney's illegal programs. Simply saying there's no money to collect foreign intelligence-

BILL MOYERS: The power of the purse-

BRUCE FEIN: --the power of the purse. That is an absolute power. And yet Congress shies from it. . .

An inconvenient statement by an impeachment proponent for the impeachniks. More.

I spent a long time on the phone yesterday with reporter Sara Burnett of the Rocky Mountain News discussing the upcoming July 26th sentencing of former Qwest CEO Joseph Nacchio from a legal perspective.

Here's her new article on how much time he is likely to get and the extent of the forfeiture the Judge will impose.

More...

Chris Bowers at Open Left today writes about why progressive bloggers aren't endorsing individual candidates in the Democratic presidential primary contest.

Personally, I am not endorsing an individual candidate because there's more than one in the current race I'd be happy to see get the nomination.

I also think a few of those running for President would make good vice-presidential running mates.

That being said, I have not shied away from opining that Hillary Clinton and John Edwards are my faves so far, while Big Tent Democrat has expressed a preference for Chris Dodd.

How out of whack are our drug laws? Enough that Al Gore, III yesterday was charged with felonies as a result of his traffic stop during which marijuna and prescription drugs (Adderall, Vicodin, Xanax and Valium)were found.

He faces two felony counts of drug possession, two misdemeanour counts of drug possession without a prescription and one misdemeanour count of marijuana possession, the district attorney's office said in a statement. Gore also was charged with a traffic infraction for allegedly driving faster than 160 kilometres per hour.

Prosecutors said he could be sentenced to a maximum of three years and eight months in prison if convicted on all counts, though he might be eligible for a drug treatment program instead of prison.

At least he's eligible for a diversion program.

The Aspen Daily News Gonzo Edition, dedicated to the late Hunter S. Thompson, is now available online.

• Hunter's wife Anita is the guest editor.

• Curtis Robinson recalls Hunter's words on objective journalism:

"So much for Objective Journalism. Don't bother to look for it here -- not under my byline or anyone else I can think of. With the possible exception of things like box scores, race results, and stock market tabulations, there is no such thing as Objective Journalism. The phrase itself is a pompous contradiction in terms."

• Hunter's son Juan writes about his legacy.

• Matthew Mosely writes Send Lawyers, Guns and Money.

• Tim Mooney writes The Doctor is In.

There's lots more, including cover art by Ralph Steadman. Go on over and check it out.

For a guy who has gotten everything wrong on Iraq, supporting the Neocon agenda from beginning to end, and who clapped as loud as possible for President Bush's action on most every contentious issue, you have to admire Fred Hiatt's sheer gall. He has the gall to call someone not named Bush or Cheney or Hiatt irresponsible on Iraq:

The decision of Democrats led by Senate Majority Leader Harry M. Reid (Nev.) to deny rather than nourish a bipartisan agreement is, of course, irresponsible.

See, Hiatt's newest friends, the so called GOP Moderates like Warner and Lugar, don't have a chance to make phony deals, as Warner did in the May Iraq Supplemental for "benchmarks." We now know "benchmarks" never meant a darn (well, we knew it then but Fred Hiatt pretended it meant something.)

The good news is Fred Hiatt and his ilk are irrelevant now in terms of framing public opinion. The Beltway Gasbags are ignored by all except themselves. The question now is can Democrats muster the resolve to stop Fred Hiatt's favorite policy disaster, Bush's Iraq Debacle. Harry Reid has gotten it. And I think most Dems are getting it. And Fred Hiatt continues his long track record of ignominy. The man has been a disgrace for some time. Thank God he is now an irrelevant disgrace.

Oh, who to believe? Reuters leads with "Bush puts CIA prisons under Geneva Conventions" while Human Rights Watch calls Bush's latest executive order confirming the power of the CIA to interrogate detainees using harsh methods a violation of international law.

Of course, the procedures Bush is authorizing are classified. It's his opinion they don't constitute torture. Hardly a guarantee you can take to the bank. The New York Times reports:

A new executive order signed by President Bush does not authorize the full set of harsh interrogation methods used by the C.I.A. since the program began in 2002. But government officials said the rules would still allow some techniques more severe than those used in interrogations by military personnel in places like the detention center in Guantánamo Bay, Cuba.

....In a conference call with reporters on Friday, a senior administration official indicated that another technique now forbidden would be exposure to temperature extremes, and the executive order itself states that detainees must be protected “from extremes of heat and cold.” It is unclear whether sleep deprivation, another technique used in past C.I.A. interrogations, is authorized.

And why not let the Red Cross visit the detainees?

More...

In August, 2006, six Marines had been charged charged with assault and murder in connection with the April 26 killing of 52-year-old Hashim Ibrahim Awad.

Trent Thomas initially agreed to plead guilty and accept a 12 year sentence. Then he backed out and decided to proceed with his courts-martial.

He went to trial this week and on Wednesday, was convicted of kidnapping and conspiracy to commit murder (carrying the possibility of a life sentence) but acquitted of aggravated murder which mandated a life sentence.

His military jury deliberated less than an hour and despite the recommendation of the prosecution that he be sentenced to 15 years, has decided no additional jail time was appropriate.( Thomas has spent the last 14 months in the brig while awaiting trial.)

His punishment: a bad-conduct discharge and a reduction in rank to private.

More...

Via Sargent:

I have long been a staunch advocate of Congressional oversight, first at the CIA and now at the Defense Department. I have said on several occasions in recent months that I believe that congressional debate on Iraq has been constructive and appropriate. I had not seen Senator Clinton’s reply to Ambassador Edelman’s letter until today. I am looking into the issues she raised and will respond to them early next week.”

Not exactly a full throated defense of Cheney-ratchik Edelman.

Like most recent converts, I now have a certain zeal. My zeal is now for the use of inherent contempt power by the Congress in the face of the Bush view that a President's assertion of executive privilege in response to a congressional subpoena is beyond the purview of the courts. Before, I was very reticent about inherent contempt, for precisely the same reason I have reacted negatively to this unbound assertion by the Bush Administration that it is the President who decides whether a claim of executive privilege is valid -- it undermines our system of checks and balances. The Founders were primarily concerned with making sure the each branch was checked by the others. Inherent contempt is, in a way, the flip side assertion of unbound power in the Executive. But it becomes necessary here because the Bush Administration has chosen to argue against checks and balances. As Steven Benen writes:

Let’s cut to the chase: the president and his team are arguing that once the White House claims executive privilege, there is no recourse. The president is accountable to literally no one — not the Congress, whose subpoenas can be ignored, or the federal judiciary, which can’t hear a case that cannot be filed. We’re talking about what is, in effect, a rogue presidency.

In the face of this assertion, I believe the Congress has no choice now but to commence inherent contempt proceedings against those witnesses who refuse to testify based on the Bush claim of executive privilege. The claims, according to Bush, can not be tested in court. More.