News on Bush Regime Prosecution Efforts

Moderators: Elvis, DrVolin, Jeff

Postby JackRiddler » Wed Mar 04, 2009 10:40 pm

.

For Immediate Distribution
March 3, 2009




An Open Letter to Senator Patrick Leahy




March 3, 2009

Dear Senator Leahy,

We felt compelled to write to you regarding your recent call for the formation of a “Truth Commission”. According to your press comments, this Commission is supposed to look at the following:


the politicization of prosecution in the Justice Department
the wiretapping of U.S. citizens
the flawed intelligence used to justify the invasion of Iraq
the use of torture at Guantanamo and so-called black sites abroad

These are serious allegations of criminal activity by certain members of the Bush Administration. While we applaud your initiative in looking into these matters, we feel this approach is wrong.

As the Chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, you already have the responsibility and legal authority to investigate matters relating to federal criminal law without having to form a special commission. You are also bound by your oath of office to support and uphold the Constitution by ensuring that those who govern also abide by the rule of law.

Furthermore, a “Truth Commission” will not fix the real problems that our country faces, nor will it guarantee that we will get to the truth. The 9/11 Commission, which you want to model your commission after, is a perfect example of that flawed process.

The 9/11 Commission was mandated to follow the facts surrounding the events of September 11, 2001 to wherever they might lead and make national security recommendations based upon those facts. Sadly, prior to even beginning their investigation, like you, the 9/11 Commissioners agreed amongst themselves that their role was to fact find, not fault find.

This decision resulted in individuals not being held accountable for their specific failures. These people were shown to be incompetent in the 9/11 Commission’s Final Report but were left in their positions, or worse, promoted. No one should be allowed to make this compromise on behalf of the American people. How can any agency be deemed fixed or reformed if the people working there are inept? How can anyone feel safer?


At the 9/11 Commission hearings, little actual evidence was ever produced. Many individuals were not sworn in, critical witnesses were either not called to testify or were permitted to dictate the parameters of their own questioning, pertinent questions were omitted and there was little follow-up. Whistleblower testimony was suppressed or avoided all together. The National Security Agency, an intelligence agency that is responsible for the collection and analysis of foreign communications and foreign intelligence, was barely investigated at all.

With the narrative of the 9/11 Commission’s final report predetermined and with the preexisting intention to never hold anyone accountable in place, the 9/11 Commission was doomed to fail as a real investigation. The end result of the 9/11 Commission’s work was that some of the recommendations that they produced were in fact, based on distortions and omissions. Since their mandate of a complete accounting was ignored, the recommendations were incomplete at best.

There was clearly no desire on the part of Congress to force the Commission to meet its legislative mandate. Accordingly, there were no repercussions for the fact that the investigation and its recommendations were incomplete. It could be surmised that holding no one accountable was more important than uncovering and disclosing the truth. This could compromise the future safety of American citizens. Why then would you want to model another Commission after it? Why would you want another Commission at all?

Senator Leahy, in light of the fact that the 9/11 Commission’s worst offense was not fully investigating the September 11th attacks, completing that investigation should also be included on your list of matters to be examined.

America’s founding fathers, prescient in their fears of unrestrained power, created three separate but equal branches of government. They had hoped to maintain and enforce the limits of the Executive Branch.

The Bush Administration was allowed to circumvent too many Constitutional restrictions effectively undermining America’s system of justice, our nation’s integrity and commitment to the rule of law. The Bush Administration’s seizing of power proves the adage that “absolute power corrupts absolutely”.

The days of no fault government must end; and where there is clear criminal activity, people must be prosecuted. The law must be upheld without exception before we can be assured of the safety of the nation. These duties cannot be ignored for the sake of expediency.

Senator Leahy, our nation needs you to investigate and, if warranted, refer the cases for criminal prosecution in transparent trials. We do not need another meaningless commission resulting in no accountability at the taxpayers’ expense. Show all Americans that you have the courage to uphold the law, bring accountability to those who abuse their positions of power and prevent such abuses from happening again.

The November 2008 elections proved that Americans want the rule of law restored for those in Washington who are elected to represent us. You, Senator Leahy, are in the position to lead the way and work toward the change we were promised.

Sincerely,

September 11th Advocates
Patty Casazza
Monica Gabrielle
Mindy Kleinberg
Lorie Van Auken


Also at http://www.democraticunderground.com/di ... 89x5187560
User avatar
JackRiddler
 
Posts: 16007
Joined: Wed Jan 02, 2008 2:59 pm
Location: New York City
Blog: View Blog (0)

Postby JackRiddler » Wed Mar 04, 2009 10:57 pm

http://emptywheel.firedoglake.com/2009/ ... o-testify/

Breaking: Turdblossom and Harriet to Testify

By: emptywheel Wednesday March 4, 2009 2:38 pm


And, just as importantly, the notion of Absolute Immunity dies a well-deserved death (via email).

In an agreement reached today between the former Bush Administration and Congressman John Conyers, Jr. (D-Mich.), Chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, Karl Rove and former White House Counsel Harriet Miers will testify before the House Judiciary Committee in transcribed depositions under penalty of perjury. The Committee has also reserved the right to have public testimony from Rove and Miers. It was agreed that invocations of official privileges would be significantly limited.

In addition, if the Committee uncovers information necessitating his testimony, the Committee will also have the right to depose William Kelley, a former White House lawyer who played a role in the U.S. Attorney firings.

The Committee will also receive Bush White House documents relevant to this inquiry. Under the agreement, the landmark ruling by Judge John Bates rejecting key Bush White House claims of executive immunity and privilege will be preserved. If the agreement is breached, the Committee can resume the litigation.

Chairman Conyers issued the following statement:

"I have long said that I would see this matter through to the end and am encouraged that we have finally broken through the Bush Administration's claims of absolute immunity. This is a victory for the separation of powers and congressional oversight. It is also a vindication of the search for truth. I am determined to have it known whether U.S. Attorneys in the Department of Justice were fired for political reasons, and if so, by whom."


You think maybe Rove's lost his 5 time's a charge charm with perjury?

Update on timing: The Committee is going to get the documents it had requested and read them before they do the interviews with Harriet and Karl. And the interviews will be done by staffers, with the option of doing a public hearing with questions from Congresspersons if that seems useful. So the timing for the moment seems to be driven by how quickly they get documents.

Update: Pelosi does a victory dance for the authority of Article I (via email):

The agreement for Karl Rove and Harriet Miers to testify upholds a fundamental principle: no one is above the law and Congressional subpoenas must be complied with.

As public officials, we take an oath of office to uphold the Constitution. It is the institutional duty of Congress -- as an independent branch -- to ensure against abuse of power through meaningful oversight over the Executive Branch. When there are credible allegations about the politicization of law enforcement, the need for Congressional oversight is at its greatest.

In upholding our oaths of office, the House of Representatives was determined to preserve checks and balances -- the separation of powers that protects the rule of law. It brought action in court to enforce the Judiciary Committee's subpoenas, and won a major ruling by U.S. District Judge John Bates dismissing the extreme position of absolute immunity from Congressional oversight advocated by the Bush Administration for former Administration officials. Under this agreement, the precedent established by Judge Bates' historic ruling rejecting this extreme Bush Administration doctrine will be preserved.

Today's agreement is a great victory for the Constitution, the rule of law, and the separation of powers. I appreciate the strong leadership of Chairman John Conyers and the assistance of the Obama Administration.

Congress now has the opportunity to uncover the truth and determine whether improper criteria were used by the Bush Administration to dismiss and retain U.S. Attorneys. [my emphasis]


I think Pelosi just got flagged by the ref for excessive celebration in the end zone.

Not like she didn't deserve it, though.

Update: One more detail on logistics. The documents and the transcripts will eventually be made public.

-----------

Conyers Statement

http://judiciary.house.gov/news/090304.html

From DU

http://www.democraticunderground.com/di ... 02x3767498

---
User avatar
JackRiddler
 
Posts: 16007
Joined: Wed Jan 02, 2008 2:59 pm
Location: New York City
Blog: View Blog (0)

Postby JackRiddler » Thu Mar 05, 2009 12:49 pm

.

Thanks to AD for this find from invictus covering Leahy's truth commission.

I like to log full articles to create an archive, but the page has a lot of citations by hyperlink, so follow and see:

...FOLLOWING IS ONE BIG QUOTE...

http://valtinsblog.blogspot.com/2009/03 ... ed-at.html

Wednesday, March 4, 2009

Birth of a Whitewash:
Who Testified at Leahy Commission Torture Hearings?


There has been plenty of controversy on the issue of conducting a Congressional or independent investigation into the interrogations policy and torture activities of the Bush administration over the last seven or eight years.

One of the primary worries by those who oppose a "truth and reconciliation"-style investigation is that it would preempt possible prosecutions, or at worst, be a cover-up of some of the worst crimes involved. Those who favor such an investigation believe that is only with a broad investigation will all the information really be unearthed.

The hearing today by the Senate Judiciary Committee -- "Getting to the Truth Through a Nonpartisan Commission of Inquiry" -- chaired by Senator Patrick Leahy (D-VT), was called to explore options for investigating past torture and counter-terrorism policy. The committee called six witnesses, some for, some against such an investigation. But a close look at the backgrounds and affiliations of even most of the pro-investigation witnesses should give us deep pause, and ask what kind of commission are we being set up for?

The witnesses included some out and out conservatives, or individuals dubious about the investigatory process -- men like David B. Rivkin, Jr., who opposes the investigation, and supported most of Bush's program, such as suspension of Geneva rights for "enemy combatants", and Jeremy Rabkin, who wrote, After Guantanamo: The War Over the Geneva Convention" in a collection of essays edited by cold warrior ex-CIA chief R. James Woolsey.

The other four witnesses were a mixed bag. They appeared to believe the Bush administration had gone way overboard after 9/11, at least when it came to treatment of prisoners. Three of the four witnesses have background that make them dubious reporters, and argue, as well, that they may have another agenda they wish to advance. These three -- Thomas Pickering, Vice Admiral Lee Gunn (Ret.), and John J. Farmer, Jr. -- all have either gone on the record with far-right views on the "war on terror", or have associations with actions by the government that themselves are associated with torture.

Let me provide what evidence I have collected in a relatively short period of time. It is not definitive, but I think enough to give serious pause to consider just how this most important discussion is proceeding at the congressional level.

Our Man in El Salvador: Death Squads, Rigged Elections, and Iran/Contra

Thomas Pickering has a history as a reliable agent for murderous U.S. foreign policy. This is from an op-ed at the Council of Foreign Relations (all emphases in this posting are added, unless otherwise noted):

Thomas Pickering, who was ambassador to El Salvador from 1983 to 1985, says that, while it was U.S. policy to publicly denounce the death squads, their “kind of tactics [were] tacitly supported by the U.S. government, even though [they] were freelance.” Other analysts are more blunt. “We did back the guys who went after the bad guys,” says Lawrence Korb, assistant secretary of defense from 1981 to 1985. “And [we] defined ‘bad guys’ pretty broadly.” According to William Leo Grande, a professor at American University and the author of a major study of the conflict, Washington knew that the intelligence it passed to the Salvadoran government eventually made its way to the paramilitaries. “We did support the guys who organized them,” he says, “so it’s a little precious to deny that we supported the death squads themselves.”


Pickering also got caught up in a dispute between mob political cliques in the U.S. and El Salvador, when Sen. Jesse Helms, who was aligned with his protege the torturer Roberto D’Aubuisson and his ARENA party, spilled the means on a CIA election manipulation to put their man, Jose Napoleon Duarte in as president, during a raging civil war with tens of thousands targeted by death squads and torturers.

As a result, enraged D’Aubuisson supporters plotted to kill U.S. Ambassador Thomas Pickering. Mr. Helms sent a letter to these partisans that said:

Ambassador Pickering has been the leader of the death squads against democracy. Mr. Pickering has used his diplomatic capacity to strangle liberty during the night.


Senator Helms was censured by the Senate for conducting his own foreign policy. Luckily, Ambassador Pickering escaped murder.
Thomas Pickering started his career working in the intelligence field. “Between 1959 and 1961, Ambassador Pickering served in the Bureau of Intelligence and Research of the State Department…” (State Dept bio)

Note that in a 1988 New York Times article, Pickering was fingered as one of the Iran-Contra enablers, passing along appeals for weapons from the Contras to Oliver North, and never reporting it, despite the fact such assistance was supposedly illegal at the time. Pickering was then ambassador to El Salvador, and up to his ears in death squads, CIA electoral manipulations, and a counter-insurgency bombing campaign that killed thousands and made refugees of many thousands more.

Pickering and his ilk are not men to be trusted. They are brought in here for one reason only: they are “fixers”, like the guys the mob brings in to clean up the mess after the hit’s been done. Nell, whose initial comment at Emptywheel's live blogging diary at Firedoglake spurred this entry of mine, put it this way:

Leahy has lined up respected establishment operatives (aka reliable tools of imperial foreign policy) to push for a commission of inquiry. I actually agree with most of Pickering’s testimony, especially about leaving the door open for prosecution and therefore being very sparing with grants of limited immunity.

But Pickering’s presence, particularly as he appeared today to represent the outermost limit of opinion among this crop of witnesses, signals to me as strongly as anything can that this commission will play the same role as “plucky reformer” Napoleon Duarte’s “fragile democracy” played in El Salvador during Amb. Pickering’s stint there: a crowd-pleasing facade created to hide the continuation of the same poisonous policy.


More of the Usual Suspects: Gunn

Vice Admiral (ret.) Lee Gunn is presented to the committee as President of the American Security Project. He also is president of their Institute of Public Research at CNA Corporation, a federally funded research and development center in Washington, D.C. [CNA stands for Center for Naval Analyses, as I discovered elsewhere; it doesn't say so at their website.] IPR-CNA works on nice and reform-like programs, though a large part of IPR's work is consultation on "homeland security operations and strategic policy development." That would include papers done under Gunn's division, such as "SMART Policing":

As part of the recent paradigm shift towards counter-terrorism, police are adopting intelligence led policing strategies (sometimes referred to as “information-led policing”) which have sought to use information analysis and intelligence more strategically to guide leadership decision making and law enforcement operations. And more recently, police departments in the higher risk urban areas have also begun to make more extensive use of electronic surveillance....

Many jurisdictions are already employing some SMART policing approaches, such as the use of new technologies for more efficient data collection and display, information sharing, and data analysis. SMART policing programs can be grown in law enforcement agencies across the country through a comprehensive, federally-driven, national technical assistance program.


This kind of "policing", highlighted by pervasive use of cameras, ethnic profiling, data mining, attacks upon the Fourth Amendment, and "Electronic surveillance technologies that employ software capable of identifying behavioral anomalies," among other police state techniques.

But Gunn's association with CNA bespeaks even more troubling associations.

Down the hall from IPR, so to speak, at CNA’s Stability and Development Program, part of CNA Strategic Studies, we find some interesting connections with major counterinsurgency operations in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Dr. Carter Malkasian, formerly assigned to the I Marine Expeditionary Force (I MEF) as an advisor on counterinsurgency, directs the Stability and Development Program, which focuses on counterinsurgency, irregular warfare, and post-conflict reconstruction. The team provides objective, analytic perspectives—grounded in an understanding of actual operations—to support decision-makers charged with planning and conducting security and development operations.

The range of issues includes: insurgency and counterinsurgency, ethnic conflict, development of indigenous forces, economic development of war-torn states, “Phase IV” reconstruction efforts, and the establishment of political institutions.

The team most recently spent time on the ground in Afghanistan advising Provincial Reconstruction Teams (PRTs).


What are PRTs?

The Provincial Reconstruction Teams (PRTs) are “non-kinetic” operations carried out jointly by small number of lightly armed military personnel and civilian staff from the diplomatic community and development agencies to promote governance, security and reconstruction throughout the post-9.11 Afghanistan and Iraq. PRTs can be characterized in two ways: one as a miniature of multidimensional peacekeeping operations or “peacekeeping-lite,”and the other as an extended civil-military operation center (CMOC) or “super-CMOC.”


And the PRTs have some questionable activities, beyond humanitarian work:

The PRTs have critics in the international aid community. A recent analysis from the think tank Overseas Development Institute, said “In Afghanistan, Provincial Reconstruction Teams (PRTs) were perceived as blurring the lines between humanitarian and military action.”


Amnesty International ran across some shady operations conducted by some of the PRTs that involved torture:

Amnesty International is concerned that ISAF troops from New Zealand operating in Afghanistan and particularly the Provincial Reconstruction Team (PRT) could be involved in transferring detainees to Afghan security forces.

While New Zealand was not one of those countries surveyed in the AI report, NZ is a participant in the ISAF and has a Provincial Reconstruction Team in Afghanistan.... “The NZ PRT (107 personnel as of October 2007) Bamyan is tasked with maintaining security in Bamyan Province. It does this by conducting frequent presence patrols throughout the province.”, [sic] may apprehend and transfer detainees,” says Amnesty International Spokesperson Gary Reese.

In March this year, Amnesty International raised our concerns to Hon Phil Goff, Minister of Defence, that the 50-70 detainees handed over to U.S. forces by the NZ SAS could be subject to torture at Guantanamo Bay or other secret detention centres in a third country (through the US practice of ‘extraordinary rendition’).


What happens to those transferred from PRTs operating in Afghanistan to Afghan security forces? They are almost certainly tortured.

Scores of NDS detainees, some arrested arbitrarily and detained incommunicado, that is without access to defence lawyers, families, courts or other outside bodies, have been subjected to torture and other ill-treatment, including being whipped, exposed to extreme cold, deprived of food and shocked with electrical probes.


Saying all this does not mean that Vice Adm. Gunn is somehow personally involved in torture. But his connection with an agency that is directly involved in activities advising military activities that themselves have been associated with torture makes him a dubious witness, to be sure. At least someone on the Judiciary Committee should have asked him about such links. No one did.

In any case, what we are witnessing is a corralling of all establishment criticism of the interrogations torture, and other crimes of the Bush administration by individuals highly invested in maintaining the legitimacy of U.S. military policy as a whole, including its pacification operations in Iraq and Afghanistan. It is precisely these operations that involved the mass round-up of prisoners, thousands of whom were and many still remain imprisoned, and an untold number tortured.

More of the Usual Suspects: Farmer

The last of today's witnesses to be examined here is John Farmer, Jr.

Why is this guy testifying? Because he knew how to keep criticism of Giuliani toned down at the 9/11 commission? What’s his view on imprisoning “terrorists”? Does anyone remember his op-ed in the New York Times last year? In the name of reform of how “terrorists” have been treated by the criminal courts, and understanding how the Bushistas twisted criminal law into something unlawful, Farmer doesn’t propose an end to that only. No, he wants to create a new system of preventive detention!

A closer look at the Padilla case and other terrorism prosecutions reveals, to the contrary, that the continued reliance on our criminal justice system as the main domestic weapon in the struggle against terrorism fails on two counts: it threatens not only to leave our nation unprotected but also to corrupt the foundations of the criminal law itself.

The use of the criminal law in terrorist cases has never been an easy fit. After all, the primary purpose of counterterrorism is the prevention of future acts, while the criminal law has developed primarily to punish conduct that has already occurred. The question raised by the Padilla trial is whether a case about an attack that never actually happened can be tried in the criminal courts without transforming the nature of that system itself.

The answer is no. In order to make the criminal justice system an effective weapon, we have already started extending the reach of criminal statutes to conduct that has never before been punishable as a crime….

It is time to stop pretending that the criminal justice system is a viable primary option for preventing terrorism. The Bush administration should propose and Congress should pass legislation allowing for preventive detention in future terrorism cases like that of Mr. Padilla. It is the best way to ensure both the integrity of our criminal law and the safety of our nation.


Rivkin, Rabkin, Pickering, Nunn, and Frederick A.O. Schwarz, Jr. Besides Schwarz, who works with the distinguished legal civil liberties-oriented Brennan Center for Justice, this was a stacked list of witnesses, with the majority supporters of the "war on terror" and "homeland security" schemes that are anti-democratic. In the case of Pickering, we have some implicated in collaboration with those who committed exactly the same types of crimes the commission is supposed to address. What a farce! I cannot think of words of base calumny strong enough.

If this is the direction this commission is headed, then it should be boycotted. While I can support the direction an organization like Physicians for Human Rights wants to take such a torture investigation (see their letter to Sen. Leahy, PDF, from earlier today), I think that establishment human rights organization and liberals in general underestimate the entrenched nature of the powers who allowed torture to take place, and have great investment in maintaining the inviolability of the right of the state to use coercive force.

My case study for this -- and it's starting to look less like a cause, than now, sadly, a case study -- is the indifference with which the political elite treated the exposure of the Army Field Manual as riddled with abusive interrogation techniques, amounting to torture. Outside of a handful of blogs and commentators, and a few human rights organizations, including PHR and Center for Constitutional Rights, the issue has gone dead in the water. No one in Congress seems interested. They'd much rather listen to Thomas Pickering, or even David Rivkin.

I recommend my readers to go CCR's webpage on Prosecutions and Accountability and follow the action steps there. They include a letter that can be signed to Sen. Leahy:
We are also calling upon Sen. Patrick Leahy, who is holding a hearing on March 4 of the Senate Judiciary Committee to discuss a “truth commission” to investigate the crimes of the Bush administration, to support prosecutions for those government officials who violated the law. Sign a letter to Sen. Leahy and the Judiciary Committee calling for them to support prosecutions, and to oppose any immunity for the architects of these torture programs.

Posted by Valtin at 7:58 PM

-----

I left a comment:

Well, that's a persuasive dismantling. In principle, a new Church Committee would be a necessary step. But not like this, obviously. A truth commission model has the potential to expose the relevant information in a fast and genuinely educational way that gets the ball rolling for prosecutions and has the all-important preventive function for the future. (Even if the criminals get away, establishing beyond any doubt that crimes were committed is a big step forward for being aware of the dangers down the line.) Certainly I'm nervous about relying on a special prosecutor, because then it's all on that one person and two years later you get coals for "Fitzmas" again and by then any further action is classified as too late.

What do you like?
March 5, 2009 8:39 AM
User avatar
JackRiddler
 
Posts: 16007
Joined: Wed Jan 02, 2008 2:59 pm
Location: New York City
Blog: View Blog (0)

Postby JackRiddler » Thu Mar 05, 2009 12:57 pm

.

2 interesting developments:

A move obviously intended on behalf of humanitarian imperialism a la Samantha Powers contains the seeds of an interesting conundrum, as the

US would join the International Criminal Court at The Hague?

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123620918926234023.html

Obama Starts 'Urgent Review' of U.S. Policy Toward Sudan

By JONATHAN WEISMAN

President Barack Obama has launched a "high-level, urgent review" of U.S. policy toward Sudan that will consider whether the U.S. should re-examine joining the International Criminal Court, which the Bush administration had emphatically rejected, a senior White House official said Wednesday. A policy decision should be ready "within weeks."

Mr. Obama campaigned hard on toughening U.S. policy toward Sudan and bringing an end to the fighting in Darfur, which he called genocide. As a senator, Mr. Obama visited Darfurian refugee camps in Chad in 2006 and identified the issue as a priority. The administration's reticent response Wednesday to the ICC's warrants for the arrest of Sudanese President Omar Hassan al-Bashir was not meant to convey any slackening of the president's position, but the president did not want to respond to developments in Sudan before a broader framework could be unveiled, the official said.

"His determination to end the atrocities in Darfur has not wavered," the official said. "Our intent is not to address this in piecemeal fashion but to make sure the U.S. and its allies bring about a lasting end to the horrors in Darfur and the rest of Sudan," he said.

Among those involved in the review is National Security Council staff member Samantha Power, who made her career in international diplomacy by working to expose and campaign against genocidal policies. Mr. Obama severed ties to Ms. Power during the campaign after she called then-Sen. Hillary Clinton a "monster." But she has quietly returned to the fold. Other members of the review are drawn from across the government.

Reconsideration of ICC membership will undoubtedly be controversial. Republicans say the court is an abrogation of sovereignty and would expose U.S. servicemen and officials to criminal prosecution. The White House is mindful of the controversy, the official said. "As the review looks at the ICC, we do have to look at how it protects U.S. forces," he said.

The official said ICC's arrest warrants are not driving the work of the review team, but the action underscored the need to reach a decision quickly.

"There's a real sense of urgency. These things are hard but they're bringing everybody together," the official said.

Write to Jonathan Weisman at jonathan.weisman@wsj.com


& thanks to 2012 Countdown for pointing this out:

Rep. Rush Holt introduces the

Anthrax Attacks Investigation Act of 2009 (H.R. 1248),

legislation that would establish a Congressional commission to investigate the 2001 anthrax attacks and the federal governments response to and investigation of the attacks. The bipartisan commission would make recommendations to the President and Congress on how the country can best prevent and respond to any future bioterrorism attack. The attacks evidently originated from a postal box in Holts Central New Jersey congressional district. Holt has consistently raised questions about the federal investigation into the attacks.

Video link- 6 minutes
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IxVpMBK54aY

.
User avatar
JackRiddler
 
Posts: 16007
Joined: Wed Jan 02, 2008 2:59 pm
Location: New York City
Blog: View Blog (0)

Postby JackRiddler » Thu Mar 05, 2009 2:43 pm

.

http://blog.locustfork.net/2009/03/02/w ... -step-down

White House Counsel Greg Craig Asked to ‘Step Down’
March 2nd, 2009

Jill Simpson Alleges Conflict of Interest by Obama’s Attorney

Exclusive
by Glynn Wilson

KNOXVILLE, Tenn. — North Alabama attorney and GOP whistle-blower Jill Simpson is asking that White House Counsel Greg Craig recuse himself from consulting with President Obama on his legal position over executive privilege in the case of Karl Rove, the former political adviser to President Bush who is still defiance of a Congressional subpoena to testify about his role in the political prosecution of former Alabama Governor Don Siegelman and other crimes.

Citing the Rules of Professional Conduct for lawyers, Ms. Simpson’s attorney Priscilla Black Duncan writes in a letter dated Feb. 22 that Craig should “step down” from his position as White House Counsel, “at least in all matters dealing with the Bush administration.”

In what appears to be a clear conflict of interest, Craig represented Rove in his recent book deal, while Craig’s law partner, close associate and mentor, Emmet Flood, is representing Bush in executive privilege matters before the Washington D.C. Court of Appeals, where Bush administration officials have been charged with the political firings of U.S. attorneys for failing to act on orders to prosecute Democrats prior to elections.

Furthermore, Craig had been in contact with Ms. Simpson on the pretense of possibly representing her in her testimony before the House Judiciary Committee legal team a year and a half ago, but declined to represent her only after getting her to reveal her entire case against Mr. Rove.

“You had a duty to disclose your relationship with Rove to Ms. Simpson before she revealed the details of her involvement, because you knew from initial contacts that you had a conflict,” Duncan writes in the letter. “You have a duty now to turn over any material relating to disclosure of that information as well as to allocute to whom you passed the knowledge.”

Ms. Simpson also demands to know the identities of anyone contacted about the recommendation to seek legal services from Washington attorney David Laufman, also known as “Bush’s Cleaner,” or Montgomery Republican Tommy Gallion, who after months of intensive discussions with Ms. Simpson, indicated he was in regular contact with President Bush on her case.

Gallion has repeatedly declined to answer my direct questions about Bush’s knowledge of the Siegelman case.

If Bush was as interested in the case as Gallion indicated to Ms. Simpson, that would place him directly in the loop in the political prosecution of former Alabama Governor Don Siegelman. Perhaps Congress should also considering issuing a subpoena to Bush himself to testify under oath, since he refuses to allow Rove to testify, claiming staff executive privilege in his case.

The White House could not be reached for comment.

Read the full text of the letter below the jump…


Hon. Greg Craig
Office of the White House Counsel
The White House
1600 Pennsylvania Avenue
Washington D.C. 20500

February 22, 2009

RE: Your position regarding advising the President
on the pending testimony of Karl Rove

Dear Attorney Craig:

I represent Dana Jill Simpson, an attorney in Rainsville, Alabama, who testified before Congress in September 2007, regarding Karl Rove’s involvement in the U.S. Justice Department prosecution of Gov. Don Siegelman.

She is very concerned that you have violated the Rules of Professional Conduct 1.6 , 1.7 and 1.10, while citing 1.9 to decline representation. She is equally concerned about the person or persons to whom you have divulged her confidential information. Your recent efforts on the part of negotiating a settlement between Congress and Karl Rove have been noted, as well as your efforts to delay matters before the D.C. Court of Appeals, regarding Rove and other Bush administration officers claiming executive privilege.

For this reason, she is asking that you step down from your position as White House Counsel, at least in all matters dealing with the Bush administration. Further, she is asking that you furnish her with a list of each and every person with whom you have communicated regarding this matter; that is, Miss Simpson’s affidavit, testimony, knowledge, research and any other matters touching or information furnished by Miss Simpson.

In recapping the events linking you and Miss Simpson:

1.) Upon information and belief, Gov. Don Siegelman or his agent made the direct call to you at your law firm, Williams & Connolly, soliciting your pro bono representation of Ms. Simpson, with regard to her affidavit about Karl Rove’s involvement in Siegelman’s prosecution.

2.) According to Ms. Simpson, you called her up to four times on or about March 16-17, 2007, and you faxed her your resume.

3.) She initially asked, “Before we really start this, do you have any contacts with George Bush, Karl Rove, Don Siegelman or Bob Riley?”

4.) You indicated you did not and said, “Tell me who this is about.”

5.) Your initial conversation with Ms. Simpson lasted about 10 to 15 minutes.

6.) In three conversations of nearly two hours, you extracted particular details of her involvement, and you asked her specifically about the length of time and character of her contact with Karl Rove, the extent of her work with the GOP and her knowledge of U.S. District Judge Mark Fuller’s owner-interest in Doss Aviation, a major federal contractor, and matters dealing with lobbyist G. Stewart Hall’s then-Federalist Group and the steering of contracts to Fuller’s company and companies related to Gov. Bob Riley’s son, Rob Riley.

7.) After this extensive questioning, which included another session for the questions you had formulated, you announced that you couldn’t represent her because you had represented Sen. Richard Shelby during the 2004-2005 investigations of his alleged national security leaks.

8.) Ms. Simpson says that you related to her that Sen. Shelby had told you “ in confidence” that he “owned and controlled Doss Aviation out of the federal courthouse in Montgomery,” and that Doss Aviation’s, 1 Church Street, mail was delivered to Shelby’s Senate office, even before Fuller was appointed judge. You told her that you “didn’t really like” Shelby, that the Doss connection had not been discovered during the previous hearing, but that, “It will come up, if you really go into it.”

9.) You failed to mention to Miss Simpson, however, that you were a friend of Karl Rove, had shared drinks with Karl Rove, that your law firm, Williams & Connolly, was representing Vice President Cheney on Scooter Libby’s role in the Valerie Plame case in which Rove was involved; that your firm has advised the White House not to turn over GOP emails regarding the firing of nine U.S. Attorneys. Nor did you disclose your firm’s involvement in defending Iran-Contra figures, which you knew or should have known play a key role in the current military contracts routed to Doss Aviation.

Now, I understand your firm is handling Karl Rove’s book deal. Currently, your former close associate and mentor, Emmet Flood is representing former President Bush in executive privilege matters before the D.C. Court of Appeals with regard to political firings of U.S. Attorneys who failed to act on orders to prosecute Democrats prior to elections – matters in which you are directly involved in your role as President Obama’s White House Counsel.

You had a duty to disclose your relationship with Rove to Miss Simpson before she revealed the details of her involvement, because you knew from initial contacts that you had a conflict. You have a duty now to turn over any material relating to disclosure of that information as well as to allocute to whom you passed the knowledge. She also inquires whether you or anyone to you contacted is responsible for recommending legal services from Washington attorney David Laufman, also known as “Bush’s Cleaner,” or Montgomery Republican Tommy Gallion, who after months of intensive discussions with Ms. Simpson, indicated he was in regular contact with President Bush on her matter.

Ms. Simpson asks that you withdraw from any representation of the President on these matters due to your conflicts and those of Williams & Connolly in this area. If you respect the legal Code of Professional Conduct, you must take action to remedy the damage you have done to Ms. Simpson, Mr. Shelby and the legal profession.

We would appreciate an answer no later than three business days.

Sincerely,
Priscilla Black Duncan
Attorney for Jill Simpson
User avatar
JackRiddler
 
Posts: 16007
Joined: Wed Jan 02, 2008 2:59 pm
Location: New York City
Blog: View Blog (0)

Postby JackRiddler » Thu Mar 05, 2009 3:06 pm

.

Fuck. I just realized the Rove, Miers testimony is going to be closed-door depositions, with written transcripts only. Goddamnit, first of all Congress in its oversight role should not be reaching any agreements like this with executive branch servants. They should be hauled into the Capitol jail.

http://thehill.com/index2.php?option=co ... &Itemid=70

.
User avatar
JackRiddler
 
Posts: 16007
Joined: Wed Jan 02, 2008 2:59 pm
Location: New York City
Blog: View Blog (0)

Postby JackRiddler » Fri Mar 06, 2009 2:42 pm

.

Not that Rove isn't making public appearances at the invitation of Obama officials. Wonder what this signifies?

http://www.kcba.com/Global/story.asp?S=9924358

Karl Rove Tops List of 2009 Panetta Lecture Invitees

Posted: Feb 28, 2009 08:53 PM

MONTEREY, Calif. - The Leon and Sylvia Panetta Institute announced Saturday it's 2009 list of invitees to it's* popular public policy Lecture Series.

Among the names of political movers and shakers set to debate are Gen. John Abizaid, Tom Daschle, Michael Leavitt, David Plouffe, Alice Rivlin, Karl Rove and George Tenet. The theme of this year's Lecture Series is The Challenges Facing the New Administration.

"New leadership has brought new opportunities for reform," said Institute Director, Sylvia Panetta. "However this spirit of optimism is weighted by the daunting reality of the domestic and global challenges that this new administration faces. The failing economy, increasing needs and demand for healthcare reform, bridging the partisan divide, and terrorism in Iraq, Afghanistan and elsewhere will all require challenging compromise, tough decisions and certain sacrifice. We will explore these issues with renowned experts who will provide unique insight into these serious problems and possible solutions."

Set to moderate the debates in the place of the newly installed CIA Director Panetta are CNN's Gloria Borger and Frank Sesno.

Each of the events will begin at 7:00 p.m. at the Monterey Conference Center in the Steinbeck Forum. The events are as follows:

Monday, March 30, 2009: Can Healthcare Reform Finally Happen? with former U.S. Senate majority leader Tom Daschle and former U.S. secretary of Health and Human Services Michael Leavitt, moderated by senior political analyst for CNN, Gloria Borger.

Monday, April 13, 2009: Can the Economy Recover From This Recession? with former vice chair of the Federal Reserve Board and former director of the Office of Management and Budget Alice Rivlin and a second speaker to be determined, moderated by senior political analyst for CNN, Gloria Borger (invited).

Monday, May 4, 2009: Can the Partisan Divide Ever End? with former campaign manager for President Barack Obama, David Plouffe and former deputy chief of staff and senior advisor to President George W. Bush, Karl Rove, moderated by Emmy Award winning former political analyst for CNN, Frank Sesno.

Monday, June 8, 2009: Can America Win the War on Terror? with former commander of the U.S. Central Command, John Abizaid and former director of the Central Intelligence Agency, George Tenet, moderated by Emmy Award winning former political analyst for CNN, Frank Sesno.


Golly, what will the answers be?

---

* "it's list"? Okay, this is a FOX TV site. But still...
User avatar
JackRiddler
 
Posts: 16007
Joined: Wed Jan 02, 2008 2:59 pm
Location: New York City
Blog: View Blog (0)

Postby JackRiddler » Fri Mar 06, 2009 6:20 pm

http://counterpunch.org/floyd03062009.html

Weekend Edition
March 6-8 , 2009
The Rove-Obama Deal
Tangled Up in Karl

By CHRIS FLOYD

There has been a flutter of congratulatory noise in some quarters about the recent "compromise" brokered by the White House regarding Karl Rove's criminal refusal to heed Congressional subpoenas requiring his testimony on the Bush Administration's transformation of the Justice Department into a goon squad targeting -- and imprisoning -- political opponents.

Whereas mere mortals can go to prison for ignoring a Congressional summons, Rove has been allowed to roam free, appearing on national television, writing for national publications, and carrying on his life's work of polluting and degrading the nation's political culture. This unelected, porcine bullshit-slinger is apparently so powerful that the new President of the United States felt compelled to step in and negotiate the very gentle terms under which said porcine polluter would deign to appear before Congress.

This whole spectacle, by the way, is yet another stunning example of what a completely lawless state the United States of American Empire has become -- at least for those in the bosom of imperial power. Think of it: a legally binding subpoena from the Congress of the United States is blithely ignored -- a clear act of criminal contempt. But the scofflaw suffers not the slightest penalty. Instead, he is serviced by the most powerful institution in the land, which intervenes to make sure his appearance before Congress holds no dangers for him. He is to appear in private, will not have to answer any questions about the most important point at issue -- George Bush's involvement in the Justice Department scandal -- and he will not be required to testify under oath. (It is all very much like the remarkable conditions under which his former boss "testified" to the 9/11 Commission.)

This is the deal brokered by the current administration, with Obama's hand-picked White House counsel, Gregory Craig, and his aides playing a "critical role," as Newsweek reports. But while the venerable newsmag found time to address the ever-burning question of who "won" in the negotiations -- Did Rove's lawyers make the most concessions? Who's on top of the Beltway food chain today? -- they entirely omitted a very pertinent fact, reported by Glynn Wilson at the Locust Fork News-Journal: Obama's White House Counsel has worked for Rove. Wilson writes:

"In what appears to be a clear conflict of interest, Craig represented Rove in his recent book deal, while Craig’s law partner, close associate and mentor, Emmet Flood, is representing Bush in executive privilege matters before the Washington D.C. Court of Appeals, where Bush administration officials have been charged with the political firings of U.S. attorneys for failing to act on orders to prosecute Democrats prior to elections."

But that's not all. As Wilson notes, Craig also engaged in what seems to be a clear act of subterfuge to get Republican whistleblower Jill Simpson -- who courageously stood up against the travesty of justice in the Bush gang's political imprisonment of former Alabama governor Don Siegelman -- to spill all the details of her case against Rove and the other Justice Department conspirators. Wilson writes:

"Furthermore, Craig had been in contact with Ms. Simpson on the pretense of possibly representing her in her testimony before the House Judiciary Committee legal team a year and a half ago, but declined to represent her only after getting her to reveal her entire case against Mr. Rove.

"'You had a duty to disclose your relationship with Rove to Ms. Simpson before she revealed the details of her involvement, because you knew from initial contacts that you had a conflict,' Duncan writes in the letter."

Simpson's attorney, Priscilla Black Duncan, set out the details in a recent letter she wrote to Obama's White House Counsel, citing his violations of the Rules of Professional Conduct and asking him "to step down from your position as White House Counsel, at least in all matters dealing with the Bush administration." In her letter, printed in full by Wilson, Duncan writes:

"2.) According to Ms. Simpson, you called her up to four times on or about March 16-17, 2007, and you faxed her your resume.

3.) She initially asked, “Before we really start this, do you have any contacts with George Bush, Karl Rove, Don Siegelman or Bob Riley?”

4.) You indicated you did not and said, “Tell me who this is about.”

5.) Your initial conversation with Ms. Simpson lasted about 10 to 15 minutes.

6.) In three conversations of nearly two hours, you extracted particular details of her involvement, and you asked her specifically about the length of time and character of her contact with Karl Rove, the extent of her work with the GOP and her knowledge of U.S. District Judge Mark Fuller’s owner-interest in Doss Aviation, a major federal contractor, and matters dealing with lobbyist G. Stewart Hall’s then-Federalist Group and the steering of contracts to Fuller’s company and companies related to Gov. Bob Riley’s son, Rob Riley.

7.) After this extensive questioning, which included another session for the questions you had formulated, you announced that you couldn’t represent her because you had represented Sen. Richard Shelby during the 2004-2005 investigations of his alleged national security leaks....

9.) You failed to mention to Miss Simpson, however, that you were a friend of Karl Rove, had shared drinks with Karl Rove, that your law firm, Williams & Connolly, was representing Vice President Cheney on Scooter Libby’s role in the Valerie Plame case in which Rove was involved; that your firm has advised the White House not to turn over GOP emails regarding the firing of nine U.S. Attorneys. Nor did you disclose your firm’s involvement in defending Iran-Contra figures, which you knew or should have known play a key role in the current military contracts routed to Doss Aviation."


Once again, we see a vivid display of the "continuity" that has been a hallmark of the new administration in so many areas. Obama's top legal adviser and his law firm is deeply entangled with Karl Rove and George W. Bush -- and specifically on the very issue of the recent "compromise": the goonization of the Justice Department. (In addition to the firm's involvement with Dick Cheney and the criminal outing of a CIA operative tracking weapons of mass destruction.) How hard would it have been for Barack Obama to find a reputable, respected White House Counsel who not hip-deep in the Big Muddy with Karl Rove and George Bush?

And how difficult would it have been for the President of the United States -- the "most powerful man on earth," as we are incessantly reminded -- to say, simply, that Karl Rove should obey the law and testify under oath before Congress? And note well the reality -- and the arrogance -- at play here. Rove could still have refused to divulge specific information, citing executive privilege or the Fifth Amendment. The question here is not what he would say, but that he has refused to appear at all. And now his drinking buddy and literary rainmaker in the White House has brokered a cozy arrangement to coddle Rove even further.

To be sure, the White House deal for Rove was not just about the incestuous entanglement of Obama's counsel with the very maw of the Bush-Cheney-Rove gang. As Newsweek notes, Obama is very anxious to preserve the hard-won powers of the imperial presidency that he has inherited from such illustrious predecessors as the George Bushes and Dick Nixon:

"As a candidate last year, Obama sharply criticized the Bush administration for making sweeping claims of executive privilege to shield testimony about the U.S. attorney firings. "This blanket notion that you can't subpoena White House aides where there's evidence of genuine wrongdoing I think is completely misguided," he said last year.

But if the dispute over executive privilege hadn't been settled by Wednesday night, Obama's lawyers would have been put in the uncomfortable position of having to defend Rove and Miers in court. The alternative would have been to accept the possibility of a judicial ruling that might have impinged on the confidentiality of their own discussions about sensitive issues should those discussions later become the subject of congressional investigations."

In other words, the Obama administration wants to ensure that none of its own top dogs will ever be required to testify about allegations of criminal activity by the government. And the Obama-Rove operative Craig made it clear that Obama was willing to go to court -- yet again -- to defend Bush's vision of rampant executive power:

"At one point this week, [Craig] even told House Democratic lawyers he would authorize Obama's Justice Department to oppose them in court if they didn't back down from some of their demands to complete access to the material."

Beyond the notion of "executive privilege," the Obama-Rove deal upholds a principle far more important to our Beltway courtiers: their elevation above the law. While the proles are subjected to an ever-growing plethora of police powers and genuinely shocking levels of incarceration -- often for profit -- our intertwined elites cut special deals for each other to keep themselves living large, loose and at liberty.

Yes sir, that's continuity for you -- continuity with a vengeance!

NOTE: Speaking of elevation above the law, how about this little gem just in from AP? Panetta: No one to be punished for interrogations:

"CIA Director Leon Panetta says agency employees who took part in harsh interrogations of terrorism suspects are not in danger of being punished.

"Panetta delivered that message to CIA employees in an e-mail Thursday, reiterating what he told Congress last month. He said then that he would oppose prosecutions of any CIA employee who adhered to their legal guidance on interrogations.

"He sent the message after the Senate Intelligence Committee announced its review of the CIA's interrogation and detention program under President George W. Bush."

Thank God the Obama Administration has moved so swiftly to protect Bush's torturers at the first whiff of pesky snooping from Congress! After all, they -- and the architects of the torture program in the White House and Pentagon -- only broke the law. And the law is just for the rubes and suckers, not the great and good, and their hired hands.

Chris Floyd is an American writer and frequent contributor to CounterPunch. His blog, Empire Burlesque, can be found at www.chris-floyd.com.
User avatar
JackRiddler
 
Posts: 16007
Joined: Wed Jan 02, 2008 2:59 pm
Location: New York City
Blog: View Blog (0)

Postby JackRiddler » Sat Mar 07, 2009 1:39 pm

.

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.c ... .DTL&tsp=1

Obama lawyers argue to drop Yoo torture suit

Bob Egelko, Chronicle Staff Writer

Saturday, March 7, 2009

(03-06) 18:08 PST SAN FRANCISCO -- President Obama's Justice Department defended former Bush administration lawyer John Yoo in a San Francisco federal court Friday, arguing that a prisoner formerly held as an enemy combatant had no right to sue Yoo for writing legal memos that allegedly led to his detention and torture.
Images
View Larger Image
More News
When economy bottoms out, how will we know? 03.07.09
Bombs kill 15 amid political crisis in Pakistan 03.07.09
Pa. boy, 11, charged with murder was avid hunter 03.07.09


"We're not saying we condone torture," department attorney Mary Mason said at a hearing on the government's request to dismiss a lawsuit filed by Jose Padilla. But any recourse against a government lawyer "is for the executive to decide, in the first instance, and for Congress to decide," not the courts, she said.

"You're not saying that if high public officials commit clearly illegal acts, a citizen subject to those acts has no remedy in this court?" asked U.S. District Judge Jeffrey White.

Not unless Congress has expressly authorized a lawsuit, Mason replied. She cited the argument the Justice Department made in Yoo's case last year, with President George W. Bush still in office, that courts should not interfere in executive decision-making, especially in wartime.

White did not indicate how or when he would rule.

Yoo, a UC Berkeley law professor now on leave to teach at Chapman University in Orange County, wrote a series of memos on interrogation, detention and presidential powers as an attorney in the Justice Department's Office of Legal Counsel from 2001 to 2003.

The best-known memo, written to then-White House Counsel Alberto Gonzales in 2002, said rough treatment of captives amounted to torture only if it caused the same level of pain as "organ failure, impairment of bodily function or even death." It also said the president may have the power to authorize torture of enemy combatants.

Yoo also advised the Bush administration that the Geneva Conventions on humane treatment of captives did not apply to terrorist suspects classified as enemy combatants.

A 2001 Yoo memo, made public recently by the Obama administration, said U.S. military forces could use "any means necessary" to seize and hold terror suspects in the United States, without constitutional restrictions.

Yoo's memos "left our client in a legal no-man's land," said Hope Metcalfe, a Yale Law School teacher who represents Padilla. His suit alleges that Yoo, as a member of Bush's War Council, helped to devise detention and interrogation policies and knowingly breached constitutional standards in his memos to provide legal cover for those policies.

Padilla, a U.S. citizen and Muslim convert, was arrested in Chicago in 2002 and accused by the Bush administration of plotting with al Qaeda to detonate a radioactive "dirty bomb."

Declared an enemy combatant, Padilla was held in a brig for 3 1/2 years before being charged with taking part in an unrelated conspiracy to provide money and supplies to Islamic extremist groups. He was convicted and sentenced to 17 years in federal prison. He has appealed.

Padilla's lawsuit covers his time in the brig. His lawyers say he was illegally held as an enemy combatant, kept in isolation, confined in painful stress positions for prolonged periods, subjected to sleep deprivation and sensory deprivation, and threatened with harm to his family and with transfer to a nation where he would be tortured.

Obama prohibited most of those methods shortly after taking office.

Padilla claims Yoo was partly responsible for his treatment. Although government lawyers normally cannot be sued for legal advice, his suit accuses Yoo of stepping outside a lawyer's proper role and giving advice he knew was unconstitutional.

Mason, the Justice Department lawyer, said Yoo had no authority over Padilla and merely "gave very general advice about very general problems" for Bush to decide. Any court scrutiny of Yoo's actions "requires inquiry into the highest levels of the United States government," she said.

Padilla has a similar suit pending in South Carolina, where he was held, against former Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, former Attorney General John Ashcroft and other administration officials.


E-mail Bob Egelko at begelko@sfchronicle.com.

This article appeared on page A - 7 of the San Francisco Chronicle
User avatar
JackRiddler
 
Posts: 16007
Joined: Wed Jan 02, 2008 2:59 pm
Location: New York City
Blog: View Blog (0)

Postby JackRiddler » Sun Mar 08, 2009 9:39 am

.

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/world/news/pr ... 243&pnum=0

George Bush could be next on the war crimes list
4:00AM Friday Mar 06, 2009

George Bush. Photo / AP

THE HAGUE – George W. Bush could one day be the International Criminal Court's next target.

David Crane, an international law professor at Syracuse University, said the principle of law used to issue an arrest warrant for Omar al-Bashir could extend to former US President Bush over claims officials from his Administration may have engaged in torture by using coercive interrogation techniques on terror suspects.

Crane is a former prosecutor of the Sierra Leone tribunal that indicted Liberian President Charles Taylor and put him on trial in The Hague.

Richard Dicker, director of the International Justice Programme at Human Rights Watch, said the al-Bashir ruling was likely to fuel discussion about investigations of possible crimes by Bush Administration officials.

Congressional Democrats and other critics have charged that some of the harsh interrogation techniques amounted to torture, a contention that Bush and other officials rejected.

The prospect of the court ever trying Bush is considered extremely remote, however.

The US Government does not recognise the court and the only other way Bush could be investigated is if the Security Council were to order it, something unlikely to happen with Washington a veto-wielding permanent member.

- AP

Copyright ©2009, APN Holdings NZ Limited


---

UN General Assembly president (Brockmann of Nicaragua) echoes view.

http://rawstory.com/news/2008/ExUN_pros ... _0307.html

Ex-UN prosecutor: Bush may be next up for International Criminal Court
03/07/2009 @ 3:52 pm
Filed by Stephen C. Webster

An ex-UN prosecutor has said that following the issuance of an arrest warrant for the president of Sudan, former US President George W. Bush could -- and should -- be next on the International Criminal Court's list.

The former prosecutor's assessment was echoed in some respect by United Nations General Assembly chief Miguel d'Escoto Brockmann of Nicaragua, who said America's military occupation of Iraq has caused over a million deaths and should be probed by the United Nations.

"David Crane, an international law professor at Syracuse University, said the principle of law used to issue an arrest warrant for [Sudanese President] Omar al-Bashir could extend to former US President Bush over claims officials from his Administration may have engaged in torture by using coercive interrogation techniques on terror suspects," reported the New Zealand Herald.

The indictment of Bashir was a landmark, said Crane, because it paved a route for the court at The Hague to pursue heads of states engaged in criminality.

"Crane also said that the [Bashir] indictment may even be extended to the former president George W. Bush, on the grounds that some officials in terms of his administration engaged in harsh interrogation techniques on terror suspects which mostly amounted to torture," said Turkish Weekly.

"All pretended justifications notwithstanding, the aggressions against Iraq and Afghanistan and their occupations constitute atrocities that must be condemned and repudiated by all who believe in the rule of law in international relations," Brockmann told the Human Rights Council. "The illegality of the use of force against Iraq cannot be doubted as it runs contrary to the prohibition of the use of force in Article 2(4) of the United Nations Charter. It sets a number of precedents that we cannot allow to stand."

The Bush administration boycotted the Human Rights Council. The day Brockmann made his accusations happened to be the first in which the United States had observers at the council, on orders from President Obama.

According to Iranian news network PressTV, the Iranian government called the Bashir indictment "a blow to International justice" and an "insult directed at Muslims."

Iran's plainly stated sentiment toward the court's legitimacy is similar in spirit to that of the United States. Because the US Government has refused to recognize the court by becoming a signatory in its statute, "the only other way Bush could be investigated is if the [UN] Security Council were to order it, something unlikely to happen with Washington a veto-wielding permanent member," said the Herald.

Due to the International Criminal Court's lack of any real police force, it has traditionally relied upon signatory states for enforcement of its rulings. But when the leader of one such state is indicted, the court's authority and enforcement capability is called into question. Even the arrest of Bashir is a far cry, for now. And without a UN Security Council order, former US President Bush would not go on "trial" before the court any time soon.

However, on January 26, United Nations Special Rapporteur on Torture Manfred Nowak insisted that the pursuit of Bush and members of his administration for the torture of terror war prisoners is crucial if justice is to be served.

Nowak added that he believes enough evidence exists currently to proceed with the prosecution of Donald Rumsfeld, the former Secretary of Defense who was credited as being highly influential in the crafting and push for America's invasion of Iraq and the prior administration's abusive interrogation tactics.

The following video was published to YouTube on March 6 by the non-profit, Web-based news service LinkTV.

(go link)

Download video via RawReplay.com
User avatar
JackRiddler
 
Posts: 16007
Joined: Wed Jan 02, 2008 2:59 pm
Location: New York City
Blog: View Blog (0)

Postby American Dream » Mon Mar 09, 2009 8:09 am

Bush Should be Barred from Canada or Prosecuted.

By Lawyers Against the War

Global Research, March 8, 2009
Lawyers Against the War


George W. Bush, former President of the United States of America (U.S.) and Commander in Chief of the Armed Force, is reported to be coming to Calgary Alberta on March 17, 2009 to speak at a private function.

Lawyers Against the War (LAW) has advised the Prime Minister of Canada, the Attorney General and the Ministers of Immigration, Public Safety and Foreign Affairs that George W. Bush is inadmissible to Canada under the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act.

Evidence of Bush’s involvement in torture and other war crimes and crimes against humanity has triggered Canada’s legal duty to bar Bush from entering Canada and if he enters, to prosecute him for torture.

"To add you signature to this letter, email your name and consent to signing to law@portal.ca " please see below: - from Lawyers Against the War.) - George W. Bush, former President of the United States of America (U.S.) and Commander in Chief of the Armed Force, is reported to be coming to Calgary Alberta on March 17, 2009 to speak at a private function.

Lawyers Against the War (LAW) has advised the Prime Minister of Canada, the Attorney General and the Ministers of Immigration, Public Safety and Foreign Affairs that George W. Bush is inadmissible to Canada under the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act.

Evidence of Bush’s involvement in torture and other war crimes and crimes against humanity has triggered Canada’s legal duty to bar Bush from entering Canada and if he enters, to prosecute him for torture.

"To add you signature to this letter, email your name and consent to signing to law@portal.ca " please see below:

LAW has advised the Prime Minister of Canada, the Attorney General and the Ministers of Immigration, Public Safety and Foreign Affairs that George W. Bush is inadmissible to Canada under the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act. Section 35(1) (a) states that a foreign national is inadmissible on grounds of violating human or international rights or for committing an act outside Canada that constitutes an offence referred to in sections 4 to 7 of the Crimes against Humanity and War Crimes Act. Also inadmissiable (s.35 (1)(b)) are persons who are, or were, senior officials “in the service of a government that, in the opinion of the Minister, engages or has engaged in gross human rights violations…”

Under sections 4 to 7 of the Crimes Against Humanity and War Crimes Act: "crimes against humanity" includes murder, enforced disappearance, deportation, imprisonment, torture, imprisonment or other severe deprivation of physical liberty in violation of fundamental rules of international law, committed against any civilian population or any identifiable group.

"war crime" includes wilfull killing, torture and inhuman treatment, unlawful confinement, willfully depriving a prisoner of war or other protected person of fair trial rights, intentionally launching that the attack will cause incidental loss of life or injury to civilians or damage to civilian objects or widespread, long-term and severe damage to the natural environment which would be clearly excessive in relation to the concrete and direct overall military advantage anticipated. If there are reasonable grounds to believe a person has been complicit in any of these crimes, entry to Canada must be denied. The Supreme Court of Canada says reasonable grounds are “something more than suspicion but less than…proof on the balance of probabilities.”

Please: a) let us know if you would like to add your signature to this letter; and, b) distribute the letter and the request for endorsement to other groups and individuals. c) post the letter on your site.

Thanks. Gail Davidson

Lawyers Against the War Tel: +1 604 738-0338 Fax: +1 604 736-1175
Email: law@portal.ca Website: www.lawyersagainstthewar.org
American Dream
 
Posts: 19946
Joined: Sat Sep 15, 2007 4:56 pm
Location: Planet Earth
Blog: View Blog (0)

Postby JackRiddler » Mon Mar 09, 2009 9:10 am

Thanks to American Dream.

State Secrets and Deceit: Obama Embraces CIA Torture
by Tom Burghardt

February 12, 2009
www.antifascist-calling.blogspot.com


As predictably as night follows day, the Obama regime defended the CIA's practice of "extraordinary rendition" (kidnapping) of suspected "terrorists" to third countries where they are subject to "enhanced interrogation" (torture) by allied security services.

Binyam Mohamed and four other victims have charged that they were brutalized after being "disappeared" by CIA operatives and secretly flown to Egypt, Morocco, Afghanistan and eastern European CIA "black sites."

On Monday, Assistant U.S. Attorney Douglas N. Letter argued before a three-judge panel of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco that the "change" administration would press ahead with the Bush regime's odious invocation of the state secrets privilege to suppress a lawsuit brought by torture victims against Boeing subsidiary, San Jose, California-based Jeppesen DataPlan.

In a thinly-veiled threat to the Ninth Circuit, Letter told the Court according to the San Francisco Chronicle, "Judges shouldn't play with fire."

Claiming that allowing the suit to go forward would irreparably harm "national security," Letter argued that once they examine the government's classified evidence "you will see that this case cannot be litigated."

In a truly Orwellian twist that further compromises American credibility and the Obama administration, The Guardian reported February 11 that "US defence officials are preventing Barack Obama from seeing evidence that a former British resident held in Guantánamo Bay has been tortured."


Clive Stafford Smith, the director of the legal charity Reprieve, which represents Ethiopian-born Binyam Mohamed, sent Obama evidence of what he called "truly mediaeval" abuse but substantial parts were blanked out so the president could not read it.

In the letter to the president, Stafford Smith urges him to order the disclosure of the evidence.

Stafford Smith tells Obama he should be aware of the "bizarre reality" of the situation. "You, as commander in chief, are being denied access to material that would help prove that crimes have been committed by US personnel. This decision is being made by the very people who you command."
(Richard Norton-Taylor and Ian Cobain, "Binyam Mohamed torture evidence 'hidden from Obama'," The Guardian, February 11, 2009)


The censoring of Stafford Smith's evidential letter by U.S. defense officials might have been done, according to The Guardian "to protect the president from criminal liability or political embarrassment." In any event it now appears Obama, by casting his lot with war criminals, kidnappers and torturers has every reason to be concerned with his own criminal liability.

These latest revelations follow on the heels of repeated threats by "U.S. intelligence officials" that they would "stop sharing intelligence" with the UK if evidence relating to Mohamed's torture were disclosed. Indeed, Mohamed's U.S.-appointed military lawyer, Lieutenant Colonel Yvonne Bradley, told a news conference on February 10 that Mohamed's treatment "would make waterboarding seem like child's play."

At Monday's hearing in San Francisco The New York Times reports, undercutting arguments that the president is "distracted" by the economic meltdown, that when asked by Judge Mary M. Schroeder, "Is there anything material that has happened" in a sly reference to Obama's November election, Letter replied, "No, your honor."

Judge Schroeder asked, "The change in administration has no bearing?"

Once more, he said, "No, Your Honor." The position he was taking in court on behalf of the government had been "thoroughly vetted with the appropriate officials within the new administration," and "these are the authorized positions," he said.
(John Schwartz, "Obama Backs Off a Reversal on Secrets," The New York Times, February 10, 2009)


And indeed they are, demonstrating once again the continuity--and consensus--amongst ruling class elites when its comes to the defense of repressive national security policies. Represented by the American Civil Liberties Union, Anthony D. Romero, ACLU Executive Director said:

Eric Holder's Justice Department stood up in court today and said that it would continue the Bush policy of invoking state secrets to hide the reprehensible history of torture, rendition and the most grievous human rights violations committed by the American government. This is not change. This is definitely more of the same. Candidate Obama ran on a platform that would reform the abuse of state secrets, but President Obama's Justice Department has disappointingly reneged on that important civil liberties issue. If this is a harbinger of things to come, it will be a long and arduous road to give us back an America we can be proud of again. ("Justice Department Stands Behind Bush Secrecy in Extraordinary Rendition Case," American Civil Liberties Union, Press Release, February 9, 2009)


As ACLU staff attorney Ben Wizner, who argued the case for the plaintiffs, told Glenn Greenwald about Jeppesen DataPlan's role in the CIA's "rendition" program:

They were essentially the CIA's torture travel agents. They were the one who arranged all the overflight rights for the CIA civilian planes to be able to fly from country to country. They handled the security and the logistics. They filed dummy flight plans to try to trick air traffic controllers into not being able to track where the actual flights were going. And we know they knew what they were doing because we have a witness in our case, someone who's given us a sworn declaration, who was an employee of Jeppesen DataPlan, and who was present when senior officials of the company were openly boasting about their role in the torture flights, and about how much money they made from them because the CIA spared no expense.

We were able, with the help of an investigative journalist and other documentary evidence, to link Jeppesen to an number of very specific CIA rendition flights, involving these five torture victims who were flown to countries like Egypt, Morocco, to CIA sites in Afghanistan and eastern Europe.
("ACLU's Ben Wizner on immediate Obama tests," Salon, January 30, 2009)


That Jeppesen employee, Sean Belcher, a technical writer hired by the firm in 2006, told the San Francisco Chronicle,

...he attended a breakfast for new employees on Aug. 11, 2006, and heard a welcoming speech from Bob Overby, a company director. While describing Jeppesen's work, Belcher said, Overby told the employees, "We do all the extraordinary rendition flights." Later, he said, Overby added that these were "the torture flights," and explained, "Let's face it, some of these flights end up this way."

Belcher also quoted Overby as saying that the flights paid well and that the government spared no expense. Belcher said he quit his job five days later.
(Bob Egelko, "Ex-San Jose aviation firm worker says exec talked of torture flights," San Francisco Chronicle, December 15, 2007)


As the CIA's booking agent, Jeppesen worked with tiny charter airlines that were no more than CIA corporate cut-outs. As investigative journalists Trevor Paglen and A. C. Thompson documented,

A curious quirk of the CIA's fleet of aircraft is that they are civilian, rather than military, planes. Owing to U.S. law and the CIA's status as a civilian agency, the planes are owned by front-companies and operated by a handful of aviation charter companies. One of the consequence of this is that each of these civilian companies leave a long and voluminous paper trail...

As we look more closely at the corporate documents and aviation filings we've gotten hold of, a landscape begins to emerge. This particular landscape isn't "over there," on the many battlefields of the "war on terror." Rather, the landscape we see depicted in these documents is stealthily and subtly woven into the fabric of everyday life in the United States.
(Torture Taxi: On the Trail of the CIA's Rendition Flights, Hoboken, NJ: Melville House Publishing, 2006, pp. 45-46)


Indeed, once the charter companies were selected by the CIA, Jeppesen handled the logistical and navigational details, designed flight plans, obtained flight clearance to fly over other countries, ground-crew arrangements, even hotel reservations for the pilots and the other facilitators of human rights abuse. As Boeing says on its website, "From Aachen to Zhengzhou, King Airs to 747s, Jeppesen has done it all." And Jeppesen DataPlan, in an Orwellian burst of chutzpah, declared:

Trust. The key ingredient in any International Trip Planning relationship. Just like the trust pilots place in Jeppesen's Worldwide Instrument Charting, you can count on caring, professional people who work with you personally to ensure your needs are met.


How precisely were Binyam Mohamed's "needs" met? According to the complaint filed in 2007 by the ACLU, after being abducted in Pakistan the Ethiopian national was secretly flown to Morocco. Once there,

Mr. Mohamed was subjected to severe physical and psychological torture. He was routinely beaten, suffering broken bones and, on occasion, loss of consciousness due to the beatings. His clothes were cut off with a scalpel and the same scalpel was then used to make incisions on his body, including his penis. A hot stinging liquid was then poured into open wounds on his penis where he had been cut. He was frequently threatened with rape, electrocution, and death.

Mr. Mohamed was handcuffed, fitted with earphones, and forced to listen to extremely loud music day and night, sometimes interrupting his sleep for forty-eight hours at a time. He was placed in a damp, moldy room with open sewage for a month at a time. He believed his food to be drugged, but when he refused to eat he was forcibly hooked up to two different IVs. These IVs alternated pumping different substances into his body, the combination of which forced him to undergo painful withdrawal symptoms.
(IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NORTHERN CALIFORNIA, Division of San Jose; BINYAM MOHAMED, ABOU ELKASSIM BRITEL, AHMED AGIZA, Plaintiffs, v. JEPPESEN DATAPLAN, INC., Civil Action No. 2798, COMPLAINT, DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL, p. 18)


And what of Jeppesen's collusive behavior with the CIA? The complaint avers,

In return for undisclosed fees, Jeppesen has played a critical role in the successful implementation of the extraordinary rendition program. It has furnished essential flight and logistical support to aircraft used by the CIA to transfer terror suspects to secret detention and interrogation facilities in countries such as Morocco and Egypt where, according to the U.S. Department of State, the use of torture is "routine," as well as to U.S.-run detention facilities overseas, where the United States government maintains that the safeguards of U.S. law do not apply. ...

In providing its services to the CIA, Jeppesen knew or reasonably should have known that Plaintiffs would be subjected to forced disappearance, detention, and torture in countries where such practices are routine. Indeed, according to published reports, Jeppesen had actual knowledge of the consequences of its activities.
(Complaint, op. cit., pp. 3-4)


As long time readers of Antifascist Calling are well aware, once Jeppesen DataPlan had "done it all" to deliver Mohamed into the hands of his torturers in Morocco, he was subsequently "rendered" to Bagram Airbase in Afghanistan and then on to Guantánamo where he was subjected to the full panoply of behavior modification techniques that evolved from the CIA's MKULTRA "mind control" program of the 1950s-1970s.

Reporting last September, I documented how CIA and U.S. military psychologists, under the ever-vigilant tutelage of contractors Drs. Bruce Jessen and James Mitchell, did the heavy-lifting to tailor a regime of psychological assault on prisoners under the control of the CIA and the Pentagon.

Drawing their "inspiration" from torture manuals written decades apart, the CIA's "KUBARK Counterintelligence Interrogation," Military Intelligence's "Human Resource Exploitation Manual-1983," and "reversed-engineered" techniques culled from the military's Survival, Evasion, Resistance, Escape program known as SERE, interrogators implemented a repulsive torture regime under orders from the highest levels of the Bush administration, as ABC News revealed last April.

The "refined" methods described in KUBARK and HRE included: forced drugging, hooding, sexual humiliation, extended sensory deprivation, prolonged interrogation, environmental and dietary manipulation, beatings, stress positions and other methods of "self-inflicted pain." CIA officers and their Military Intelligence doppelgängers, at the urging of White House masters, systematically committed war crimes on defenseless prisoners in their custody. These are the closely-guarded state secrets the Obama regime seeks to conceal.

Currently incarcerated at the Guantánamo Bay torture facility and gravely ill due to a prolonged hunger strike the U.S. government is preparing to release Mohamed, having failed to produce a shred of evidence linking him to any "terrorist" activity whatsoever.

The kid-gloves approach to a Boeing subsidiary shouldn't surprise anyone. According to Washington Technology, Boeing clocked-in at number two on their "Top 100" list of "prime government contractors," pulling down some $9,706,621,413 in state largess.

A major corporate grifter, for decades Boeing has feathered its nest (and that of its well-paid executives) by feeding at the trough of taxpayer-financed handouts. According to The Seattle Times, CEO James McNerney "earned" some $19 million in total compensation in 2007.

However, Boeing's shady dealings have also resulted in huge fines for corporate malfeasance. As the Project on Government Oversight's Federal Contractor Misconduct Database documents, since 1995 Boeing has paid some $1.6 billion in fines to the federal government, private citizens, states and counties in judgments levied against the defense giant.

According to POGO, these range from Arms Export Control violations, defective pricing, discriminatory practices against employees, the manufacturing of defective parts, Anti-Trust Law violations and the illegal discharge of radioactive and toxic chemical waste into the environment. Sounds like business as usual to me!

"Less than three weeks after the inauguration," as the World Socialist Web Site points out, "it is becoming ever more apparent that the new administration has been brought into office to defend the same social and class interests as the previous one, is utilizing similar methods and relying on the same personnel within the national security apparatus responsible for the criminal activities of the past eight years."

And with a "reconfigured" National Security Council on the horizon according to The Washington Post, one endowed with ever-more sweeping powers to set "strategy across a wide spectrum of international and domestic issues," who pray tell will be heading up those efforts? Why none other than John O. Brennan, of course!

Obama's first choice to head the CIA, Brennan has a dual role within the administration: as NSC Director James L. Jones' top adviser and as the president's resident counterterrorism and homeland security "expert."

As I reported shortly after the election in November, Brennan was a former president and CEO of The Analysis Corporation (TAC). During the 1990s, TAC developed the government's first terrorist database and in 2003 it morphed into the Terrorist Identities Datamart Environment (TIDE)--the "watch list people"--managed by the National Counterterrorism Center (NCTC) which Brennan directed for three years. How convenient!

However, Obama was forced to remove Brennan from consideration as CIA Director when it was revealed he was a leading advocate of the extraordinary rendition program and a staunch defender of the Company's "enhanced coercive interrogation techniques," the focus of the ACLU's lawsuit on behalf of Binyam Mohamed and other "war on terror" casualties.

In seeking to deny the victims their day in court, the Obama administration takes full possession of Bushist savagery. Now how's that for a dirty little (state) secret!



The url address of this article is: www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=12280
User avatar
JackRiddler
 
Posts: 16007
Joined: Wed Jan 02, 2008 2:59 pm
Location: New York City
Blog: View Blog (0)

Postby JackRiddler » Wed Mar 11, 2009 10:55 pm

Thanks to American Dream


Seymour Hersh: 'Executive Assassination Ring' Reported Directly to Cheney Office

By, AlterNet
Posted on March 11, 2009


http://www.alternet.org/bloggers/www.al ... rg/131144/

The following is part of a talk delivered by investigative journalist Seymour Hersh at the University of Minnesota last night. For a full report, go here.

"After 9/11, I haven't written about this yet, but the Central Intelligence Agency was very deeply involved in domestic activities against people they thought to be enemies of the state. Without any legal authority for it. They haven’t been called on it yet. That does happen.

"Right now, today, there was a story in the New York Times that if you read it carefully mentioned something known as the Joint Special Operations Command -- JSOC it’s called. It is a special wing of our special operations community that is set up independently. They do not report to anybody, except in the Bush-Cheney days, they reported directly to the Cheney office. They did not report to the chairman of the joint chiefs of staff or to Mr. [Robert] Gates, the secretary of defense. They reported directly to him. ...

"Congress has no oversight of it. It’s an executive assassination ring essentially, and it’s been going on and on and on. Just today in the Times there was a story that its leaders, a three star admiral named [William H.] McRaven, ordered a stop to it because there were so many collateral deaths.

"Under President Bush’s authority, they’ve been going into countries, not talking to the ambassador or the CIA station chief, and finding people on a list and executing them and leaving. That’s been going on, in the name of all of us.

"It’s complicated because the guys doing it are not murderers, and yet they are committing what we would normally call murder. It’s a very complicated issue. Because they are young men that went into the Special Forces. The Delta Forces you’ve heard about. Navy Seal teams. Highly specialized.

"In many cases, they were the best and the brightest. Really, no exaggerations. Really fine guys that went in to do the kind of necessary jobs that they think you need to do to protect America. And then they find themselves torturing people.

"I’ve had people say to me -- five years ago, I had one say: ‘What do you call it when you interrogate somebody and you leave them bleeding and they don’t get any medical committee and two days later he dies. Is that murder? What happens if I get before a committee.?’

"But they’re not gonna get before a committee.”


Apparently this picture is from a NY subway station:

Image

But they're getting away with it.

http://emptywheel.firedoglake.com/2009/ ... ire-today/

The Statute of Limitations on Bush’s March 11, 2004 Illegal Wiretapping Expires Today
By: emptywheel Tuesday March 10, 2009 9:53 am


Five years ago today, Andy Card and Alberto Gonzales rushed to John Ashcroft's ICU room to try to trick him into signing the re-authorization for George Bush's illegal wiretap program over Jim Comey's objections. Jim Comey arrived at the hospital in time to prevent Card and Gonzales from succeeding.

Five years ago tomorrow, George Bush re-authorized his illegal wiretap program with only the signature of Alberto Gonzales--then White House Counsel--to give it legal sanction.

Five years ago today and tomorrow, attorney Wendell Belew spoke to al-Haramain Director Soliman al-Buthi by telephone. Belew has reason to believe--and once had clear evidence that may have proved--those calls were wiretapped under Bush's illegal wiretap program.

As bmaz explained last year, in March 2004, FISA had a standard 5-year statute of limitation.

The first question any criminal defense attorney is going to ask is "Gee, is this crime within the statute of limitations"? FISA is subject to the Federal general statute of limitation contained in 18 USC 3282, which is five years. And, remember, the statute starts to run when the crime is committed and/or when the government becomes aware of the conduct; in this case the Department of Justice knew about the conduct as, or before, it was being committed. When we, as citizens learned about it is not the relevant test.

That means that the statute of limitations on the potentially criminal March 11 wiretaps of Belew expire today. By all appearances, that means the statute will expire without George Bush being punished for illegally wiretapping an American citizen, even though clear evidence of that criminal wiretapping almost certainly exists.

Now, as it happens, a District Court Judge may have or may be about to judge whether or not that wiretapping was illegal. I'm referring, of course, to the al-Haramain suit currently before Vaughn Walker. The last known development in that suit came eleven days ago, when the 9th Circuit ruled that Walker should review the wiretap log to determine whether it shows that al-Haramain is an aggrieved party (meaning they were wiretapped illegally), and when the Obama Administration corrected "inaccurate" information on the wiretap program probably submitted three years ago. Since then, nothing has appeared in the docket for the case.

The absence of any activity in the docket could mean one of two things. First, Vaughn Walker may still be reviewing all the new information he received on February 27--the four new declarations about the program--as well as the rather astonishing OLC opinions revealed last Monday. In other words, by flooding Walker with new information, the Obama Administration may have prevented Walker from ruling quickly on whether the al-Haramain wiretapping was legal until after the statute of limitations expire. He may still be wading through new legal issues that go beyond those raised by the wiretap log itself.

Or, it's possible that Vaughn Walker has already ruled. As I pointed out over the weekend, the Obama Administration requested that Judge Walker show them in his order before he publishes it to the docket so they can conduct a classification review and decide whether to appeal his decision.

Accordingly, the Government respectfully proposes that the Court utilize the following procedures. First, if the Court proceeds on an ex parte, in camera basis to review the Sealed Document in order to address the issue of standing, then regardless of how the Court would then intend to rule, the Government requests that the Court provide notice to the Government of any order it would place on the public record, so that the Government may conduct a classification review and determine whether to appeal before any information over which the Government claims privilege is disclosed to the public.


Frankly, if Walker said anything more than, "this suit may proceed" in his order, I would imagine he would respect DOJ's request. So it's possible he has ruled and DOJ has received his order.

If the latter scenario is the case, it would mean Eric Holder's DOJ would have received a judge's ruling that the wiretapping done five years ago was illegal. That is, DOJ may be sitting on a judge's order finding Bush's actions five years ago to be illegal under FISA.

Really depressing thought, isn't it, to think that DOJ may be sitting there gaping at not just the evidence that shows Bush broke the law, but even a judge's ruling that it did, even as the statute of limitations expires? Tick tock, tick tock, tick tock. Ding!!!!

Now, smart lawyers tell me there is still a way to hold Bush accountable for his actions five years ago--to charge the conspiracy to cover-up the criminal wrong-doing. I'll let bmaz challenge that stance in the comments--but suffice it to say that, since DOJ has known about these activities all along, it's going to be a hard case to make.

And, of course, there are later incidences of wiretapping (Belew also named a March 25 call, for example, as one he believed had been wiretapped) that probably fall in the period when the program operated with no sanction from DOJ. But even that would be all-but-impossible to indict between now and March 24.

Congratulations George Bush, Dick Cheney, David Addington, and Alberto Gonzales! With your stonewalling and delay, you appear to have avoided legal consequences for this particular crime committed while in office. You have deliberately violated a law designed to check presidential abuse of power, and Mukasey and Congress and Obama have let you get away with it.
User avatar
JackRiddler
 
Posts: 16007
Joined: Wed Jan 02, 2008 2:59 pm
Location: New York City
Blog: View Blog (0)

Postby JackRiddler » Fri Mar 13, 2009 12:57 am

.

http://washingtonindependent.com/33679/ ... rture-case

Obama Justice Department Urges Dismissal of Another Torture Case

By Daphne Eviatar 3/12/09 6:46 PM

In another move that suggests the Obama Department of Justice is not making many big policy breaks with its predecessor when it comes to the legal rights of Guantanamo Bay detainees, the department filed a brief renewing the government’s motion to dismiss the case of Rasul v. Rumsfeld.

The case is very similar to the lawsuit filed by U.S. citizen and former enemy combatant Jose Padilla against former Deputy Assistant Attorney General John Yoo, which I’ve been following. The plaintiffs in Rasul v. Rumsfeld allege that former Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and other senior Bush officials are responsible for their torture; prolonged arbitrary detention; cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment; cruel and unusual punishment; denial of liberties without due process, and preventing the exercise and expression of their religious beliefs.

According to their legal complaint, Shafiq Rasul, Asif Iqbal and Rhuhel Ahmed claim they traveled to Afghanistan in October 2001 to offer humanitarian relief to civilians. In late November, they were kidnapped by Rashid Dostum, the Uzbeki warlord and leader of the U.S.-supported Northern Alliance. He turned them over to U.S. custody – apparently for bounty money that American officials were paying for suspected terrorists. In December, without any independent evidence that the men had engaged in hostilities against the United States, U.S. officials sent them to Guantanamo Bay. Over the next two years, they claim — as does a fourth British man — that they were imprisoned in cages, tortured and humiliated, forced to shave their beards and watch their Korans desecrated, until they were returned to Britain in 2004. None were ever charged with a crime.

Dismissed at the urging of the Bush administration, the case was appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court. In December, the case was sent back to the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Washington for reconsideration, because the Supreme Court had ruled in Boumediene v. Bush that Guantanamo detainees have the right to challenge their detentions. It wasn’t clear what effect that ruling might have on the Rasul case.

Although some civil rights lawyers had hoped the Obama administration would change the government’s position — or at least try to settle this case, which is at the very least an embarrassment to the United States – the former prisoners had no such luck. Today, the Justice Department filed a brief arguing, as it did in Padilla’s case against Yoo, that government officials are not liable for torture, abuse, denial of due process or religious rights, because the right of Guantanamo prisoners not to suffer those abuses at the hands of the U.S. government was not clearly established at the time.

That would seem to contradict previous statements by President Obama and Attorney General Eric Holder that torture and other abuses are clearly illegal, now and always. It also may discourage those who are hoping the president will eventually support prosecutions of former Bush officials for exactly those crimes.

Reached today, the lead lawyer on the case, Eric Lewis, a partner at the Washington-based law firm, Baach Robinson & Lewis, said he was “disappointed” but “not surprised.”

However, as I’ve pointed out before in the context of the Yoo case, the defense does raise some serious questions about whether the Obama Justice Department really ought to be defending Donald Rumsfeld and his former colleagues in this case at all.

I’ll be writing more about this case and others like it, as well as their implications, in the coming week.


.
User avatar
JackRiddler
 
Posts: 16007
Joined: Wed Jan 02, 2008 2:59 pm
Location: New York City
Blog: View Blog (0)

Postby American Dream » Tue Mar 17, 2009 8:51 am

Kucinich requests investigation into 'executive assassination ring'
Global Research, March 16, 2009
rawstory.com


After comments made by a New Yorker journalist about Vice President Dick Cheney's alleged involvement in a "executive assassination ring" abroad, Rep. Dennis Kucinich (D-OH) called Monday for a formal congressional probe.

Kucinich's call was concomitant with a letter he sent to House Oversight Chairman Edolphus Towns.

Describing the allegation, Kucinich writes, "Mr. Hersh made the allegation before an audience at the University of Minnesota on Tuesday, March 10, 2009" in which "he stated, ‘Under President Bush’s authority, they’ve been going into countries, not talking to the ambassador or the CIA station chief, and finding people on a list and executing them and leaving. It is a special wing of our special operations community that is set up independently. They do not report to anybody, except in the Bush-Cheney days, they reported directly to the Cheney office... Congress has no oversight of it.'"

Hersh's claim is detailed here in an earlier piece by Raw Story.

“If true, these operations violate longstanding U.S. policy regarding covert actions and illegally bypass Congressional oversight," Kucinich adds. "Hersh is within a year or more of releasing a book that is said to include evidence of this allegation. However, we cannot wait a year or more to establish the truth.”

The 62-year-old lawmaker and former Democratic presidential candidate is known for his bold and liberal moves. In April 2007, he filed an impeachment resolution against Vice President Cheney over manipulating evidence about Iraq's weapons program prior to the US invasion. The measure was blocked by the Democratic leadership. He also presented articles of impeachment against President George W. Bush in June 2008, but that effort again went nowhere.

Hersh, the New Yorker journalist who made the claim, also revealed US preparations for a possible Iran strike that was later sidelined, and is also known for revealing the My Lai massacre during Vietnam.


The full text of Kucinich's letter follows:

March 13, 2009
The Honorable Edolphus Towns
Chairman
Committee on Oversight and Government Reform
U.S. House of Representatives
2157 Rayburn House Office Building
Washington, DC 20515

Dear Chairman Towns:

As you may already be aware, recent media reports indicate that investigative reporter, Seymour Hersh, while answering questions before a public audience at the University of Minnesota divulged information about what he calls an “executive assassination ring” operating under the George W. Bush Administration.

If substantiated, the allegation would have far reaching implications for the United States. Such an assertion from someone of Hersh’s credibility that has a long and proven track record of dependability on these issues merits attention. Mr. Hersh is within a year or more of releasing a book that is said to include evidence of this allegation. However, we cannot wait a year or more to establish the truth. As such, I request that the Full Committee immediately begin an investigation to determine the facts in this matter.

Mr. Hersh made the allegation before an audience at the University of Minnesota on Tuesday, March 10, 2009. He stated, “Under President Bush’s authority, they’ve been going into countries, not talking to the ambassador or the CIA station chief, and finding people on a list and executing them and leaving.”

Mr. Hersh continued, “It is a special wing of our special operations community that is set up independently," he explained. "They do not report to anybody, except in the Bush-Cheney days, they reported directly to the Cheney office. . .Congress has no oversight of it.”

If true, these operations violate longstanding U.S. policy regarding covert actions and illegally bypass Congressional oversight. Current statute governing covert action (50 U.S.C. 413b) requires a presidential finding and notification to the appropriate congressional committees. Additionally, Executive Order 12333 clearly states that “No person employed by or acting on behalf of the United States Government shall engage in or conspire to engage in assassination.”

I urge the Committee to explore Mr. Hersh’s allegation. Please do not hesitate to call on me or my staff if we can be of assistance.

Sincerely,
Dennis J. Kucinich
Member of Congress



The url address of this article is: www.globalresearch.ca/PrintArticle.php?articleId=12762
American Dream
 
Posts: 19946
Joined: Sat Sep 15, 2007 4:56 pm
Location: Planet Earth
Blog: View Blog (0)

PreviousNext

Return to General Discussion

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 164 guests