Panetta on Why Torturers Shouldn't be Prosecuted

During his confirmation hearing on Thursday, Leon Panetta, Obama's choice to be the next head of the CIA added the following after responding to Senator Carl Levin that he believed water boarding was torture:

Having said that, I also believe as the president has indicated that those individuals who operated pursuant to a legal opinion that indicated that that was proper and legal ought not be prosecuted or investigated and that they acted pursuant to the law as it was presented to them by the attorney general.

If that doesn't smack of the Nixonian maxim that "it's not illegal if the president does it", I don't know what does.

What Panetta is saying is that even though the legal opinion that allowed Buscho to sanction torture may have been unconstitutional, the law was the law was the law at that time. In effect, the torturers were only following orders. Well, that defense didn't fly at Nuremberg and it surely should not be used by this administration in any form to absolve torturers.

Not only that, Panetta (who stated that he's agreeing with Obama's beliefs on this matter, you'll note) does not even believe these torturers should be investigated. And that might be all right - if the US was a dictatorship.

But, I suppose this is all moot anyway considering that the Military Commissions Act not only provided cover for torturers but granted CIA agents retroactive immunity.

Let's face it, Bush and his torturers will never be brought to justice in a US court. There is no will for it in government. The Democrats are busily "looking ahead" so they can avoid assigning responsibility for the crimes of the past - believing that somehow that will assuage the Republicans and make them more amenable to deal with. (Or perhaps they're covering up their own complicity in those crimes.)

I can't imagine that it's comforting for Dem party supporters to know that Obama and Panetta both believe that if a president orders an unconstitutional law, those who carry it out get a free pass.

Or maybe it is. I don't know. I'm not a Democrat or an Obama supporter...
 

Sunday Food for Thought: Softening Torture

Dan Eggen, writing for the Washington Post on Sunday, uses the term "permissable assaults" in his headline to his story about the newly-released John Yoo torture memo.

Thirty pages into a memorandum discussing the legal boundaries of military interrogations in 2003, senior Justice Department lawyer John C. Yoo tackled a question not often asked by American policymakers: Could the president, if he desired, have a prisoner's eyes poked out?

Or, for that matter, could he have "scalding water, corrosive acid or caustic substance" thrown on a prisoner? How about slitting an ear, nose or lip, or disabling a tongue or limb? What about biting?

These assaults are all mentioned in a U.S. law prohibiting maiming, which Yoo parsed as he clarified the legal outer limits of what could be done to terrorism suspects as detained by U.S. authorities. The specific prohibitions, he said, depended on the circumstances or which "body part the statute specifies."

But none of that matters in a time of war, Yoo also said, because federal laws prohibiting assault, maiming and other crimes by military interrogators are trumped by the president's ultimate authority as commander in chief.

Eggen notes this "dry discussion", as he phrases it but also adds, "No maiming is known to have occurred in U.S. interrogations".

Tell that to Maher Arar, Omar Khadr and several other prisoners of the Bush administration who have lived to tell of their torture. And it is torture. The use of the word "maiming", along with the word "assault" only serves to soften the offences that Yoo attempted to minimize on behalf of the bloodthirsty, fearful, and paranoid administration. Parsing words in the legal sense is only presented by Yoo in order to circumvent the relevant Geneva Conventions which prohibit such abhorrent treatment of prisoners while the passage of the 2006 Military Commissions Act, supported by some so-called Democrats in the house and senate, granted CIA interrogators immunity from prosecution for torture - a blank slate to continue at will no matter who succeeds Bush.

There was a huge public outcry following the airing of the Abu Ghraib torture photos but it seems the American public has simply given up on the idea of prosecuting the Bush administration for its war crimes. The fact that the release of the latest Yoo memo was just another 30-second story in the MSM last week shows the world that there is no longer any mainstream interest in what is the worst kind of inhumanity (along with the placing of the killings of hundreds of thousands of Iraqis during the illegal occupation on the back burner while too many Americans are much too eager to believe that the so-called surge is actually working.)

Horror has become commonplace.

The Bush administration years are a textbook case on how totalitarianism is allowed to take root in a nation. Very simply, a compliant public surrenders.

Bush's biggest war hasn't been the so-called war against terror. It has been, instead, the war against domestic rebellion in the Unites States in the face of his dictatorial power grabs. And he has succeeded.

Through his application of the unitary executive theory, the rights-suppressing Patriot Act, illegal wiretapping, invasion of privacy, relentless fear mongering and his willingness to detain people without due process while justifying the circumvention of the most basic human and civil rights with the help of lawyers like John Yoo and Alberto Gonzales, the message George W Bush has sent is clear: he is the law.

Meanwhile, the American citizenry has decided to just wait him out - hoping that a new administration will not retain or add to the powers Bush has declared to be within the scope of the presidency. A dangerous gamble, no doubt, no matter who wins the White House. The balance among the three branches of the US government has shifted to the point that there is no longer, for all practical purposes, any way to ensure accountability. Who can the people trust when the Democrats refused to even attempt to impeach anyone in the face of such obvious crimes? No one.

So that's where America stands today - waiting to move on from these horrors while having no concrete assurances that that will even take place. And it's the waiting and the silence that are the problems. As Benjamin Franklin declared and as we are so often reminded: "They who would give up an essential liberty for temporary security, deserve neither liberty or security."

And those who refuse to stand up to their government when it tortures get exactly the government they deserve. Waiting solves nothing and turning a blind eye is cowardice.
 

So Gonzales has resigned...

...and has decided to join the rest of the Bush regime cowards who've run away.

I thought this was more than fitting for such an occasion.


No, Al wasn't "dragged through the mud" as the boy king says. Gonzales picked the mud pile and wallowed in it for all it was worth as long as he could. Don't ask him about it though. He'll just say he can't recall.

Bush's Culture of Death

The cover story of The Independent newspaper today, "Bush's lethal legacy: more executions" alerts its readers to the fact that Alberto Gonzales may soon be given the ultimate authority in death penalty cases.

The Bush administration is preparing to speed up the executions of criminals who are on death row across the United States, in effect, cutting out several layers of appeals in the federal courts so that prisoners can be "fast-tracked" to their deaths.

More details from the LA Times:

WASHINGTON — The Justice Department is putting the final touches on regulations that could give Atty. Gen. Alberto R. Gonzales important new sway over death penalty cases in California and other states, including the power to shorten the time that death row inmates have to appeal convictions to federal courts.

The rules implement a little-noticed provision [probably because none of the legislators actually cared that it was in there or even bothered to read the bill since they seldom do. -catnip] in last year's reauthorization of the Patriot Act that gives the attorney general the power to decide whether individual states are providing adequate counsel for defendants in death penalty cases. The authority has been held by federal judges.

Under the rules now being prepared, if a state requested it and Gonzales agreed, prosecutors could use "fast track" procedures that could shave years off the time that a death row inmate has to appeal to the federal courts after conviction in a state court.

The Independent looks at Gonzales' horrendously careless track record in Texas where he also dealt with death penalty cases with Bush and there's no need to wonder aloud why Bush would want to grant Gonzales such power considering they've both dedicated themselves to destroying the legal, civil and human rights of Americans for such a long time. Nor do I feel the need to argue against the death penalty, as I've done that extensively here before.

I do think that this quote from The Independent illustrates the ultimate hypocrisy though and needs to be focused on:

At no time has Mr Bush seen any contradiction with his avowed commitment to the sanctity of life. As President he has even instituted a National Sanctity of Human Life Day, which, he has said, "serves as a reminder we must value human life in all its forms, not just those considered healthy, wanted, or convenient".

Contrast that with how he mocked Karla Faye Tucker when she was on death row in Texas and you know all there is to know about Bush's views about the so-called "sanctity" of life - a term that only applies to fetuses - not to those who are already born.

If he actually had any concern for the "sanctity" of life, he would not choose to hide the coffins of the troops returning home from his failed wars. Of course, "No one suffers more" than George and Laura when it comes to the Iraq war. "No one". If he really valued life, he would take it upon himself to actually attend some of their funerals and would never have lied, sending thousands of Americans to their deaths while causing the deaths and displacement of hundreds of thousands of Iraqis at the same time - all for the sake of fattening the bank accounts of his war profiteering buddies. Blood money.

He would never have told Brownie that he was doing a "heckuva job" while people were still dying from the gross negligence of FEMA and his administration in NOLA and elsewhere in the gulf region. He would not have foisted Reaganesque "trickle down economics"/tax cuts for the wealthy on the American people believing that somehow the poor would eventually benefit. He would not neglect the fact that over 40 million Americans don't have health care coverage - making his government complicit in their daily pain, suffering and deaths. He would actually embrace science instead of treating it like a cult meant to undermine religion. He wouldn't have spent almost half a trillion dollars on the war machine - bankrupting future generations, those fetuses he claims to care about so much who, guaranteed, will certainly suffer much more than George and Laura ever have or could even conceive.

There are a lot of things he would do if he believed in that so-called "sanctity".

And now he wants to kill death row inmates more quickly - yet another manifestation of his sociopathic personality in which the word "compassion" exists somewhere between "callous" and "conservative" in the dictionary.

There is no nobility to be found in participating in the deaths of your fellow countrymen. There is no glory to be had by hastening their deaths. There is no pulpit to stand and preach from, exalting your moral supremacy, when you choose to deny justice to people sentenced to die.

There ought to be a totally shameful sense of failure when you've (once again) placed yourself in the company of the some of the world's worst human rights abusers (countries you condemn) while you lie about your justice system being the "best" in the world.

2006 executions

China: 1,010+

Iran: 177

Pakistan: 82

Iraq: 65+

Sudan: 65+

USA: 53

Saudi Arabia: 39+

Yemen: 30+

Vietnam: 14

Kuwait: 10+

Source: Amnesty International, based on 2006 figures

+ symbol indicates that the figure is a minimum one; the true figure may be higher due to state secrecy or a lack of available information

But in order to feel shame you need to have a conscience, and people like Bush and Gonzales and those who support their culture of death have never proven that they do. They are predictably and unapologetically apathetic - these task maskers of death.
 

Random News & Views Roundup

- When the going gets tough, the weak run to Baghdad for a photo op. Although, Bush and Cheney may just be hoping that Abu Gonzales runs into one of those pesky IEDs. Then they can literally kill two annoying birds with one stone: the Gonzales problem - gone - and they can blame Iran on top of it. Oh no, I'm starting to think like them...must be a virus...I'd better take some medication. There is medication, right?

- Mitt "Ken Doll™" Romney won the Iowa straw pall on Saturday. What a manly man:

AMES, Iowa (Reuters) - Republican Mitt Romney won the first test of the 2008 White House race on Saturday, using a big wallet and broad organization to muscle aside a field of second-tier rivals in a low-turnout Iowa straw poll.

Hell, that description's almost porn film worthy. Show me your big wallet and your broad shoulders, muscle man. (Not that I've ever actually seen a porn film. *cough*)

- Some kind of beam was installed on the space station today. I think they may be planning to make the Canadian astronaut walk the plank. I hear he's been telling a lot of Bush jokes up there.

- Yasser Arafat was poisoned?

- The Bush administration is nervous about Musharraf's future - so much so that it's assessing Pakistan's nuclear weapons. Not only that:

Musharraf controls the loyalty of the commanders and senior officials in charge of the nuclear program, but those loyalties could shift at any point, officials say.

The United States is not certain who might start controlling nuclear launch codes and weapons if that shift in power were to happen.

That's comforting, isn't it? Musharraf tried his best to provide reassurance on Saturday, which might actually mean something if he wasn't in the middle of huge political mess (of his own creation).

- Gordon Prather: Challenging Bush’s Reality (on Iran).

- Ben Tripp: On Fleeing the Country (a good read)
 

Random News & Views Roundup

- So much for Obama's hawkish foreign policy:

ISLAMABAD (AFP) - Pakistan accused Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama of "sheer ignorance" for threatening to launch US military strikes against Al-Qaeda on Pakistani soil.

- So the White House thumbed its nose at having Karl Rove testifying before the senate committee investigating the US attorneys scandal and his aide, Scott Jennings, showed up and refused to answer "at least a dozen questions". Like getting blood from a stone.

Sen. Dick Durbin, D-Illinois, asked Jennings, "Where is Karl Rove? Why is he hiding? Why does he throw a young staffer like you into the line of fire while he hides behind the White House curtains?"

Because he's an arrogant asshole, Dick. Next question?

- I'd sure like to know where the Bush administration finds these clueless people who apparently all live on Fantasy Island:

WASHINGTON, Aug. 2 — Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates said Thursday that he was discouraged by the resignation of the Sunnis from Iraq’s cabinet and that the Bush administration might have misjudged the difficulty of achieving reconciliation between Iraq’s sectarian factions.

In one of his bluntest assessments of the progress of the administration’s Iraq strategy, Mr. Gates said, “I think the developments on the political side are somewhat discouraging at the national level.” He said that despite the Sunni withdrawal, “my hope is that it can all be patched back together.”

I guess democracy's a quilt now.

He acknowledged that when the Bush administration decided to send the additional troops, “We probably all underestimated the depth of the mistrust and how difficult it would be for these guys to come together on legislation, which, let’s face it, is not some kind of secondary issue.”

"might have"? "probably"?? Sheesh.

- Proof that Republicans are partisan idiots:

WASHINGTON -- Congress struggled Thursday over giving the government more power to eavesdrop on suspected terrorists, bogged down by concerns about the man who would oversee the plan _ Attorney General Alberto Gonzales.
[...]
Gonzales "is clearly one of the concerns that has been expressed by the Democratic leaders," House Republican leader John Boehner of Ohio told reporters.

"But at the end of the day, there has to be a way for our intelligence and counterintelligence agencies to collect data from known terrorists," Boehner said. "And we shouldn't let personalities get in the way of protecting the American people."

One of the most corrupt and torture-loving AGs ever and Boehner thinks it's a personality issue? That's exactly why America is so bloody screwed up.
 

Video: Olbermann - Is Gonzo gonzo?

Let's hope so.



Related:
Cheney Hails His Pal Al

And what does Nancy Pelosi think about impeaching Gonzales?

In the first question of the morning, Pelosi was asked if she supported a proposal by Washington Rep. Jay Inslee to impeach beleaguered Attorney General Alberto Gonzales.

The Speaker looked down and rubbed her temples wearily. "I would like us to stay focused on our agenda this week," she said. Today the entails finalizing ethics and lobbying reform. Tomorrow it will mean expanding children's health care and boosting Medicare benefits. By the end of the week the House will likely pass an energy bill and legislation will be brought to the floor that reins in the Bush Administration's warrantless wiretapping program.

Pelosi's no fan of Gonzales or his bosses. "The Administration wants the Attorney General to sign off on what can be collected," she says of the wiretapping proposal. "Absolutely not."

She is greatly disturbed by the lawlessness of this Administration and its contempt for checks and balances. "I take an oath to defend and protect the Constitution, so it is a top priority for me and my colleagues to uphold that." [not when it comes to impeachment though. -catnip] She notes the vigorous oversight hearings held by committee chairman like John Conyers and Henry Waxman.

But Pelosi sees impeaching Gonzales and his superiors as a distraction from the ambitious agenda she has crafted for the House. "If I can just hold my caucus together," she says, "I can take them to this progressive place."

Oh just go home, Nancy.
 

Random News & Views Roundup

- If you're Alberto Gonzales, you know you're in trouble when the FBI director contradicts your sworn testimony.

- Pat Tillman's mother has long thought he may have been murdered. New details published by the AP may help boost that claim. After all, you really have to wonder why the White House would use executive privilege to block the release of the relevant documents it has in this case which has been repeatedly spun by Bush's operatives.

- Karl Rove subpoenaed. I'd rather see the headline, "Karl Rove Convicted", but that will do for now.

- Remember Weibo Ludwig? He's ba-ack. Most retirees take up golfing or gardening. I'm just sayin'.

- Is that bottled water you're buying just expensive tap water? In some cases, yes.

- Reefer madness. It's real. But the movie was still hilariously bad.

- John Pilger: How Truth Slips Down the Memory Hole.

- Nucking Futs, or Crazy Like a Fox? (Hey, it's not my headline, but it is apropos especially when they're hailing losers like DeLay, Lieberman and Santorum). Much more on Hagee here.

- And, speaking of Israel, a US house subcommittee voted in favour of handing over $150 million dollars for its ballistic defence system. Armageddon, here we come.

- Another neocon wet dream: Bush Speechwriter Calls for Attack on Syria. I imagine they'd just choose to nuke the entire middle east if it weren't for Israel being there (and if they could find some way to recover the oil after the bombings.)

- Iraqi oil patch workers continue to protest the proposed US-driven Iraq oil law. Meanwhile, back at the al-Maliki ranch, Sunni lawmakers have walked out and:

...immediately suspended all participation with the government and gave al-Maliki one week to meet package of demands or it would completely pull out of the government.

Among the bloc's demands were a government pardon for all security detainees not charged with crimes, disbanding all Shi'ite militias, an opportunity for the front to have real participation in the decision-making process and the strict adherence to the International Declaration of Human Rights.
[...]
...more than one-quarter of the places in al-Maliki's 38-member cabinet are vacant due to protests.

And freedom still isn't on the march.
 

Video: Olbermann on Gonzales' Credibility

Impeach the lying bastard and get it over with.
 

Gonzales testifies; Bush cites al Qaeda 95 times in a speech

While Alberto Gonzales was, again, refusing to answer vital questions about the US attorney firings, what really happened at Ashcroft's hospital bedside, (C&L has the video) and insisting on dancing around the issue of torture in front of the senate judiciary committee today, his partner in crime, George Bush, gave a speech in which he referred to al Qaeda 95 times. "Al Qaeda is in Iraq and they're there for a reason," Bush said. Well, yes, they're there because you decided to illegally invade Iraq and invited them with your "bring 'em on" macho posturing.

And, as usual, Bush tried hard (it's hard work) to make the imaginary, debunked connection between 9/11 and al Qaeda in Iraq:

"I presented intelligence that clearly establishes this connection," said Bush. "The facts are that al Qaeda terrorists killed Americans on 9/11, they're fighting us in Iraq and across the world, and they're plotting to kill Americans here at home again."

Terror, terror, terror - but it's the same old story and certainly didn't stop the press from reporting on Gonzales' shady testimony.

Senators from both sides of the aisle attacked Gonzales:

"The attorney general has lost the confidence of the Congress and the American people," Leahy said. He said the administration "has squandered our trust" and told Gonzales bluntly, "I don't trust you."

Specter said there was "evidence of low morale" at the Justice Department and blasted what he described as Gonzales's lack of "personal credibility." He called the department "dysfunctional."

I imagine that what they're saying when the mics are off is much more scathing than that.

And the wrangling over the US attorney firings continues:

Gonzales again depicted himself as largely detached from controversial personnel practices, including the firings of the nine U.S. attorneys last year. But in a video message to Justice Department employees on Friday, he said, "I am sorry, and I accept full responsibility."

But that's the nature of most, if not all, of his answers - constantly contradicting himself. If he bobbed and weaved physically as much as he did verbally today, he would have collapsed from sheer exhaustion halfway through the hearings.

With his legal advisors in tow, sitting right behind him throughout the hearing, I got the sense I was watching a mob boss testifying. That's not much of a stretch considering the lengths Gonzales has gone to try to stretch and obfuscate national and international laws. And, even though he insists he's determined to stay on and "fix" the problems in the justice department (to which one senator responded that at least he's admitting there are problems), the best thing for all sane and law-abiding people involved would be to impeach the bastard and find someone who actually believes that the law isn't a partisan, political tool. Not an easy job in DC but, at this point, they couldn't do that much worse than the lying attorney general they have now. His arrogance knows no bounds and his disrespect for the law and international treaties out to be enough to disbar him for life.

CSPAN has the video of today's hearing.

Update: Code Pink was on hand at the hearings to protest against Gonzales. You can see a video of that protest here.
 

Impeachment: The responsibility of the citizens

Via Bill Moyer's Journal, July 13, 2007:

JOHN NICHOLS: --back in 1974, after Nixon had resigned, and said, "We must continue the impeachment process." It's-- it is under the Constitution certainly appropriate to do so. And we must continue it because we have to close the circle on presidential power. And the leaders in Congress, the Democratic leaders in Congress at the time said, "No, the-- country has suffered too much." Well, this is the problem. Our leaders treat us as children. They think that we cannot handle a serious dialogue about the future of our republic, about what it will be and how it will operate. And so, you know, to an extent, we begin to act like children. We, you know, follow other interests. We decide to be entertained rather than to be citizens.

Well, you know, and Bruce makes frequent references to the fall of the Roman Empire. You know, that's the point at where the fall comes. It doesn't come because of a bad leader. It doesn't come because of a dysfunctional Congress. It comes when the people accept that-- role of the child or of the subject and are no longer citizens. And so I think this moment becomes so very, very important because we know the high crimes and misdemeanors.

The people themselves have said, if the polls are correct, that, you know, something ought to be done. If nothing is done, if we do not step forward at this point, if we do not step up to this point, then we have, frankly, told the people, you know, you can even recognize that the king has no clothes, but we're not gonna put any clothes on him. And at that point, the country is in very, very dire circumstances.

According to the latest American Research Group poll on impeachment, only ~46% support beginning impeachment proceedings against George Bush: 69% of Democrats; 13% of Republicans and 50% of independents.

Only ~46%.

“As citizens of this democracy, you are the rulers and the ruled, the law-givers and the law-abiding, the beginning and the end.”
- Adlai Stevenson

There is no doubt that the paternalistic aura of the American presidency, in which the president is viewed not as someone elected to serve the needs of the country's citizens but to forward his own agenda on behalf of his party with a "father knows best" approach, has continually relegated the citizenry to the role of subservient children. And, as has been seen with every power grab, every law the Bush administration has flagrantly and so brazenly broken, too many citizens accept what they seem to believe is their ultimate fate.

The fact that the new pseudo-mother of the Democratic party, Nancy Pelosi, and her senate mate, the kindly, soft-spoken Harry Reid have refused to initiate impeachment proceedings on behalf of party members who clearly wish otherwise also illustrates the parent/child dynamic that so pervades politicians in leadership positions. Although it's not as if Democratic party voters weren't warned when Pelosi made it blisteringly clear prior to the election that impeachment was "off the table". The moment she made that assertion was the moment there should have been a huge, public revolt against the Democratic leadership, but the idea of finally reclaiming congress (as if that meant much of anything, as we've seen with the Democrats' absolutely dismal performance since that happened) was more important than standing up as citizens to reclaim their country.

When your leaders tell you they will not work on your behalf or when they have the power and refuse to use it, the job of a citizen is to hold them accountable. That applies to all leaders. That has not happened in a very public way amongst the American citizenry and it's doubtful that it will in any meaningful way.

If the Democratic leaders had actually done their job and started impeachment proceedings when they gained subpoena power, perhaps the evidence they could have brought forth to this point would have convinced more than that 46% of citizens overall who are now in favour of impeachment. One would think, as I certainly do, that Bush's own statements about how he knowingly broke the law in the case of the secret CIA prisons and the illegal wiretappings of American citizens (not to mention the illegal Iraq war) would have been enough for a massive groundswell of support for impeachment. Apparently not.

Of those citizens who do favour impeachment, their voices are simply being ignored - especially the 69% of Democrats in that poll who favour the proceedings. But, at the same time, perhaps the citizenry isn't making enough of an effort to be heard. One only has to look at the amazing protests held in other countries when a leader goes astray. It's as if, and is likely the case as Nichols pointed out, that they have foregone using the power they have after being treated like and acting like unruly children who are just a nuisance to democracy. After a while, you believe that any effort is just futile when you're subjected to authoritarianism.

Add to that the fact that at the largest so-called "progressive" site on the internet which exists to get Democrats elected - Daily Kos - kos, the owner, stated last December that talk of impeachment was "impeachment porn" and that those who have supported impeachment there have continually been bullied into toeing the Pelosi/Reid party line that impeachment would just take time away from the other "important work" the congress has to do (which, as we've seen with their failure to force an end to the Iraq war with anything resembling strength, has been a lost cause) and it's no surprise that Republican/conservative-style authoritarianism has been accepted as being the norm by far too many citizens - across the political spectrum. The "children" must be controlled. Barring that, they must be silenced.

The Impeach Bush site is planning a September 15th protest in Washington as a follow up to their protest earlier this year in March. But two protests in an entire year are just not enough either to rally more widespread support among a citizenry that Nichols characterized as preferring to be "entertained".

It is very likely that the Bush administration members who should be investigated for impeachment: Bush, Cheney, Gonzales and anyone else suspected of deserving such punishment - will walk away scott free in the end. That failure will rest on the shoulders of all Americans: that the most blatantly criminal administration in America's history was never held to account for the crimes it perpetrated on its own citizens who chose to enable it rather than to confront it - and that the failure to demand justice on behalf of the citizens of other countries who have also been the victims of those crimes will certainly not be forgotten.

If you want your country back, take it.
 

The White House Flip Flops on Cheney's Role

Well that was quick.

All hat, no cattle:

WASHINGTON, June 27 — The White House has dropped the argument that Vice President Dick Cheney’s dual role as president of the Senate meant that he could deny access to national archivists who oversee the handling of classified data in the executive branch.

Mr. Cheney’s office had said that his dual role meant that he was technically not part of the executive branch.

In interviews over the last two days, officials have said that while the vice president does, in fact, have the right of refusal, it is for the very opposite reason: He is not required to cooperate with National Archives officials seeking the data because he is a member of the executive branch, with power vested in him by the president.

Cheney was against his power before he was for it.

They think they're pretty darn sly over there at the WH:

In an interview, a White House spokesman, Tony Fratto, said the executive order explicitly placed Mr. Cheney on equal footing with the president, who was the issuer and enforcer of the order, regardless of any other constitutional questions.

Speaking of the oversight office’s approaches to the vice president’s office, Mr. Fratto said, “It’s not appropriate for a subordinate office like that to investigate or require reporting from the enforcer of the executive order.”

A White House official placed further distance from the dual role argument by adding that Mr. Cheney did not necessarily agree with it.

Riiight. And there really is a tooth fairy.

And meanwhile, speaking of executive privilege:

WASHINGTON - President Bush, moving toward a constitutional showdown with Congress, asserted executive privilege Thursday and rejected lawmakers' demands for documents that could shed light on the firings of federal prosecutors.

Bush's attorney told Congress the White House would not turn over subpoenaed documents for former presidential counsel Harriet Miers and former political director Sara Taylor. Congressional panels want the documents for their investigations of Attorney General Alberto Gonzales' stewardship of the Justice Department.

After all, they tried so hard to be cooperative - in their own minds, anyway:

"With respect, it is with much regret that we are forced down this unfortunate path which we sought to avoid by finding grounds for mutual accommodation," White House counsel Fred Fielding said in a letter to the chairmen of the Senate and House Judiciary Committees. "We had hoped this matter could conclude with your committees receiving information in lieu of having to invoke executive privilege. Instead, we are at this conclusion."

"Unfortunate". That seesm to be this week's buzzword.

So, what's next?

Thursday was the deadline for surrendering the documents. The White House also made clear that Miers and Taylor would not testify next month, as directed by the subpoenas, which were issued June 13. The stalemate could end up with House and Senate contempt citations and a battle in federal court over separation of powers.

I'll tell you what: change that "could" to "should" and just get on with it already.
 

Gitmo Closing? Detainees Going to Kansas?

That's the speculation via the AP:

WASHINGTON (AP) — The Bush administration is nearing a decision to close the Guantanamo Bay detention facility and move the terror suspects there to military prisons elsewhere, The Associated Press has learned.

Senior administration officials said Thursday a consensus is building for a proposal to shut the center and transfer detainees to one or more Defense Department facilities, including the maximum-security military prison at Fort Leavenworth, Kan., where they could face trial.

President Bush's national security and legal advisers had been scheduled to discuss the move at a meeting Friday, the officials said, but after news of it broke, the White House said the meeting would not take place that day and no decision on Guantanamo Bay's status is imminent.

"It's no longer on the schedule for tomorrow," said Gordon Johndroe, a spokesman for the National Security Council. "Senior officials have met on the issue in the past, and I expect they will meet on the issue in the future."
[...]
Previous plans to close Guantanamo have run into resistance from Cheney, Gonzales and former Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld. But officials said the new suggestion is gaining momentum with at least tacit support from the State and Homeland Security departments, the Pentagon, and the Intelligence directorate.

Cheney's office and the Justice Department have been dead set against the step, arguing that moving "unlawful" enemy combatant suspects to the U.S. would give them undeserved legal rights.

Yes, moving the detainees onto US soil would certainly complicate things for those who just want to keep them locked up while throwing away the key. But if Gitmo is shut down, at least Cheney's Halliburton/KBR buddies will be thankful that they got to build a new facility there to the tune of $30 million that opened just last year - a place that will hopefully be developing cobwebs sometime soon while the war profiteers count their gold.

Let's review some facts about Gitmo from that 2006 article:

An investigation earlier this year by New Jersey's Seton Hall University showed that, based on the military's own documents, 55 per cent of prisoners are not alleged to have committed any hostile acts against the US, and 40 per cent are not accused of affiliation with al-Qa'ida.

The same documents suggested only 8 per cent of prisoners are accused of fighting for a terrorist group, and that 86 per cent were captured by the Northern Alliance or Pakistani authorities "at a time when the US offered large bounties for the capture of suspected terrorists".

And the usual bluster from Commander Guy™:

Speaking in the Rose Garden in June following the suicide of three prisoners, Mr Bush said: "I'd like to close Guantanamo, but I also recognise that we're holding some people that are darn dangerous, and that we better have a plan to deal with them in our courts."

Well, he had a plan. It was rejected by the Supremes. Congress came up with another one. That one was thrown out the window recently too. So here we are. Detainees stuck in a hellish limbo with no legal way to try them - very few of which are probably actually guilty of something. Even Bush has had to admit that with his catch and release program over the last 6 years.

Fool me once, shame on — shame on you. Fool me — you can't get fooled again.

And it's about damn time, oops "darn" time, that those detainees (kidnap victims stuck in the middle of nowhere whom the US government admitted torturing) saw something that resembles proper justice - a concept quite unfamiliar to the Bush administration - no matter what Darth Cheney and Abu Gonzales think.

Related: Sidney Blumenthal's "Imperial presidency declared null and void"
 

Britain's Alberto Gonzales

The Independent reports:

The Attorney General, Lord Goldsmith, is facing accusations that he told the Army its soldiers were not bound by the Human Rights Act when arresting, detaining and interrogating Iraqi prisoners.

Previously confidential emails, seen by The Independent, between London and British military head-quarters in Iraq soon after the start of the war suggest Lord Goldsmith's advice was to adopt a "pragmatic" approach when handling prisoners and it was not necessary to follow the " higher standards" of the protection of the Human Rights Act.

That, according to human rights lawyers, was tantamount to the Attorney General advising the military to ignore the Human Rights Act and to simply observe the Geneva Conventions. It was also contrary to advice given by the Army's senior lawyer in Iraq, who urged higher standards to be met.

Today, rights groups and experts in international law will call on the Government to disclose Lord Goldsmith's legal opinion, which they say could have helped create a culture of abuse of Iraqis by British soldiers.

Who are these heartless men who obviously have no functioning conscience who decide that torturing and abusing human beings is acceptable in any instance - especially considering that the Geneva Conventions have been in place for decades to stop these horrendous practices? And who are the extremely ignorant people who give them promotions as rewards for their unconscionable and illegal opinions? And who are the lawmakers who support these crimes against humanity?

Cowards. They're all cowardly criminals.

Related:
Shami Chakrabarti: We risk the values that make Britain worth defending
An abuse of human rights - and a blot on our integrity
 

Impeach Gonzales

A visibly shaken James Comey testified before the senate judiciary committee on Tuesday about the cold-heartedness and heavy-handedness of Alberto Gonzales and the White House who tried to convince a very ill and hospitalized John Ashcroft to reauthorize the warrantless wiretapping program back in 2004.

Via the WaPo:

JAMES B. COMEY, the straight-as-an-arrow former No. 2 official at the Justice Department, yesterday offered the Senate Judiciary Committee an account of Bush administration lawlessness so shocking it would have been unbelievable coming from a less reputable source. The episode involved a 2004 nighttime visit to the hospital room of then-Attorney General John D. Ashcroft by Alberto Gonzales, then the White House counsel, and Andrew H. Card Jr., then the White House chief of staff. Only the broadest outlines of this visit were previously known: that Mr. Comey, who was acting as attorney general during Mr. Ashcroft's illness, had refused to recertify the legality of the administration's warrantless wiretapping program; that Mr. Gonzales and Mr. Card had tried to do an end-run around Mr. Comey; that Mr. Ashcroft had rebuffed them.

Mr. Comey's vivid depiction, worthy of a Hollywood script, showed the lengths to which the administration and the man who is now attorney general were willing to go to pursue the surveillance program. First, they tried to coerce a man in intensive care -- a man so sick he had transferred the reins of power to Mr. Comey -- to grant them legal approval. Having failed, they were willing to defy the conclusions of the nation's chief law enforcement officer and pursue the surveillance without Justice's authorization. Only in the face of the prospect of mass resignations -- Mr. Comey, FBI Director Robert S. Mueller III and most likely Mr. Ashcroft himself -- did the president back down.

As Mr. Comey testified, "I couldn't stay, if the administration was going to engage in conduct that the Department of Justice had said had no legal basis." The crisis was averted only when, the morning after the program was reauthorized without Justice's approval, President Bush agreed to fix whatever problem Justice had with it (the details remain classified). "We had the president's direction to do . . . what the Justice Department believed was necessary to put this matter on a footing where we could certify to its legality," Mr. Comey said.

The dramatic details should not obscure the bottom line: the administration's alarming willingness, championed by, among others, Vice President Cheney and his counsel, David Addington, to ignore its own lawyers. Remember, this was a Justice Department that had embraced an expansive view of the president's inherent constitutional powers, allowing the administration to dispense with following the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. Justice's conclusions are supposed to be the final word in the executive branch about what is lawful or not, and the administration has emphasized since the warrantless wiretapping story broke that it was being done under the department's supervision.

No wonder Bush wanted Gonzales to be the new AG. He should never have been confirmed.

Watch Comey's testimony:



Earlier this month, Comey also testified before the house judiciary committee regarding the US attorneys scandal:

James B. Comey, the Justice Department's second in command from 2003 until August 2005, also told a House Judiciary subcommittee that although he was the "direct supervisor" of all U.S attorneys, he was never informed about an effort by Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales and his aides to remove a large group of prosecutors that began in early 2005.

At that time as well, Gonzales circumvented the regular government hierarchy to get what he and the White House wanted:

The testimony from Comey, a highly regarded former prosecutor who is now general counsel for Lockheed Martin, further undermines assertions by Gonzales and his aides that dissatisfaction with the prosecutors' work led to their dismissals. It also underscores the extent to which the firings, which originated in the White House, were handled outside the normal chain of command at Justice.

It's obvious that Gonzales has never moved on from the mindset of his previous job as WH counsel and that he still operates at the behest of Bush and Cheney while bowing to the concept that anything this president wants, he gets - no matter what. We saw it on the issue of torture, which Gonzales sanctioned by whatever legal means he thought he could get away with, and now we have confirmation that the WH was bound and determined to circumvent the FISA court - a court that did its bidding anyway - even to the point where their lackeys would pressure an extremely ill Ashcroft in the ICU to fall in line.

Unconscionable.

I don't know what more the Democrats are waiting for before they decide to impeach Gonzales. If Bush won't fire him and he won't resign, it's up to them to wrest back control of the Justice department from a man who fashions himself to be a quasi-dictator with absolutely no conscience. Gonzales is a menace to society. Reid and Pelosi have already said that impeachment is "off the table" for Bush. The least they could do is to get rid of his footsoldier.

Update: The Justice department has issued the standard denial.

The Justice Department said yesterday that it will not retract a sworn statement in 2006 by Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales that the Terrorist Surveillance Program had aroused no controversy inside the Bush administration, despite congressional testimony Tuesday that senior departmental officials nearly resigned in 2004 to protest such a program.

And, more Gonzales lies...

The Justice Department considered dismissing many more U.S. attorneys than officials have previously acknowledged, with at least 26 prosecutors suggested for termination between February 2005 and December 2006, according to sources familiar with documents withheld from the public.

Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales testified last week that the effort was limited to eight U.S. attorneys fired since last June, and other administration officials have said that only a few others were suggested for removal.

In fact, D. Kyle Sampson, then Gonzales's chief of staff, considered more than two dozen U.S. attorneys for termination, according to lists compiled by him and his colleagues, the sources said.

Friday Fun

Hugh Muir in The Guardian: The A-Z of Tony Blair

R is for regions. Blair ceded power to Scotland, Wales, London and created mayors in many regions. Voters in Hartlepool were so grateful that they elected a monkey.

Yes, really.

X is for Camp X-Ray, the Cuban facility used by the US to humiliate al-Qaida suspects. Blair faced legal action because British subjects were mistreated there. Many felt they could just as easily be mistreated here.

Bonus Friday Fun: Cowboys for Social Responsibility presents excerpts from the Ponoka News Police Blotter (not to be missed).

One more bonus: Olbermann on Gonzo-Gate

The Question Gonzales Won't Answer

Conyers (D-MI) to the smirking asshole from hell, Alberto Gonzales: who compiled the list of attorneys to be fired?

Watch Gonzales spin and guess who he's covering for:



Robert Wexler (D-FL) blows a gasket:

FYI: Gonzales Testifies Again

Alberto Gonzales is under fire by members of the House Judiciary committee again today regarding the shady firing of 8 US attorneys. He's not the only one who's tense as sparks are flying between committee members as well.

You can watch it live online on CSPAN 3. truthout is updating its site with highlights as they happen. (h/t to marisacat's commenters for the info.)

Gonzales is sticking with his "I do not recall" defence and the Republicans on the committee are pushing their typical "nothing to see here folks, move along now" modus operandi as they try to bury yet another scandal.

Related: TPM has a US Attorney Purge Timeline
 

Tenet Justifies Torture

Via an interview with CNN's Wolf Blitzer:

BLITZER: I have to ask you a question on allegations the CIA, your agency, engaged in torture. You've said there was no torture. You won't describe what the "enhanced interrogation techniques" used against al Qaeda suspects involved.

But Khalid al-Masri[sic], a German citizen born in Lebanon, he wrote a piece in the "L.A. Times" saying this: "I was handed over to the American Central Intelligence Agency and was stripped, severely beaten, shackled, dressed in a diaper, injected with drugs, chained to the floor of a plane and flown to Afghanistan..."

Is that true?

TENET: I don't believe what he says is true. But let me say this. Let me say this about this whole torture question. In the after math[sic] of 9/11, we lived with a palpable fear of how much we did not know about what was going on in our country.

Senator McCain started a great debate here. Here's what I would ask people. I know that the program we engaged in saved lives, thousands of lives. I know it helped us against al Qaeda.

Policymakers, the president, the Congress determine where you want to be in the moral continuum. We are a country of laws and a country of values. Tell us where you want to be. Make it very, very clear to us. Have consensus on it.

Don't let the pendulum swing back and forth. Give you intelligence community clear instructions, and we'll follow them.

BLITZER: In a war, if American POWs were exposed to the same "enhanced interrogation techniques" that these expects were exposed to, would that be appropriate?

TENET: Well, you never -- look, Wolf, I would never -- I don't know what they'd be exposed to. And I don't want to talk about techniques. Here's the only thing I would say to you again.

Make a determination of where you want us to be. Tell us what the right thing to do is. We'll do it.

I know that in that time period after 9/11, we understood the risks. We understood we were on new territory. The president authorized. The attorney general said it was legal.

We briefed the chairman and ranking member of our oversight committees. Nobody was hiding anything. We were in a -- we were in a tough environment.

If you don't want to do it, that's fine with us.

BLITZER: One example. Could you give us one example? Because you say it saved thousands of lives. These techniques? Can you give us an example?

TENET: Well, we found out about additional airline plots against the East and West Coast of the United States.

BLITZER: Thanks to these techniques?

TENET: Thanks to these techniques. We found out about that surveillance of financial institutions in New York thanks to these techniques. We found out about plots in Karachi thanks to these techniques. We identified people we never knew about who were planning further terrorist attacks against the United States thanks to these techniques.

BLITZER: So if you had to do the techniques over again, you'd do them?

TENET: Well, it's not that you would do them. If you're authorized and it's legal and it's briefed -- and we play in a system of laws and governance. It's not just us.

You know, in the time period that I lived in, and the threats that we faced, and the issues we were dealing with, and -- Wolf, where are you going to be if you're holding someone who you know is coming to kill you and your family tomorrow afternoon, and you didn't do what you thought you needed to do to get the data? What would you be saying to me today?

You would be saying me, you didn't do your job and you didn't save lives. Well, that's extreme, isn't it? Well, that's what we were living with at the time.

So, all Tenet needed was clearance from Bush, which he got thanks to Gonzales and Yoo - all of them in panic mode after 9/11 - although the CIA's history of using so-called "enhanced interrogation techniques" goes back decades.

Tenet chooses, conveniently, not to believe El-Masri whose lawsuit has been thrown out of court on "state secrets" grounds and even though the CIA admitted that it had mistaken him for an al Qaeda member named al-Masri when it kidnapped him.

In April 2004, CIA Director George Tenet learned that El-Masri was being wrongfully detained. National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice learned of his detention shortly thereafter in early May and ordered his release.[3] El-Masri was released on May 28 following a second order from Rice.[3] American authorities met with him and agreed to release him if he agreed never to tell the story of his ordeal to anyone.

In other words, this administration doesn't want those real "techniques" exposed because they know the damage that'll cause. It doesn't matter what Tenet does or doesn't choose to believe. If Bushco had any credibility and faith in its policies that it claims saved so many lives, it wouldn't be so afraid to have to defend them in court.

Tenet - just another man named George who doesn't want to take responsibility for anything and who believes that torture is justified without providing any proof that it actually works.
 

Write Your Own Caption

One more question from you senator and you're going to Gitmo.