CIA Destroyed Tapes Despite Court Order | MATT APUZZO | December 12, 2007 06:10 PM EST
WASHINGTON — Federal courts had prohibited the Bush administration from discarding evidence of detainee torture and abuse months before the CIA destroyed videotapes that revealed some of its harshest interrogation tactics.
Normally, that would force the government to defend itself against obstruction allegations. But the CIA may have an out: its clandestine network of overseas prisons.
While judges focused on the detention center in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, and tried to guarantee that any evidence of detainee abuse would be preserved, the CIA was performing its toughest questioning half a world away. And by the time President Bush publicly acknowledged the secret prison system, interrogation videos of two terrorism suspects had been destroyed.
The CIA destroyed the tapes in November 2005. That June, U.S. District Judge Henry H. Kennedy Jr. had ordered the Bush administration to safeguard "all evidence and information regarding the torture, mistreatment, and abuse of detainees now at the United States Naval Base at Guantanamo Bay." ...
Sunday, December 16, 2007
The evidence is mounting that the White House role in the decision to destroy the tapes may have been significant
The Stonewall Continues | By Dan Froomkin | Special to washingtonpost.com | Wednesday, December 12, 2007; 1:30 PM
The White House continues to dodge important questions about its involvement in the destruction of videotapes documenting the CIA's torture of terror suspects.
The evidence is mounting that the White House role in the decision to destroy the tapes may have been significant. But no details are forthcoming from White House aides. Rather than come clean with the public, they are once again hiding behind a familiar but transparent dodge, saying that ongoing investigations preclude them from speaking.
The White House continues to dodge important questions about its involvement in the destruction of videotapes documenting the CIA's torture of terror suspects.
The evidence is mounting that the White House role in the decision to destroy the tapes may have been significant. But no details are forthcoming from White House aides. Rather than come clean with the public, they are once again hiding behind a familiar but transparent dodge, saying that ongoing investigations preclude them from speaking.
Baloney. They just don't want to answer questions.
The only substantive thing White House Press Secretary Dana Perino offered up about the matter on Friday was a carefully parsed denial of any direct involvement by President Bush himself. "He has no recollection of being made aware of the tapes or their destruction before yesterday," Perino said. ...
Justice Department has refused outright to hand over any information about interrogation tapes ... "It smells like the cover-up of the cover-up. ...
Congress will defy Justice Dept. on destroyed CIA tapes; Harman: 'We're in Constitutional crisis' | Mike Sheehan and David Edwards | Published: Sunday December 16, 2007
Despite the Justice Department's objections, a Congressional panel will press ahead with its investigation into destroyed CIA interrogation tapes, according to a key Republican on the panel.
"I think we will issue subpoenas," said Rep. Pete Hoekstra (R-MI), the House Intelligence Committee's ranking Republican, on Fox News Sunday (video below). "And once these witness appear in front of the committee, then I think we'll have to make the decision as to whether we're going to provide them with immunity or not. But our investigation should move forward."
As RAW STORY reported earlier, the Justice Department has refused outright to hand over any information about interrogation tapes destroyed by the CIA two years ago.
...
Rep. Jane Harman (D-CA), a top Democrat on the panel, says, "I am worried. It smells like the cover-up of the cover-up. ... Congress does absolutely need to exercise its Constitutional responsibility. We're an independent branch of government and we can do this very well." ...
... Bush Administration sought to implement domestic spying within two weeks of taking office
AT&T engineer says Bush Administration sought to implement domestic spying within two weeks of taking office | John Byrne | Published: Sunday December 16, 2007
Nearly 1,300 words into Sunday's New York Times article revealing new details of the National Security Agency's domestic eavesdropping program, the lawyer for an AT&T engineer alleges that "within two weeks of taking office, the Bush administration was planning a comprehensive effort of spying on Americans’ phone usage.”
In a New Jersey federal court case, the engineer claims that AT&T sought to create a phone center that would give the NSA access to "all the global phone and e-mail traffic that ran through" a New Jersey network hub.
The former AT&T employee, who spoke on condition of anonymity to the Times said he took part in several discussions with agency officials about the plan.
"The officials, he said, discussed ways to duplicate the Bedminster system in Maryland so the agency “could listen in” with unfettered access to communications that it believed had intelligence value and store them for later review," Times reporters Eric Lichtblau, James Risen and Scott Shane wrote. "There was no discussion of limiting the monitoring to international communications, he said."
“At some point,” he told the paper, “I started feeling something isn’t right.” ...
Nearly 1,300 words into Sunday's New York Times article revealing new details of the National Security Agency's domestic eavesdropping program, the lawyer for an AT&T engineer alleges that "within two weeks of taking office, the Bush administration was planning a comprehensive effort of spying on Americans’ phone usage.”
In a New Jersey federal court case, the engineer claims that AT&T sought to create a phone center that would give the NSA access to "all the global phone and e-mail traffic that ran through" a New Jersey network hub.
The former AT&T employee, who spoke on condition of anonymity to the Times said he took part in several discussions with agency officials about the plan.
"The officials, he said, discussed ways to duplicate the Bedminster system in Maryland so the agency “could listen in” with unfettered access to communications that it believed had intelligence value and store them for later review," Times reporters Eric Lichtblau, James Risen and Scott Shane wrote. "There was no discussion of limiting the monitoring to international communications, he said."
“At some point,” he told the paper, “I started feeling something isn’t right.” ...
Monday, December 10, 2007
Administration Employs New Secrecy Defense in Lawsuits Over Abramoff's White House Visits
Secrecy invoked on Abramoff lawsuits | Administration Employs New Secrecy Defense in Lawsuits Over Abramoff's White House Visits | PETE YOST | AP News | Dec 01, 2007 16:32 EST
The Bush administration is laying out a new secrecy defense in an effort to end a court battle about the White House visits of now-imprisoned lobbyist Jack Abramoff.
The administration agreed last year to produce all responsive records about the visits "without redactions or claims of exemption," according to a court order.
But in a court filing Friday night, administration lawyers said that the Secret Service has identified a category of highly sensitive documents that might contain information sought in a lawsuit about Abramoff's trips to the White House.
The Justice Department, citing a Cold War-era court ruling, declared that the contents of the "Sensitive Security Records" cannot be publicly revealed even though they could show whether Abramoff made more visits to the White House than those already acknowledged.
"The simple act of doing so ... would reveal sensitive information about the methods used by the Secret Service to carry out its protective function," the Justice Department argued.
"This is an extraordinary development and it raises the specter that there were additional contacts with President Bush or other high White House officials that have yet to be disclosed," said Tom Fitton, president of Judicial Watch, a conservative watchdog group that filed the suit. "We've alleged that the government has committed misconduct in this litigation and frankly this is more fuel for that fire." ...
The Bush administration is laying out a new secrecy defense in an effort to end a court battle about the White House visits of now-imprisoned lobbyist Jack Abramoff.
The administration agreed last year to produce all responsive records about the visits "without redactions or claims of exemption," according to a court order.
But in a court filing Friday night, administration lawyers said that the Secret Service has identified a category of highly sensitive documents that might contain information sought in a lawsuit about Abramoff's trips to the White House.
The Justice Department, citing a Cold War-era court ruling, declared that the contents of the "Sensitive Security Records" cannot be publicly revealed even though they could show whether Abramoff made more visits to the White House than those already acknowledged.
"The simple act of doing so ... would reveal sensitive information about the methods used by the Secret Service to carry out its protective function," the Justice Department argued.
"This is an extraordinary development and it raises the specter that there were additional contacts with President Bush or other high White House officials that have yet to be disclosed," said Tom Fitton, president of Judicial Watch, a conservative watchdog group that filed the suit. "We've alleged that the government has committed misconduct in this litigation and frankly this is more fuel for that fire." ...
Were other tapes destroyed? ...
Were other tapes destroyed?
“Vincent Warren of the Center for Constitutional Rights, which has been representing detainees held by the government at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, suggested that the disclosure by the CIA suggests the agency destroyed evidence in other cases. The center represents Majid Khan, a former ‘ghost’ detainee who was allegedly held in a secret prison in Eastern Europe before being transferred to Guantanamo. Warren said the center has asked for materials relating to interrogations of Khan. ‘I find it hard to believe the CIA would make videotapes of interrogations of only two people,’ Warren said.”
UPDATE: The ACLU is calling on Attorney General Mukasey to appoint an independent counsel to investigate, and if appropriate, prosecute any potential criminal activity...
“Vincent Warren of the Center for Constitutional Rights, which has been representing detainees held by the government at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, suggested that the disclosure by the CIA suggests the agency destroyed evidence in other cases. The center represents Majid Khan, a former ‘ghost’ detainee who was allegedly held in a secret prison in Eastern Europe before being transferred to Guantanamo. Warren said the center has asked for materials relating to interrogations of Khan. ‘I find it hard to believe the CIA would make videotapes of interrogations of only two people,’ Warren said.”
UPDATE: The ACLU is calling on Attorney General Mukasey to appoint an independent counsel to investigate, and if appropriate, prosecute any potential criminal activity...
Monday, December 03, 2007
White House Obstructing Plame Investigation
White House Obstructing Plame Investigation | December 3, 2007 11:11 AM
The Bush Administration is actively blocking Congress' investigation into the outing of once-covert CIA agent Valerie Plame, according to House Oversight Committee chairman Henry Waxman.
In a letter sent today to Attorney General Michael Mukasey, Waxman notes that "White House objections are preventing Special Counsel Patrick Fitzgerald from disclosing key information to investigating officials." Among the documents being withheld are interviews taken from White House officers during Fitzgerald's investigation into the leak of Plame's identity.
"Over the summer, Mr. Fitzgerald agreed to provide relevant documents to the Committee, including records of interviews with senior White House officials. Unfortunately, the White House has been blocking Mr. Fitzgerald from providing key documents to the Committee," Waxman writes to newly appointed Mukasey. "I ask that you personally look into this matter and authorize the production of the documents to the Committee without any further delay." ...
The Bush Administration is actively blocking Congress' investigation into the outing of once-covert CIA agent Valerie Plame, according to House Oversight Committee chairman Henry Waxman.
In a letter sent today to Attorney General Michael Mukasey, Waxman notes that "White House objections are preventing Special Counsel Patrick Fitzgerald from disclosing key information to investigating officials." Among the documents being withheld are interviews taken from White House officers during Fitzgerald's investigation into the leak of Plame's identity.
"Over the summer, Mr. Fitzgerald agreed to provide relevant documents to the Committee, including records of interviews with senior White House officials. Unfortunately, the White House has been blocking Mr. Fitzgerald from providing key documents to the Committee," Waxman writes to newly appointed Mukasey. "I ask that you personally look into this matter and authorize the production of the documents to the Committee without any further delay." ...
Wednesday, November 28, 2007
Texas: 49,000+ questionable electoral names found ... but NONE voted ...
Nov. 28, 2007, 9:58AM | 49,000 questionable names found on voter rolls | Auditors say none of them cast ballots in the May election | By JANET ELLIOTT | Copyright 2007 Houston Chronicle Austin Bureau ...
...
He noted that the auditors were unable to verify that the 23,114 possible felons and 23,576 possibly deceased voters actually should be removed from voting lists.
"We can't remove someone from the voter roll unless it's a strong match because we don't want to take away an eligible voter's right to vote," Haywood said. ...
...
He noted that the auditors were unable to verify that the 23,114 possible felons and 23,576 possibly deceased voters actually should be removed from voting lists.
"We can't remove someone from the voter roll unless it's a strong match because we don't want to take away an eligible voter's right to vote," Haywood said. ...
Tuesday, November 27, 2007
Supreme Court Allows Warrantless Searches of Welfare Applicants' Homes
Supreme Court Allows Warrantless Searches of Welfare Applicants' Homes | Posted by Richard Blair, The All Spin Zone at 6:26 AM on November 27, 2007
Richard Blair: In the view of the Roberts court, it is better that ten innocents suffer than one guilty person escape.
Richard Blair: In the view of the Roberts court, it is better that ten innocents suffer than one guilty person escape.
This post, written by Richard Blair, originally appeared on The All Spin Zone
With their refusal to hear a San Diego County case yesterday regarding unannounced searching of homes of public assistance applicants, the Supreme Court once again turned noted English jurist William Blackstone on his head. In the view of the Roberts court, it is better that ten truly needy people suffer than one potential fraudster escape.
Back in the mid-1980's, when big companies started requiring employees to submit to random drug and alcohol screenings, it was quite apparent that privacy and fourth amendment constitutional protections were under serious attack. There were two lines of reasoning that courts eventually approved of the screenings -- workplace safety and, hey, if someone didn't want to submit to the testing, they were free to quit the job.
Yesterday, the Supreme Court decline to hear a fourth amendment case from San Diego County, California that seems almost nazi-ish in nature:
The Supreme Court rejected a challenge Monday to a county's practice of routinely searching welfare applicants' homes without warrants and ruling out assistance for those who refuse to let them in.
The justices refused, without comment, to intervene in the case from San Diego County, where investigators from the local District Attorney's office show up unannounced at applicants' homes and conduct searches that include peeking into closets and cabinets. The visits do not require any suspicion of fraud and are intended to confirm that people are eligible for government aid...
Monday, November 26, 2007
Former [AL-DEM] state governor -- could be tried on charges that many observers consider to be trumped-up, ... would be almost unbelievable
The permanent Republican majority: Part one: How a coterie of Republican heavyweights sent a governor to jail | Larisa Alexandrovna and Muriel Kane | Published: Monday November 26, 2007
...
For most Americans, the very concept of political prisoners is remote and exotic, a practice that is associated with third-world dictatorships but is foreign to the American tradition. The idea that a prominent politician -- a former state governor -- could be tried on charges that many observers consider to be trumped-up, convicted in a trial that involved numerous questionable procedures, and then hauled off to prison in shackles immediately upon sentencing would be almost unbelievable.
But there is such a politician: Don Siegelman, Democratic governor of Alabama from 1999 to 2003. Starting just a few weeks after he took office, Siegelman was targeted by an investigation launched by his political opponents and escalated from the state to the federal level by Bush Administration appointees in 2001. ...
...
State and county Democrats quickly requested another Baldwin County recount with Democratic observers present, as well as a state-wide recount. But before the Baldwin County Democratic Party canvassing board could act, Alabama’s Republican Attorney General William Pryor had the ballots sealed.
Unless Siegelman filed an election contest in the courts, Pryor said, county canvassing boards throughout the state did not have the authority “to break the seals on ballots and machines under section 17-9-31” of the constitution.
...
It would take a Riley campaign attorney -- long-time Alabama Republican Dana Jill Simpson -- to finally blow the whistle on the Republican governor. In a 2007 affidavit and sworn testimony, Simpson stated unequivocally that dirty tricks had sealed her boss’s victory in the 2002 election, and she named Karl Rove and the US Department of Justice as conspirators in the case.
...
Expanding on her original allegations, Simpson testified on Sept. 14 before lawyers for the House Judiciary Committee and dropped a bombshell revelation. In this additional testimony, Simpson described a conference call among Bill Canary, Governor Riley's son Rob and other Riley campaign aides, which she said took place on November 18, 2002 -- the same day Don Siegelman conceded the election. Simpson alleged that Canary had said that “Rove had spoken with the Department of Justice” about “pursuing” Siegelman and had also advised Riley's staff “not to worry about Don Siegelman” because “‘his girls’ would take care of” the governor. ...
...
For most Americans, the very concept of political prisoners is remote and exotic, a practice that is associated with third-world dictatorships but is foreign to the American tradition. The idea that a prominent politician -- a former state governor -- could be tried on charges that many observers consider to be trumped-up, convicted in a trial that involved numerous questionable procedures, and then hauled off to prison in shackles immediately upon sentencing would be almost unbelievable.
But there is such a politician: Don Siegelman, Democratic governor of Alabama from 1999 to 2003. Starting just a few weeks after he took office, Siegelman was targeted by an investigation launched by his political opponents and escalated from the state to the federal level by Bush Administration appointees in 2001. ...
...
State and county Democrats quickly requested another Baldwin County recount with Democratic observers present, as well as a state-wide recount. But before the Baldwin County Democratic Party canvassing board could act, Alabama’s Republican Attorney General William Pryor had the ballots sealed.
Unless Siegelman filed an election contest in the courts, Pryor said, county canvassing boards throughout the state did not have the authority “to break the seals on ballots and machines under section 17-9-31” of the constitution.
...
It would take a Riley campaign attorney -- long-time Alabama Republican Dana Jill Simpson -- to finally blow the whistle on the Republican governor. In a 2007 affidavit and sworn testimony, Simpson stated unequivocally that dirty tricks had sealed her boss’s victory in the 2002 election, and she named Karl Rove and the US Department of Justice as conspirators in the case.
...
Expanding on her original allegations, Simpson testified on Sept. 14 before lawyers for the House Judiciary Committee and dropped a bombshell revelation. In this additional testimony, Simpson described a conference call among Bill Canary, Governor Riley's son Rob and other Riley campaign aides, which she said took place on November 18, 2002 -- the same day Don Siegelman conceded the election. Simpson alleged that Canary had said that “Rove had spoken with the Department of Justice” about “pursuing” Siegelman and had also advised Riley's staff “not to worry about Don Siegelman” because “‘his girls’ would take care of” the governor. ...
AP about US charges for photographer: "Every claim we've checked out has proved to be false, overblown or microscopic in significance,"
AP Chief Slams Case Against Photographer | By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS | Published: November 24, 2007
NEW YORK (AP) -- The U.S. military is making a mockery of American democratic principles by bringing a criminal case against an Associated Press photographer in Iraq without disclosing the charges against him, AP President and CEO Tom Curley said Saturday.
"This is a poor example -- and not the first of its kind -- of the way our government honors the democratic principles and values it says it wants to share with the Iraqi people," Curley wrote in an opinion piece in The Washington Post.
...
Military officials have refused to disclose the content of the complaint to the AP, despite repeated requests. Hussein's lawyer will enter the case ''blind,'' with no idea of the evidence or charges, Curley wrote.
''In the 19 months since he was picked up, Bilal has not been charged with any crime, although the military has sent out a flurry of ever-changing claims. Every claim we've checked out has proved to be false, overblown or microscopic in significance,'' said Curley. ...
...
''How is Gardephe to defend Bilal? This affair makes a mockery of the democratic principles of justice and the rule of law that the United States says it is trying to help Iraq establish,'' Curley wrote.
NEW YORK (AP) -- The U.S. military is making a mockery of American democratic principles by bringing a criminal case against an Associated Press photographer in Iraq without disclosing the charges against him, AP President and CEO Tom Curley said Saturday.
"This is a poor example -- and not the first of its kind -- of the way our government honors the democratic principles and values it says it wants to share with the Iraqi people," Curley wrote in an opinion piece in The Washington Post.
...
Military officials have refused to disclose the content of the complaint to the AP, despite repeated requests. Hussein's lawyer will enter the case ''blind,'' with no idea of the evidence or charges, Curley wrote.
''In the 19 months since he was picked up, Bilal has not been charged with any crime, although the military has sent out a flurry of ever-changing claims. Every claim we've checked out has proved to be false, overblown or microscopic in significance,'' said Curley. ...
...
''How is Gardephe to defend Bilal? This affair makes a mockery of the democratic principles of justice and the rule of law that the United States says it is trying to help Iraq establish,'' Curley wrote.
Judge ... no longer confident in government briefs ... similar representations made in the Moussaoui case were false
Moussaoui judge questions government | By MATTHEW BARAKAT, Associated Press Writer | Tue Nov 20, 6:55 PM ET
McLEAN, Va. - A federal judge expressed frustration Tuesday that the government provided incorrect information about evidence in the prosecution of Sept. 11 conspirator Zacarias Moussaoui and raised the possibility of ordering a new trial in another high-profile terrorism case.
...
The prosecutors have asked her to dismiss the defense request. The government has denied the allegations but has done so in secret pleadings to the judge that defense lawyers are not allowed to see. Even the lead prosecutors in the al-Timimi case have not had access to the information; they have relied on the representations of other government lawyers.
After the hearing, the judge issued an order that said she would not rule on the prosecutors' motion until the government grants needed security clearances to al-Timimi's defense lawyer, Jonathan Turley, and the lead trial prosecutor so they can review the secret pleadings.
Brinkema said she no longer feels confident relying on the government briefs, particularly since prosecutors admitted last week that similar representations made in the Moussaoui case were false. ...
...
Brinkema made no rulings during the brief, 20-minute hearing in Alexandria, but her displeasure at the government was apparent. Prosecutors did not have the opportunity to speak during the hearing, except to note their appearance for the record. ...
McLEAN, Va. - A federal judge expressed frustration Tuesday that the government provided incorrect information about evidence in the prosecution of Sept. 11 conspirator Zacarias Moussaoui and raised the possibility of ordering a new trial in another high-profile terrorism case.
...
The prosecutors have asked her to dismiss the defense request. The government has denied the allegations but has done so in secret pleadings to the judge that defense lawyers are not allowed to see. Even the lead prosecutors in the al-Timimi case have not had access to the information; they have relied on the representations of other government lawyers.
After the hearing, the judge issued an order that said she would not rule on the prosecutors' motion until the government grants needed security clearances to al-Timimi's defense lawyer, Jonathan Turley, and the lead trial prosecutor so they can review the secret pleadings.
Brinkema said she no longer feels confident relying on the government briefs, particularly since prosecutors admitted last week that similar representations made in the Moussaoui case were false. ...
...
Brinkema made no rulings during the brief, 20-minute hearing in Alexandria, but her displeasure at the government was apparent. Prosecutors did not have the opportunity to speak during the hearing, except to note their appearance for the record. ...
Tasers a form of torture, says UN ... weapons causes acute pain ... 3 killed in last week alone ...
Tasers a form of torture, says UN | AFP | From correspondents in Geneva | November 24, 2007 04:44pm
TASER electronic stun guns are a form of torture that can kill, a UN committee has declared after several recent deaths in North America.
"The use of these weapons causes acute pain, constituting a form of torture,'' the UN's Committee against Torture said.
"In certain cases, they can even cause death, as has been shown by reliable studies and recent real-life events,'' the committee of 10 experts said.
Three men, all in their early 20s, were reported to have died in the United States this week, days after a Polish man died at Vancouver airport after being Tasered by Canadian police. ...
TASER electronic stun guns are a form of torture that can kill, a UN committee has declared after several recent deaths in North America.
"The use of these weapons causes acute pain, constituting a form of torture,'' the UN's Committee against Torture said.
"In certain cases, they can even cause death, as has been shown by reliable studies and recent real-life events,'' the committee of 10 experts said.
Three men, all in their early 20s, were reported to have died in the United States this week, days after a Polish man died at Vancouver airport after being Tasered by Canadian police. ...
Friday, November 23, 2007
Bush, Cheney lied about Plame, ex-press chief says
Bush, Cheney lied about Plame, ex-press chief says | MATT APUZZO | Associated Press |
November 20, 2007 at 6:21 PM EST
WASHINGTON — Former White House press secretary Scott McClellan blames U.S. President George W. Bush and Vice-President Dick Cheney for efforts to mislead the public about the role of White House aides in leaking the identity of a CIA operative.
...
“There was one problem. It was not true,” Mr. McClellan writes, according to a brief excerpt released Tuesday. “I had unknowingly passed along false information. And five of the highest-ranking officials in the administration were involved in my doing so: Rove, Libby, the vice-president, the president's chief of staff and the president himself.”
Mr. Bush's chief of staff at the time was Andrew Card. ...
November 20, 2007 at 6:21 PM EST
WASHINGTON — Former White House press secretary Scott McClellan blames U.S. President George W. Bush and Vice-President Dick Cheney for efforts to mislead the public about the role of White House aides in leaking the identity of a CIA operative.
...
“There was one problem. It was not true,” Mr. McClellan writes, according to a brief excerpt released Tuesday. “I had unknowingly passed along false information. And five of the highest-ranking officials in the administration were involved in my doing so: Rove, Libby, the vice-president, the president's chief of staff and the president himself.”
Mr. Bush's chief of staff at the time was Andrew Card. ...
Monday, November 19, 2007
alleged the National Security Agency illegally listened to its calls. The charity had wanted to introduce as evidence a top-secret call log ...
November 16, 2007 5:53 p.m. PT | Court deals blow to wiretapping case | By PAUL ELIAS | ASSOCIATED PRESS WRITER
SAN FRANCISCO -- A federal appeals court on Friday dealt a near-fatal blow against an Islamic charity's lawsuit challenging the Bush administration's warrantless wiretapping program, concluding that a key piece of evidence is protected as a state secret.
The lawsuit, filed by the Oregon-based U.S. arm of the Al-Haramain Islamic Foundation, alleged the National Security Agency illegally listened to its calls. The charity had wanted to introduce as evidence a top-secret call log they received mistakenly from the Treasury Department.
But the three-judge panel of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals said the log could not be used because it fell under the "state secrets" privilege invoked by the government, and without it, the court said, the foundation had little proof it was wiretapped. ...
SAN FRANCISCO -- A federal appeals court on Friday dealt a near-fatal blow against an Islamic charity's lawsuit challenging the Bush administration's warrantless wiretapping program, concluding that a key piece of evidence is protected as a state secret.
The lawsuit, filed by the Oregon-based U.S. arm of the Al-Haramain Islamic Foundation, alleged the National Security Agency illegally listened to its calls. The charity had wanted to introduce as evidence a top-secret call log they received mistakenly from the Treasury Department.
But the three-judge panel of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals said the log could not be used because it fell under the "state secrets" privilege invoked by the government, and without it, the court said, the foundation had little proof it was wiretapped. ...
Wednesday, November 14, 2007
Judge orders White House to hold e-mails ... White House has destroyed e-mails in violation of federal law ???
Judge orders White House to hold e-mails | By PETE YOST, Associated Press Writer | Mon Nov 12, 6:21 PM ET
WASHINGTON - A federal judge Monday ordered the White House to preserve copies of all its e-mails, a move that Bush administration lawyers had argued strongly against.
U.S. District Judge Henry Kennedy directed the Executive Office of the President to safeguard the material in response to two lawsuits that seek to determine whether the White House has destroyed e-mails in violation of federal law. ...
WASHINGTON - A federal judge Monday ordered the White House to preserve copies of all its e-mails, a move that Bush administration lawyers had argued strongly against.
U.S. District Judge Henry Kennedy directed the Executive Office of the President to safeguard the material in response to two lawsuits that seek to determine whether the White House has destroyed e-mails in violation of federal law. ...
A total of 64% of American voters say that President George W. Bush has abused his powers as president
November 13, 2007 - Impeachment | American Research Group, Inc.
A total of 64% of American voters say that President George W. Bush has abused his powers as president. Of the 64%, 14% (9% of all voters) say the abuses are not serious enough to warrant impeachment, 33% (21% of all voters) say the abuses rise to the level of impeachable offenses, but he should not be impeached, and 53% (34% of all voters) say the abuses rise to the level of impeachable offenses and Mr. Bush should be impeached and removed from office.
...
A total of 70% of American voters say that Vice President Dick Cheney has abused his powers as vice president. ...
A total of 64% of American voters say that President George W. Bush has abused his powers as president. Of the 64%, 14% (9% of all voters) say the abuses are not serious enough to warrant impeachment, 33% (21% of all voters) say the abuses rise to the level of impeachable offenses, but he should not be impeached, and 53% (34% of all voters) say the abuses rise to the level of impeachable offenses and Mr. Bush should be impeached and removed from office.
...
A total of 70% of American voters say that Vice President Dick Cheney has abused his powers as vice president. ...
Wednesday, November 07, 2007
"they’re doing a huge, massive domestic dragnet on everybody in the United States"
AT&T whistleblower Mark Klein to Senate: "they’re doing a huge, massive domestic dragnet on everybody in the United States" | Submitted by lambert on Wed, 2007-11-07 13:54.
...
...
My name’s Mark Klein; I used to be an AT&T technician for 22 years.
What I figured out when I got there [AT&’s secret room at 611 Folsom Street, SSan Francisco] is that they were copying everything flowing across the Internet cables, and the major Internet links between AT&T’s network and other company’s networks, and it struck me at the time that this is a massively unconstitutional, illegal operation.
It affects not only AT&T’s customers, but everybody, ‘cause these links went to places like Sprint, Qwest, a whole bunch of other companies, and so they’re basicallly tapping into the entire Internet.
But isn’t the government only monitoring suspected terrorsits and not ordinary Americans?
To perform what they say they want to do, which is look at international traffic, none of this makes any sense. These installations only make sense if they’re doing a huge, massive domestic dragnet on everybody, in the United States. ...
Tuesday, November 06, 2007
Levin waterboarding could be illegal torture unless performed in a highly limited way and with close supervision.
Bush Administration Blocked Waterboarding Critic | Former DOJ Official Tested the Method Himself, in Effort to Form Torture Policy | By JAN CRAWFORD GREENBURG and ARIANE de VOGUE | Nov. 2, 2007
A senior Justice Department official, charged with reworking the administration's legal position on torture in 2004 became so concerned about the controversial interrogation technique of waterboarding that he decided to experience it firsthand, sources told ABC News.
Daniel Levin, then acting assistant attorney general, went to a military base near Washington and underwent the procedure to inform his analysis of different interrogation techniques.
After the experience, Levin told White House officials that even though he knew he wouldn't die, he found the experience terrifying and thought that it clearly simulated drowning.
Levin, who refused to comment for this story, concluded waterboarding could be illegal torture unless performed in a highly limited way and with close supervision. And, sources told ABC News, he believed the Bush Administration had failed to offer clear guidelines for its use. ...
...
Bush Administration Blocked Critic
The administration at the time was reeling from an August 2002 memo by Jay Bybee, then the head of the Office of Legal Counsel, which laid out possible justifications for torture. In June 2004, Levin's predecessor at the office, Jack Goldsmith, officially withdrew the Bybee memo, finding it deeply flawed.
When Levin took over from Goldsmith, he went to work on a memo that would effectively replace the Bybee memo as the administration's legal position on torture. It was during this time that he underwent waterboarding.
In December 2004, Levin released the new memo. He said, "Torture is abhorrent" but he went on to say in a footnote that the memo was not declaring the administration's previous opinions illegal. The White House, with Alberto Gonzales as the White House counsel, insisted that this footnote be included in the memo.
But Levin never finished a second memo imposing tighter controls on the specific interrogation techniques. Sources said he was forced out of the Justice Department when Gonzales became attorney general. ...
A senior Justice Department official, charged with reworking the administration's legal position on torture in 2004 became so concerned about the controversial interrogation technique of waterboarding that he decided to experience it firsthand, sources told ABC News.
Daniel Levin, then acting assistant attorney general, went to a military base near Washington and underwent the procedure to inform his analysis of different interrogation techniques.
After the experience, Levin told White House officials that even though he knew he wouldn't die, he found the experience terrifying and thought that it clearly simulated drowning.
Levin, who refused to comment for this story, concluded waterboarding could be illegal torture unless performed in a highly limited way and with close supervision. And, sources told ABC News, he believed the Bush Administration had failed to offer clear guidelines for its use. ...
...
Bush Administration Blocked Critic
The administration at the time was reeling from an August 2002 memo by Jay Bybee, then the head of the Office of Legal Counsel, which laid out possible justifications for torture. In June 2004, Levin's predecessor at the office, Jack Goldsmith, officially withdrew the Bybee memo, finding it deeply flawed.
When Levin took over from Goldsmith, he went to work on a memo that would effectively replace the Bybee memo as the administration's legal position on torture. It was during this time that he underwent waterboarding.
In December 2004, Levin released the new memo. He said, "Torture is abhorrent" but he went on to say in a footnote that the memo was not declaring the administration's previous opinions illegal. The White House, with Alberto Gonzales as the White House counsel, insisted that this footnote be included in the memo.
But Levin never finished a second memo imposing tighter controls on the specific interrogation techniques. Sources said he was forced out of the Justice Department when Gonzales became attorney general. ...
Caging is a voter suppression tactic in which a political party, campaign, or other entity sends mail marked “do not forward” or “return to sender” to
Twelve senators introduce bill to outlaw voter 'caging' | RAW STORY | Published: Monday November 5, 2007
In a press release late Monday afternoon, Sen. John Kerry (D-MA) announced that he had introduced legislation to ban the practice of "voter caging," a practice in which groups send mail to voters' addresses and then use "return to sender" envelopes to challenge the legitimacy of individual votes.
Wikipedia defines 'caging' as "a term of art in the direct mail industry, as well as a term applied to a technique of voter suppression. A caging list is a list or database of addresses, updated after a mailing program is completed, with notations on responses received from recipients, with corrections for addresses that mail has been returned undelivered from, or forwarded onward from."
In October 2004, the BBC reported on a list of "caging" targets that had been culled from an email allegedly sent by the Bush campaign. The email, which was errantly sent to GeorgeWBush.org instead of GeorgeWBush.com, contained "a list of 1,886 voter names and addresses in largely African-American and Democratic areas of Jacksonville."
“The practice of ‘caging’ is reprehensible and has absolutely no place in our democracy," Kerry said in the release. "Here in America, every citizen, regardless of race, gender, religion or sexual orientation has the right to cast his or her vote. These are the very foundations of our democracy and this bill will ensure that we protect fundamental freedoms for millions of voters across our country.” ...
In a press release late Monday afternoon, Sen. John Kerry (D-MA) announced that he had introduced legislation to ban the practice of "voter caging," a practice in which groups send mail to voters' addresses and then use "return to sender" envelopes to challenge the legitimacy of individual votes.
Wikipedia defines 'caging' as "a term of art in the direct mail industry, as well as a term applied to a technique of voter suppression. A caging list is a list or database of addresses, updated after a mailing program is completed, with notations on responses received from recipients, with corrections for addresses that mail has been returned undelivered from, or forwarded onward from."
In October 2004, the BBC reported on a list of "caging" targets that had been culled from an email allegedly sent by the Bush campaign. The email, which was errantly sent to GeorgeWBush.org instead of GeorgeWBush.com, contained "a list of 1,886 voter names and addresses in largely African-American and Democratic areas of Jacksonville."
“The practice of ‘caging’ is reprehensible and has absolutely no place in our democracy," Kerry said in the release. "Here in America, every citizen, regardless of race, gender, religion or sexual orientation has the right to cast his or her vote. These are the very foundations of our democracy and this bill will ensure that we protect fundamental freedoms for millions of voters across our country.” ...
Wednesday, October 31, 2007
statistical analysis showed that the Justice Department engaged in “political profiling.” ... less than 1 in 10,000 chance of that occuring by chance
Tilting the Scales of Justice | Article Tools Sponsored By | Published: October 24, 2007
Every time we take a look at the United States attorney scandal, more evidence emerges that Alberto Gonzales politicized the Justice Department to the point where it sometimes seems like a branch of the Republican National Committee.
Yesterday, for example, Richard Thornburgh, a former Republican attorney general, told a Congressional hearing that his client, Dr. Cyril Wecht, a Democratic officeholder in Pennsylvania, was indicted on federal charges that should not be federal charges by a United States attorney who targeted Democrats.
At the same hearing, more evidence emerged that the prosecutions of Don Siegelman, the former Alabama governor, and Paul Minor, a prominent Mississippi Democrat, may have been political hits. And a University of Missouri professor testified that his statistical analysis showed that the Justice Department engaged in “political profiling.” ...
...
Committee members said they have learned of other prosecutions that may have been political and listed several defendants by name. Donald Shields, the University of Missouri professor, testified that the Justice Department prosecuted 5.6 local Democratic officials for every Republican. The odds of that occurring by chance, he found, is less than 1 in 10,000.
Republicans on the committee refused to take the allegations seriously — even though this sort of politicization should offend anyone who cares about the justice system. They called the claims “ridiculous,” and asked the witnesses if they had specific evidence that United States attorneys talked to the president or to other top officials about a plan to target Democrats.
That sounds good, but the best evidence about what occurred lies with the current and former members of the Bush administration — and Mr. Rove and Harriet Miers have pleaded executive privilege and defied Congressional subpoenas. They should testify about what they know, and the Justice Department should hand over documents the committee requested months ago. ...
Every time we take a look at the United States attorney scandal, more evidence emerges that Alberto Gonzales politicized the Justice Department to the point where it sometimes seems like a branch of the Republican National Committee.
Yesterday, for example, Richard Thornburgh, a former Republican attorney general, told a Congressional hearing that his client, Dr. Cyril Wecht, a Democratic officeholder in Pennsylvania, was indicted on federal charges that should not be federal charges by a United States attorney who targeted Democrats.
At the same hearing, more evidence emerged that the prosecutions of Don Siegelman, the former Alabama governor, and Paul Minor, a prominent Mississippi Democrat, may have been political hits. And a University of Missouri professor testified that his statistical analysis showed that the Justice Department engaged in “political profiling.” ...
...
Committee members said they have learned of other prosecutions that may have been political and listed several defendants by name. Donald Shields, the University of Missouri professor, testified that the Justice Department prosecuted 5.6 local Democratic officials for every Republican. The odds of that occurring by chance, he found, is less than 1 in 10,000.
Republicans on the committee refused to take the allegations seriously — even though this sort of politicization should offend anyone who cares about the justice system. They called the claims “ridiculous,” and asked the witnesses if they had specific evidence that United States attorneys talked to the president or to other top officials about a plan to target Democrats.
That sounds good, but the best evidence about what occurred lies with the current and former members of the Bush administration — and Mr. Rove and Harriet Miers have pleaded executive privilege and defied Congressional subpoenas. They should testify about what they know, and the Justice Department should hand over documents the committee requested months ago. ...
"During this same period, not one Republican officeholder was investigated and/or prosecuted by Ms. Buchanan's office - not one,"
Democrats Were Targets in Inquiries, Panel Is Told | By Philip Shenon | The New York Times | Wednesday 24 October 2007
Washington - Richard L. Thornburgh, attorney general in the Reagan and first Bush administrations, charged Tuesday that political reasons motivated the Justice Department to open corruption investigations against Democrats in Mr. Thornburgh's home state, Pennsylvania.
In testimony before the House Judiciary Committee, Mr. Thornburgh became the first former Republican attorney general to join with Democratic lawmakers to suggest that the Justice Department under Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales had singled out Democratic politicians for prosecution.
...
The House Judiciary Committee is investigating the Justice Department's handling of the prosecution of several prominent Democrats around the country, most notably the prosecution and conviction of former Gov. Don Siegelman of Alabama on federal corruption charges. A Republican lawyer there has given a sworn statement to the committee in which she said she overheard discussion of how the White House had put pressure on local prosecutors to pursue the case.
Mr. Thornburgh noted that Ms. Buchanan had conducted a series of high-profile corruption investigations against Pennsylvania Democrats in the months before the 2006 midterm elections, including the one against the former coroner, Cyril Wecht.
"During this same period, not one Republican officeholder was investigated and/or prosecuted by Ms. Buchanan's office - not one," Mr. Thornburgh said, noting that there had been accusations of corruption against two prominent Republican members of Congress from Pennsylvania in that same period. He said that Dr. Wecht, a nationally prominent forensic pathologist, "would qualify as an ideal target for a Republican U.S. attorney trying to curry favor with a department which demonstrated that if you play by its rules, you will advance."
Dr. Wecht, who is scheduled to go on trial next year, has been charged with 84 criminal counts, including theft and mail fraud, much of it involving his use of a government fax machine and postage meter. Mr. Thornburgh described the prosecution as "bizarre." ...
Washington - Richard L. Thornburgh, attorney general in the Reagan and first Bush administrations, charged Tuesday that political reasons motivated the Justice Department to open corruption investigations against Democrats in Mr. Thornburgh's home state, Pennsylvania.
In testimony before the House Judiciary Committee, Mr. Thornburgh became the first former Republican attorney general to join with Democratic lawmakers to suggest that the Justice Department under Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales had singled out Democratic politicians for prosecution.
...
The House Judiciary Committee is investigating the Justice Department's handling of the prosecution of several prominent Democrats around the country, most notably the prosecution and conviction of former Gov. Don Siegelman of Alabama on federal corruption charges. A Republican lawyer there has given a sworn statement to the committee in which she said she overheard discussion of how the White House had put pressure on local prosecutors to pursue the case.
Mr. Thornburgh noted that Ms. Buchanan had conducted a series of high-profile corruption investigations against Pennsylvania Democrats in the months before the 2006 midterm elections, including the one against the former coroner, Cyril Wecht.
"During this same period, not one Republican officeholder was investigated and/or prosecuted by Ms. Buchanan's office - not one," Mr. Thornburgh said, noting that there had been accusations of corruption against two prominent Republican members of Congress from Pennsylvania in that same period. He said that Dr. Wecht, a nationally prominent forensic pathologist, "would qualify as an ideal target for a Republican U.S. attorney trying to curry favor with a department which demonstrated that if you play by its rules, you will advance."
Dr. Wecht, who is scheduled to go on trial next year, has been charged with 84 criminal counts, including theft and mail fraud, much of it involving his use of a government fax machine and postage meter. Mr. Thornburgh described the prosecution as "bizarre." ...
Tuesday, October 30, 2007
AG nominee does NOT object to restrictive polling place Photo ID laws which critics contend may disenfranchise from 10 to 30 million largely Democrats
DNC Calls for 'Immediate Firing' of DoJ Voting Chief in Wake of 'Outrageous Comments,' 'Outright Attack on Voting Rights' Says John 'Minorities Die First' Tanner's Recent Remarks 'Underscore the GOP's Utter Disregard for the Integrity of our Nation's Election System'
In advance of tomorrow morning's House Judiciary Committee hearing to feature testimony by DoJ Civil Rights Division Voting Section chief John "Minorities Die First" Tanner, DNC Chair Howard Dean and Donna Brazile of the DNC Voting Rights Institute have issued a statement calling for Tanner to be "immediately fired."
In advance of tomorrow morning's House Judiciary Committee hearing to feature testimony by DoJ Civil Rights Division Voting Section chief John "Minorities Die First" Tanner, DNC Chair Howard Dean and Donna Brazile of the DNC Voting Rights Institute have issued a statement calling for Tanner to be "immediately fired."
"In their latest scheme, the Republican Administration has manipulated the mission of the Department of Justice, firing US Attorneys who were unwilling to pursue phony 'voter fraud' cases, and politicized the Civil Rights Division," the statement (posted in full at the end of this article) reads.
The release goes on to decry the politicization of the Bush Department of Justice, and what is described as their "outright assault" on the right to vote.
"Tanner's outrageous comments underscore the GOP's utter disregard for the integrity of our nation's election system and are an affront to the spirit of the Voting Rights Act," Dean and Brazile said, before declaring that the embattled Voting Rights Section chief "should be fired immediately and replaced with someone who will work to make sure that all citizens are able to vote and have their vote counted."
They call on Judge Michael Mukasey, if he is confirmed as the next Attorney General, to "commit to replacing Tanner with someone who will protect our rights, not ignore them for a partisan agenda."
As The BRAD BLOG recently reported, however, Mukasey made clear in his recent Senate Confirmation hearings that he does not object to restrictive polling place Photo ID laws which critics contend may disenfranchise anywhere from 10 to 30 million largely Democratic-leaning voters who do not have such ID. ...
[Bush's AG] Mukasey Won’t Say Waterboarding Is Torture But in 1947 the U.S. Called It a War Crime, Sentenced Enemy Officer to 15 Years Hard Labor
Mukasey Won’t Say Waterboarding Is Torture But in 1947 the U.S. Called It a War Crime, Sentenced Enemy Officer to 15 Years Hard Labor | Posted by Jon Ponder | Oct. 29, 2007, 12:30 pm
Immoral Relativism: George Bush’s nomination of Michael Mukasey for U.S. attorney general — once thought to be smooth sailing — is experiencing a bit of turbulence. The problem is, Mukasey can’t bring himself to say whether or not waterboarding is torture:
...
Immoral Relativism: George Bush’s nomination of Michael Mukasey for U.S. attorney general — once thought to be smooth sailing — is experiencing a bit of turbulence. The problem is, Mukasey can’t bring himself to say whether or not waterboarding is torture:
...
But after World War II, the United States government was quite clear about the fact that waterboarding was torture, at least when it was done to U.S. citizens:
[In] 1947, the United States charged a Japanese officer, Yukio Asano, with war crimes for carrying out another form of waterboarding on a U.S. civilian. The subject was strapped on a stretcher that was tilted so that his feet were in the air and head near the floor, and small amounts of water were poured over his face, leaving him gasping for air until he agreed to talk.
“Asano was sentenced to 15 years of hard labor,” Sen. Edward M. Kennedy (D-Mass.) told his colleagues last Thursday during the debate on military commissions legislation. “We punished people with 15 years of hard labor when waterboarding was used against Americans in World War II,” he said
Monday, October 29, 2007
Bush's Attorney General nominee: votes hinge on whether he will say on the record that an interrogation technique that simulates drowning is torture.
Mukasey's nomination runs into trouble | By LAURIE KELLMAN, Associated Press Writer | Thu Oct 25, 7:10 PM ET
WASHINGTON - Judge Michael Mukasey's nomination for attorney general ran into trouble Thursday when two top Senate Democrats said their votes hinge on whether he will say on the record that an interrogation technique that simulates drowning is torture.
...
Leahy has refused to set a date for a vote on Mukasey's nomination until he clarifies his answer to that question.
Separately, a Democrat familiar with the panel's deliberations said Mukasey may not get the 10 committee votes his nomination needs to be reported to the Senate floor with a favorable recommendation unless he says, in effect, that waterboarding is torture. The official spoke on condition of anonymity in order to speak more freely. ...
But other lawmakers, like Leahy, Durbin and Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse, D-R.I., said they would vote against Mukasey if he does not equate waterboarding with torture. ...
WASHINGTON - Judge Michael Mukasey's nomination for attorney general ran into trouble Thursday when two top Senate Democrats said their votes hinge on whether he will say on the record that an interrogation technique that simulates drowning is torture.
...
Leahy has refused to set a date for a vote on Mukasey's nomination until he clarifies his answer to that question.
Separately, a Democrat familiar with the panel's deliberations said Mukasey may not get the 10 committee votes his nomination needs to be reported to the Senate floor with a favorable recommendation unless he says, in effect, that waterboarding is torture. The official spoke on condition of anonymity in order to speak more freely. ...
But other lawmakers, like Leahy, Durbin and Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse, D-R.I., said they would vote against Mukasey if he does not equate waterboarding with torture. ...
Gitmo: Army major inside the military court system ... has described the detention of one prisoner... from Sudan, as "unconscionabl
Guantanamo military lawyer breaks ranks to condemn 'unconscionable' detention | By Leonard Doyle in Washington | Published: 27 October 2007
An American military lawyer and veteran of dozens of secret Guantanamo tribunals has made a devastating attack on the legal process for determining whether Guantanamo prisoners are "enemy combatants".
The whistleblower, an army major inside the military court system which the United States has established at Guantanamo Bay, has described the detention of one prisoner, a hospital administrator from Sudan, as "unconscionable".
His critique will be the centrepiece of a hearing on 5 December before the US Supreme Court when another attempt is made to shut the prison down. So nervous is the Bush administration of the latest attack – and another Supreme Court ruling against it – that it is preparing a whole new system of military courts to deal with those still imprisoned.
The whistleblower's testimony is the most serious attack to date on the military panels, which were meant to give a fig- leaf of legitimacy to the interrogation and detention policies at Naval Base at Guantanamo Bay. The major has taken part in 49 status review panels. ...
An American military lawyer and veteran of dozens of secret Guantanamo tribunals has made a devastating attack on the legal process for determining whether Guantanamo prisoners are "enemy combatants".
The whistleblower, an army major inside the military court system which the United States has established at Guantanamo Bay, has described the detention of one prisoner, a hospital administrator from Sudan, as "unconscionable".
His critique will be the centrepiece of a hearing on 5 December before the US Supreme Court when another attempt is made to shut the prison down. So nervous is the Bush administration of the latest attack – and another Supreme Court ruling against it – that it is preparing a whole new system of military courts to deal with those still imprisoned.
The whistleblower's testimony is the most serious attack to date on the military panels, which were meant to give a fig- leaf of legitimacy to the interrogation and detention policies at Naval Base at Guantanamo Bay. The major has taken part in 49 status review panels. ...
Sunday, October 28, 2007
The once-obscure state secrets privilege has been expanded ... These decisions have brought widespread disbelief, disappointment and disgust.
Justice Denied | By William A. Cohn | 10/26/07
...
His Kafkaesque plight brings to mind the inquisitorial “justice” meted out by totalitarian regimes. That the High Court refused to hear his case without comment is all too fitting for the silence and secrecy Masri encountered in his search for answers in the US. Now, Masri must turn to the European Court of Justice in the hopes that Europe will afford him the justice he was denied in America. Since the US is not a signatory to the European Convention on Human Rights, Masri should bring suit against Germany for its complicity in his mistreatment in order to obtain an adjudication affirming the mistreatment he received at the hands of US agents.
The Masri case reveals much of what has gone wrong in the ‘war on terror.’ The Supremes let stand the March 2nd Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals ruling which upheld Judge Ellis’ dismissal of the lawsuit because it could expose state secrets. These decisions have brought widespread disbelief, disappointment and disgust. Following the Fourth Circuit ruling, ACLU attorney Ben Wizener said: “This is doubly insulting. Everyone knows that Mr. El-Masri was a mistaken victim of the rendition program. He is now a victim of the misuse of the state-secrets privilege.”
Masri’s is not the only such case to be so dismissed. For instance, Maher Arar, the Canadian citizen taken to an Edgar Allan Poe-like secret prison in Syria, also had his case thrown out of US federal court by a state secrets ruling. The Canadian government substantiated Arar’s claims and offered an apology and compensation for its role in his ‘rendition’. Sadly, the current US administration lacks the strength to ever apologize.
The once-obscure state secrets privilege has been expanded and used ever-more since it was created in the 1953 case US v. Reynolds. Information declassified half a century later reveals that the state secrets claim in the Reynolds case was a lie – the government was seeking to hide its mistakes and protect against embarrassment, not to protect the country’s security. This revelation has fueled calls for reform by legal scholars, public interest groups and the American Bar Association. Since 1993, judges have required in-camera review of the disputed documents underlying state secrets claims in less than an eighth of cases, opting instead for blind deference.
...
We owe Khaled El-Masri our gratitude for helping to expose human rights abuses committed in our name. By taking his claim to the European Court of Justice Masri can shed additional light on the self-defeating post-9/11 tactics employed in the US and Europe. Sunlight is the best disinfectant.
Masri was turned back at the airport without explanation when he flew to the US to appear at his first court hearing, and in the end he was denied review by the Supreme Court without comment. Mr. Masri is reportedly experiencing psychiatric problems today. Let us hope that he has the strength to continue his search for truth and fairness with the European Court of Justice. For we all have a stake in his struggle for justice.
...
His Kafkaesque plight brings to mind the inquisitorial “justice” meted out by totalitarian regimes. That the High Court refused to hear his case without comment is all too fitting for the silence and secrecy Masri encountered in his search for answers in the US. Now, Masri must turn to the European Court of Justice in the hopes that Europe will afford him the justice he was denied in America. Since the US is not a signatory to the European Convention on Human Rights, Masri should bring suit against Germany for its complicity in his mistreatment in order to obtain an adjudication affirming the mistreatment he received at the hands of US agents.
The Masri case reveals much of what has gone wrong in the ‘war on terror.’ The Supremes let stand the March 2nd Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals ruling which upheld Judge Ellis’ dismissal of the lawsuit because it could expose state secrets. These decisions have brought widespread disbelief, disappointment and disgust. Following the Fourth Circuit ruling, ACLU attorney Ben Wizener said: “This is doubly insulting. Everyone knows that Mr. El-Masri was a mistaken victim of the rendition program. He is now a victim of the misuse of the state-secrets privilege.”
Masri’s is not the only such case to be so dismissed. For instance, Maher Arar, the Canadian citizen taken to an Edgar Allan Poe-like secret prison in Syria, also had his case thrown out of US federal court by a state secrets ruling. The Canadian government substantiated Arar’s claims and offered an apology and compensation for its role in his ‘rendition’. Sadly, the current US administration lacks the strength to ever apologize.
The once-obscure state secrets privilege has been expanded and used ever-more since it was created in the 1953 case US v. Reynolds. Information declassified half a century later reveals that the state secrets claim in the Reynolds case was a lie – the government was seeking to hide its mistakes and protect against embarrassment, not to protect the country’s security. This revelation has fueled calls for reform by legal scholars, public interest groups and the American Bar Association. Since 1993, judges have required in-camera review of the disputed documents underlying state secrets claims in less than an eighth of cases, opting instead for blind deference.
...
We owe Khaled El-Masri our gratitude for helping to expose human rights abuses committed in our name. By taking his claim to the European Court of Justice Masri can shed additional light on the self-defeating post-9/11 tactics employed in the US and Europe. Sunlight is the best disinfectant.
Masri was turned back at the airport without explanation when he flew to the US to appear at his first court hearing, and in the end he was denied review by the Supreme Court without comment. Mr. Masri is reportedly experiencing psychiatric problems today. Let us hope that he has the strength to continue his search for truth and fairness with the European Court of Justice. For we all have a stake in his struggle for justice.
Bush's choice for attorney general: Constitution does not prevent wiretapping of terrorists
Oct. 26, 2007, 6:03PM | AG pick: Constitution does not prevent wiretapping of terrorists | By LAURIE KELLMAN | Associated Press
WASHINGTON — President Bush's choice for attorney general told senators Friday the Constitution does not prevent the president from wiretapping suspected terrorists without a court order.
Michael Mukasey said the president cannot use his executive power to get around the Constitution and laws prohibiting torture. But wiretapping suspected terrorists' without warrants is not precluded, he said.
"Foreign intelligence gathering is a field in which the executive branch is regulated but not pre-empted by Congress," Mukasey wrote in response to questions by Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Patrick Leahy, D-Vt. ...
...
His answers focused on queries about executive power and did not address what Leahy and other senators have said is the chief obstacle to his confirmation: Mukasey's refusal to say if an interrogation method that simulates drowning amounts to torture outlawed under domestic and international law. ...
...
"In both situations, the president, in authorizing such conduct, would be flouting both statutory and constitutional prohibitions based on a broad assertion of executive power," Leahy wrote. "I am concerned that this legal justification could lead to a continuation of the kind of warrantless surveillance in violation of statute that we have seen." ...
WASHINGTON — President Bush's choice for attorney general told senators Friday the Constitution does not prevent the president from wiretapping suspected terrorists without a court order.
Michael Mukasey said the president cannot use his executive power to get around the Constitution and laws prohibiting torture. But wiretapping suspected terrorists' without warrants is not precluded, he said.
"Foreign intelligence gathering is a field in which the executive branch is regulated but not pre-empted by Congress," Mukasey wrote in response to questions by Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Patrick Leahy, D-Vt. ...
...
His answers focused on queries about executive power and did not address what Leahy and other senators have said is the chief obstacle to his confirmation: Mukasey's refusal to say if an interrogation method that simulates drowning amounts to torture outlawed under domestic and international law. ...
...
"In both situations, the president, in authorizing such conduct, would be flouting both statutory and constitutional prohibitions based on a broad assertion of executive power," Leahy wrote. "I am concerned that this legal justification could lead to a continuation of the kind of warrantless surveillance in violation of statute that we have seen." ...
Thursday, October 25, 2007
[Move over fillibuster] Republicans use obscure motion 16 times in a year, compared to just 14 for the Democrats in more than a decade of opposition
Revealed: the little-known device used to block Democrats in the House | Elana Schor in Washington | Wednesday October 24, 2007 | Guardian Unlimited
Republicans use obscure motion 16 times in a year, compared to just 14 for the Democrats in more than a decade of opposition
All year long, Democrats in the House of Representatives have watched with increasing impatience as their Senate counterparts find themselves bedevilled by a filibuster-wielding Republican minority. On measures criticising the war in Iraq, the House has passed four since May to the Senate's zero; on annual spending bills, the House has cleared all 12 to the Senate's six.
That Mitch McConnell of Kentucky and his Senate Republican colleagues routinely have blocked the Democrats from getting the needed 60 votes on many measures has received considerable press attention, even inspiring a splashy "anti-obstruction" media campaign.
Revealed: the little-known device used to block Democrats in the House
Republicans use obscure motion 16 times in a year, compared to just 14 for the Democrats in more than a decade of opposition
Elana Schor in Washington
Wednesday October 24, 2007
Guardian Unlimited
All year long, Democrats in the House of Representatives have watched with increasing impatience as their Senate counterparts find themselves bedevilled by a filibuster-wielding Republican minority. On measures criticising the war in Iraq, the House has passed four since May to the Senate's zero; on annual spending bills, the House has cleared all 12 to the Senate's six.
That Mitch McConnell of Kentucky and his Senate Republican colleagues routinely have blocked the Democrats from getting the needed 60 votes on many measures has received considerable press attention, even inspiring a splashy "anti-obstruction" media campaign.
What's far less well known, though, is that the party has almost as nasty a bugaboo in the House. Republicans there have found stunning success with a procedural tool called the motion to recommit, and they have repeatedly used it to divide the Democratic caucus and block key initiatives.
...
When Democrats were in the House minority, they succeeded only rarely in blocking Republican initiatives with the gambit. The MTR helped push through the television filter known as the "v-chip" in 1995 and nearly closed campaign-finance loopholes aimed at free-spending political groups four years before the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth targeted John Kerry. Only 14 of the motions, or 7.6 percent of the minority's efforts, prevailed between 1995 and 2006.
This year, 16 of the House Republican motions have passed, several with significant support from across the aisle, blocking initiatives large and small. ...
...
But the biggest MTR intrusion of the year came last week, when the Republicans stalled a bill to provide greater judicial oversight of secret wiretapping by the Bush administration with a proposed MTR that even critics begrudgingly called clever. ...
The MTR now threatens to become as aggravating to the House speaker, Nancy Pelosi, as the filibuster has for Harry Reid, the Senate majority leader. House Democrats have vowed to bring back the wiretapping bill soon, but there are few solutions in sight for how to defeat the Republican MTR should it rear its head. ...
Republicans use obscure motion 16 times in a year, compared to just 14 for the Democrats in more than a decade of opposition
All year long, Democrats in the House of Representatives have watched with increasing impatience as their Senate counterparts find themselves bedevilled by a filibuster-wielding Republican minority. On measures criticising the war in Iraq, the House has passed four since May to the Senate's zero; on annual spending bills, the House has cleared all 12 to the Senate's six.
That Mitch McConnell of Kentucky and his Senate Republican colleagues routinely have blocked the Democrats from getting the needed 60 votes on many measures has received considerable press attention, even inspiring a splashy "anti-obstruction" media campaign.
Revealed: the little-known device used to block Democrats in the House
Republicans use obscure motion 16 times in a year, compared to just 14 for the Democrats in more than a decade of opposition
Elana Schor in Washington
Wednesday October 24, 2007
Guardian Unlimited
All year long, Democrats in the House of Representatives have watched with increasing impatience as their Senate counterparts find themselves bedevilled by a filibuster-wielding Republican minority. On measures criticising the war in Iraq, the House has passed four since May to the Senate's zero; on annual spending bills, the House has cleared all 12 to the Senate's six.
That Mitch McConnell of Kentucky and his Senate Republican colleagues routinely have blocked the Democrats from getting the needed 60 votes on many measures has received considerable press attention, even inspiring a splashy "anti-obstruction" media campaign.
What's far less well known, though, is that the party has almost as nasty a bugaboo in the House. Republicans there have found stunning success with a procedural tool called the motion to recommit, and they have repeatedly used it to divide the Democratic caucus and block key initiatives.
...
When Democrats were in the House minority, they succeeded only rarely in blocking Republican initiatives with the gambit. The MTR helped push through the television filter known as the "v-chip" in 1995 and nearly closed campaign-finance loopholes aimed at free-spending political groups four years before the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth targeted John Kerry. Only 14 of the motions, or 7.6 percent of the minority's efforts, prevailed between 1995 and 2006.
This year, 16 of the House Republican motions have passed, several with significant support from across the aisle, blocking initiatives large and small. ...
...
But the biggest MTR intrusion of the year came last week, when the Republicans stalled a bill to provide greater judicial oversight of secret wiretapping by the Bush administration with a proposed MTR that even critics begrudgingly called clever. ...
The MTR now threatens to become as aggravating to the House speaker, Nancy Pelosi, as the filibuster has for Harry Reid, the Senate majority leader. House Democrats have vowed to bring back the wiretapping bill soon, but there are few solutions in sight for how to defeat the Republican MTR should it rear its head. ...
Sunday, October 21, 2007
New AG: suggesting that Bush can ignore surveillance statutes in wartime and avoiding a declaration that simulated drowning constitutes torture ...
On Day 2, Democrats See Change In Mukasey | Nominee Endorses President's Positions | By Dan Eggen and Paul Kane | Washington Post Staff Writer | Friday, October 19, 2007; Page A01
President Bush's choice for attorney general, Michael B. Mukasey, embraced some of the administration's most controversial legal positions yesterday, suggesting that Bush can ignore surveillance statutes in wartime and avoiding a declaration that simulated drowning constitutes torture under U.S. laws.
...
Mukasey aroused Democrats' concerns by testifying that there may be occasions when the president's powers as commander in chief could trump a federal law requiring that a special court approve intelligence-related wiretaps. That answer jibes with one of the legal rationales used by the Bush administration in defense of its controversial Terrorist Surveillance Program, under which the National Security Agency eavesdropped on calls between persons in the United States and those overseas without first securing a court warrant. ...
President Bush's choice for attorney general, Michael B. Mukasey, embraced some of the administration's most controversial legal positions yesterday, suggesting that Bush can ignore surveillance statutes in wartime and avoiding a declaration that simulated drowning constitutes torture under U.S. laws.
...
Mukasey aroused Democrats' concerns by testifying that there may be occasions when the president's powers as commander in chief could trump a federal law requiring that a special court approve intelligence-related wiretaps. That answer jibes with one of the legal rationales used by the Bush administration in defense of its controversial Terrorist Surveillance Program, under which the National Security Agency eavesdropped on calls between persons in the United States and those overseas without first securing a court warrant. ...
Gonzales Investigated Subordinates Who Were Likely To Testify Against Him
Gonzales Investigated Subordinates Who Were Likely To Testify Against Him | The Huffington Post | Murray Waas | October 17, 2007 07:00 PM
Alberto Gonzales was briefed extensively about a criminal leak investigation despite the fact that he had reason to believe that several individuals under investigation in the matter were potential witnesses against him in separate Justice Department inquiries. ...
...
Charles Wolfram, a professor emeritus of ethics at Cornell University Law School, similarly said, "As a matter of legal ethics, Gonzales had a clear conflict of interest. It seems to be flat out wrong that he should be supervising and getting information about people taking shots at him at witnesses in these other investigations." ...
Alberto Gonzales was briefed extensively about a criminal leak investigation despite the fact that he had reason to believe that several individuals under investigation in the matter were potential witnesses against him in separate Justice Department inquiries. ...
...
Charles Wolfram, a professor emeritus of ethics at Cornell University Law School, similarly said, "As a matter of legal ethics, Gonzales had a clear conflict of interest. It seems to be flat out wrong that he should be supervising and getting information about people taking shots at him at witnesses in these other investigations." ...
U.S. asks court to dismiss lawsuit on secret flights ... [yet another use of the "national secrets" loophole to suppress law enforcement]
U.S. asks court to dismiss lawsuit on secret flights | By Adam Tanner Fri Oct 19, 9:03 PM ET
SAN FRANCISCO (Reuters) - The U.S. government asked a federal court late on Friday to dismiss a lawsuit against a unit of Boeing Co that charges the firm helped fly suspects abroad to secret prisons.
ADVERTISEMENT
"Allowing plaintiffs' claims to proceed would risk the disclosure of highly classified information concerning the alleged 'intelligence activities, sources, and methods' of the CIA," said the filing, signed by Acting Assistant Attorney General Jeffrey Bucholtz.
...
Those details "include whether any private entities or other countries assisted the CIA in conducting the program; the dates and locations of any detentions and interrogations; the methods of interrogation employed in the program; and the names of any individuals detained and interrogated by the CIA (other than fifteen individuals whose identities have been divulged so that they can be brought to trial)."
All of those details are secret and central to the case, and so cannot be litigated, the government argued.
In response, the ACLU said the victims of the program deserved their day in court.
"The whole world knows about the U.S. 'extraordinary rendition' program and the government's invocation of 'state secrets' in this case is just another cynical attempt by the administration to cover up an illegal and immoral program," said ACLU lawyer Steven Watt.
SAN FRANCISCO (Reuters) - The U.S. government asked a federal court late on Friday to dismiss a lawsuit against a unit of Boeing Co that charges the firm helped fly suspects abroad to secret prisons.
ADVERTISEMENT
"Allowing plaintiffs' claims to proceed would risk the disclosure of highly classified information concerning the alleged 'intelligence activities, sources, and methods' of the CIA," said the filing, signed by Acting Assistant Attorney General Jeffrey Bucholtz.
...
Those details "include whether any private entities or other countries assisted the CIA in conducting the program; the dates and locations of any detentions and interrogations; the methods of interrogation employed in the program; and the names of any individuals detained and interrogated by the CIA (other than fifteen individuals whose identities have been divulged so that they can be brought to trial)."
All of those details are secret and central to the case, and so cannot be litigated, the government argued.
In response, the ACLU said the victims of the program deserved their day in court.
"The whole world knows about the U.S. 'extraordinary rendition' program and the government's invocation of 'state secrets' in this case is just another cynical attempt by the administration to cover up an illegal and immoral program," said ACLU lawyer Steven Watt.
It’s about ensuring that Mr. Bush and his aides never have to go to court to explain how many laws they’ve broken. ...
With Democrats Like These ... Published: October 20, 2007
... Democratic leaders were cowed, once again, by propaganda from the White House and failed, once again, to modernize the law on electronic spying in a way that permits robust intelligence gathering on terrorists without undermining the Constitution.
...
Republicans have already started blowing hot air about any naysayers trying to stop spies from tracking terrorists.
No one is doing that. The question really is whether Congress should toss out chunks of the Constitution because Mr. Bush finds them inconvenient and some Democrats are afraid to look soft on terrorism.
FISA requires a warrant to spy on communications within the United States or between people in this country and people abroad. After 9/11, Mr. Bush ordered the National Security Agency to spy, without a warrant, on communications between the United States and other countries. The N.S.A. obtained data from American telecommunications companies by telling them it was legal.
After The Times disclosed the program in late 2005, Mr. Bush looked for a way to legalize it retroactively. ...
...
This provision is not primarily about protecting patriotic businessmen, as Mr. Bush claims. It’s about ensuring that Mr. Bush and his aides never have to go to court to explain how many laws they’ve broken. ...
...
... It was bad enough having a one-party government when Republicans controlled the White House and both houses of Congress. But the Democrats took over, and still the one-party system continues.
... Democratic leaders were cowed, once again, by propaganda from the White House and failed, once again, to modernize the law on electronic spying in a way that permits robust intelligence gathering on terrorists without undermining the Constitution.
...
Republicans have already started blowing hot air about any naysayers trying to stop spies from tracking terrorists.
No one is doing that. The question really is whether Congress should toss out chunks of the Constitution because Mr. Bush finds them inconvenient and some Democrats are afraid to look soft on terrorism.
FISA requires a warrant to spy on communications within the United States or between people in this country and people abroad. After 9/11, Mr. Bush ordered the National Security Agency to spy, without a warrant, on communications between the United States and other countries. The N.S.A. obtained data from American telecommunications companies by telling them it was legal.
After The Times disclosed the program in late 2005, Mr. Bush looked for a way to legalize it retroactively. ...
...
This provision is not primarily about protecting patriotic businessmen, as Mr. Bush claims. It’s about ensuring that Mr. Bush and his aides never have to go to court to explain how many laws they’ve broken. ...
...
... It was bad enough having a one-party government when Republicans controlled the White House and both houses of Congress. But the Democrats took over, and still the one-party system continues.
Tuesday, October 16, 2007
clear that the Department of Defense may have secretly and illegally conducted surveillance beyond the powers it was granted by Congress.”
ACLU: DoD sought citizens’ bank records | The Associated Press | Posted : Tuesday Oct 16, 2007 9:43:34 EDT
NEW YORK — The American Civil Liberties Union said Sunday that newly uncovered documents show that the Pentagon secretly sent hundreds of letters seeking the financial records of private citizens without court approval.
The ACLU said an analysis of 455 so-called national security letters issued after Sept. 11, 2001 shows that the Pentagon collaborated with the FBI to circumvent the law and may have overstepped its legal authority to obtain financial and credit records. The ACLU has been reviewing the letters and the accompanying documentation over the past few days. ..
“Once again, the Bush administration’s unchecked authority has led to abuse and civil liberties violations,” said ACLU Executive Director Anthony D. Romero in a statement. “The documents make clear that the Department of Defense may have secretly and illegally conducted surveillance beyond the powers it was granted by Congress.” ...
NEW YORK — The American Civil Liberties Union said Sunday that newly uncovered documents show that the Pentagon secretly sent hundreds of letters seeking the financial records of private citizens without court approval.
The ACLU said an analysis of 455 so-called national security letters issued after Sept. 11, 2001 shows that the Pentagon collaborated with the FBI to circumvent the law and may have overstepped its legal authority to obtain financial and credit records. The ACLU has been reviewing the letters and the accompanying documentation over the past few days. ..
“Once again, the Bush administration’s unchecked authority has led to abuse and civil liberties violations,” said ACLU Executive Director Anthony D. Romero in a statement. “The documents make clear that the Department of Defense may have secretly and illegally conducted surveillance beyond the powers it was granted by Congress.” ...
Phone Utilities Won’t Give Details About Eavesdropping ... 88,000 call circle request in 2006 ...
Phone Utilities Won’t Give Details About Eavesdropping | By ERIC LICHTBLAU | Published: October 16, 2007
WASHINGTON, Oct. 15 — The three biggest phone carriers have refused to tell members of Congress what role, if any, they had in the National Security Agency’s domestic eavesdropping program. The utilities said it would be illegal to divulge classified information.
...
The role of the carriers will be central to the debate in Congress this week over limiting the eavesdropping. The Bush administration has pressed Congress to give the carriers immunity for their cooperation, but House Democrats are balking.
...
... In 2006, the Verizon letter said, it received 88,000 such requests, about 34,000 from federal officials and 54,000 from state and local officials. Through September of this year, it received 24,000 federal requests and 37,000 state and local requests.
Verizon also acknowledged that the Federal Bureau of Investigation had asked for records to identify what it termed “a calling circle” but said it had not been able to provide them. ...
WASHINGTON, Oct. 15 — The three biggest phone carriers have refused to tell members of Congress what role, if any, they had in the National Security Agency’s domestic eavesdropping program. The utilities said it would be illegal to divulge classified information.
...
The role of the carriers will be central to the debate in Congress this week over limiting the eavesdropping. The Bush administration has pressed Congress to give the carriers immunity for their cooperation, but House Democrats are balking.
...
... In 2006, the Verizon letter said, it received 88,000 such requests, about 34,000 from federal officials and 54,000 from state and local officials. Through September of this year, it received 24,000 federal requests and 37,000 state and local requests.
Verizon also acknowledged that the Federal Bureau of Investigation had asked for records to identify what it termed “a calling circle” but said it had not been able to provide them. ...
Sunday, October 14, 2007
an interview with GOP lawyer Dana Jill Simpson implicating former White House adviser Karl Rove in the prosecution of former Alabama Dem Governor ...
GOP lawyer ties Rove to Siegelman case | By Susan Crabtree | October 10, 2007
House Judiciary Committee Chairman John Conyers Jr. (D-Mich.) on Wednesday released an interview with GOP lawyer Dana Jill Simpson implicating former White House adviser Karl Rove in the prosecution and conviction of former Alabama Gov. Don Siegelman (D) on corruption charges.
In a closed-door interview with committee staff, Simpson recalled how Rob Riley, current Gov. Bob Riley’s (R) son, told her about Rove’s role in a plan to prosecute Siegelman if he did not back down from contesting the 2001 gubernatorial election results that handed the office to Riley.
According to the transcript, Simpson described a 2005 conversation with Rob Riley, who told her that Rove had contacted the Public Integrity Section of the Department of Justice to press for further prosecution of Siegelman. She said Rob Riley also recounted how the case would be assigned to a federal judge who “hated” Siegelman and would “hang Don Siegelman.” ...
House Judiciary Committee Chairman John Conyers Jr. (D-Mich.) on Wednesday released an interview with GOP lawyer Dana Jill Simpson implicating former White House adviser Karl Rove in the prosecution and conviction of former Alabama Gov. Don Siegelman (D) on corruption charges.
In a closed-door interview with committee staff, Simpson recalled how Rob Riley, current Gov. Bob Riley’s (R) son, told her about Rove’s role in a plan to prosecute Siegelman if he did not back down from contesting the 2001 gubernatorial election results that handed the office to Riley.
According to the transcript, Simpson described a 2005 conversation with Rob Riley, who told her that Rove had contacted the Public Integrity Section of the Department of Justice to press for further prosecution of Siegelman. She said Rob Riley also recounted how the case would be assigned to a federal judge who “hated” Siegelman and would “hang Don Siegelman.” ...
Investigations showed that Ohio officials had deliberately placed fewer voting machines in some areas and even kept some voting machines out of servic
Uproar after Justice Department official says black voters caused their own lines in Ohio 2004 vote | John Byrne | Published: Friday October 12, 2007
Judiciary Chairman John Conyers (D-MI) rebuked a Justice Department voting official Friday night who said Ohio's African American voters faced long lines in the 2004 presidential election because blacks tend to vote at night.
...
Voters in black counties faced far longer lines than those in the more white Ohio suburbs. Investigations showed that Ohio officials had deliberately placed fewer voting machines in some areas and in some instances even kept voting machines out of service. The resulting lines generally resulted in less individuals voting because the lines were so long.
"I am concerned about the extreme lengths Mr. Tanner went to in order to justify the reasons African-Americans were not treated equally in the 2004 Ohio election," Conyers said. "The committee needs to consider this matter. I am aware of no precedent for the Department acting in this capacity in the past.
"The Department of Justice – since the Voting Rights Act of 1965 – has a responsibility to thoroughly investigate allegations of voter suppression and discrimination, like those made in Ohio in 2004," the Michigan Democrat added. "I look forward to hearing more from Mr. Tanner in our committee later this month as he testifies about his work as chief of the voting section. The 2004 election exposed serious deficiencies in this section's failure to adequately investigate and prosecute voter suppression efforts nationwide and I hope he is prepared to address this issue head on." ...
Judiciary Chairman John Conyers (D-MI) rebuked a Justice Department voting official Friday night who said Ohio's African American voters faced long lines in the 2004 presidential election because blacks tend to vote at night.
...
Voters in black counties faced far longer lines than those in the more white Ohio suburbs. Investigations showed that Ohio officials had deliberately placed fewer voting machines in some areas and in some instances even kept voting machines out of service. The resulting lines generally resulted in less individuals voting because the lines were so long.
"I am concerned about the extreme lengths Mr. Tanner went to in order to justify the reasons African-Americans were not treated equally in the 2004 Ohio election," Conyers said. "The committee needs to consider this matter. I am aware of no precedent for the Department acting in this capacity in the past.
"The Department of Justice – since the Voting Rights Act of 1965 – has a responsibility to thoroughly investigate allegations of voter suppression and discrimination, like those made in Ohio in 2004," the Michigan Democrat added. "I look forward to hearing more from Mr. Tanner in our committee later this month as he testifies about his work as chief of the voting section. The 2004 election exposed serious deficiencies in this section's failure to adequately investigate and prosecute voter suppression efforts nationwide and I hope he is prepared to address this issue head on." ...
case intimidated trial lawyers into stopping their political activity. .. " all but wiped out the Democratic Party in Mississippi,”.
October 11, 2007 | Editorial Observer | The United States Attorneys Scandal Comes to Mississippi | By ADAM COHEN
... Mr. Minor has contributed $500,000 to Democrats over the years, including more than $100,000 to John Edwards, a fellow trial lawyer. He fought hard to stop the Mississippi Supreme Court from being taken over by pro-business Republicans.
Mr. Minor’s political activity may have cost him dearly. He is serving an 11-year sentence, convicted of a crime that does not look much like a crime at all. The case is one of several new ones coming to light that suggest that the department’s use of criminal prosecutions to help Republicans win elections may go farther than anyone realizes.
The House Judiciary Committee is scheduled to hold hearings shortly on whether the Justice Department engaged in selective prosecution in two other cases: when it went after Alabama Gov. Don Siegelman, who is serving more than seven years in prison on dubious charges, and Georgia Thompson, a Wisconsin civil servant who was freed after serving four months on baseless corruption charges.
Mr. Minor, whose firm made more than $70 million in fees in his state’s tobacco settlement, suspects it was his role in the 2000 Mississippi Supreme Court elections that put a target on his back. The United States Chamber of Commerce spent heavily to secure a Republican, pro-business majority, while Mr. Minor contributed heavily to the other side.
The chamber was especially eager to unseat Justice Oliver Diaz Jr., a former trial lawyer. He was re-elected after a hard-fought, high-spending campaign. Then the prosecutions came from the politicized Bush Justice Department. ...
...
Mr. Minor’s prosecution, like the others in this scandal, gave a big boost to the Republican Party. The case intimidated trial lawyers into stopping their political activity. “The disappearance of the trial-lawyer money all but wiped out the Democratic Party in Mississippi,” Stephanie Mencimer reports in her book, “Blocking the Courthouse Door.”
There also appears to have been pro-Republican favoritism. Mr. Minor’s lawyers say prosecutors were not interested in going after similar activity by trial lawyers who contributed to Republicans. Time magazine recently reported that in Alabama, one of the main witnesses against Mr. Siegelman also told prosecutors of possible corruption involving Jeff Sessions, a Republican senator from Alabama, but they did not pursue it. ...
... Mr. Minor has contributed $500,000 to Democrats over the years, including more than $100,000 to John Edwards, a fellow trial lawyer. He fought hard to stop the Mississippi Supreme Court from being taken over by pro-business Republicans.
Mr. Minor’s political activity may have cost him dearly. He is serving an 11-year sentence, convicted of a crime that does not look much like a crime at all. The case is one of several new ones coming to light that suggest that the department’s use of criminal prosecutions to help Republicans win elections may go farther than anyone realizes.
The House Judiciary Committee is scheduled to hold hearings shortly on whether the Justice Department engaged in selective prosecution in two other cases: when it went after Alabama Gov. Don Siegelman, who is serving more than seven years in prison on dubious charges, and Georgia Thompson, a Wisconsin civil servant who was freed after serving four months on baseless corruption charges.
Mr. Minor, whose firm made more than $70 million in fees in his state’s tobacco settlement, suspects it was his role in the 2000 Mississippi Supreme Court elections that put a target on his back. The United States Chamber of Commerce spent heavily to secure a Republican, pro-business majority, while Mr. Minor contributed heavily to the other side.
The chamber was especially eager to unseat Justice Oliver Diaz Jr., a former trial lawyer. He was re-elected after a hard-fought, high-spending campaign. Then the prosecutions came from the politicized Bush Justice Department. ...
...
Mr. Minor’s prosecution, like the others in this scandal, gave a big boost to the Republican Party. The case intimidated trial lawyers into stopping their political activity. “The disappearance of the trial-lawyer money all but wiped out the Democratic Party in Mississippi,” Stephanie Mencimer reports in her book, “Blocking the Courthouse Door.”
There also appears to have been pro-Republican favoritism. Mr. Minor’s lawyers say prosecutors were not interested in going after similar activity by trial lawyers who contributed to Republicans. Time magazine recently reported that in Alabama, one of the main witnesses against Mr. Siegelman also told prosecutors of possible corruption involving Jeff Sessions, a Republican senator from Alabama, but they did not pursue it. ...
There must be an absolute ban on torture. ... painful physical and psychological tactics at the same time, “including head-slapping, simulated drownin
Op-Ed: It’s Time to End Torture | By William H. Neukom, President, American Bar Association
A hallmark of the rule of law is that a nation’s laws must be fair, public, and apply equally to everyone, including the government itself.
Recent news articles indicate that the opposite is happening with respect to torture. Secret Justice Department opinions have allowed this practice to continue—despite U.S. and international law, and despite the U.S. military’s opposition to mistreating prisoners.
According to the reports, one Justice Department opinion explicitly authorized the CIA to use multiple painful physical and psychological tactics at the same time, “including head-slapping, simulated drowning and frigid temperatures.”
...
It is time for our nation to have one clear law for all Americans. Congress must eliminate any exceptions or loopholes that violate our nation’s values. There must be an absolute ban on torture.
A hallmark of the rule of law is that a nation’s laws must be fair, public, and apply equally to everyone, including the government itself.
Recent news articles indicate that the opposite is happening with respect to torture. Secret Justice Department opinions have allowed this practice to continue—despite U.S. and international law, and despite the U.S. military’s opposition to mistreating prisoners.
According to the reports, one Justice Department opinion explicitly authorized the CIA to use multiple painful physical and psychological tactics at the same time, “including head-slapping, simulated drowning and frigid temperatures.”
...
It is time for our nation to have one clear law for all Americans. Congress must eliminate any exceptions or loopholes that violate our nation’s values. There must be an absolute ban on torture.
[Lawyers s/be] the first defense outside of government against the rejection of due process, probable cause and habeas corpus ...
October 6 / 7, 2007 | Who Will Confront the Unprecedented and Unconstitutional Concentration of Executive Power? | Where are the Lawyers of America? | By RALPH NADER
...
Lawyer jokes aside, the first defense outside of government against the rejection of due process, probable cause and habeas corpus should come from the officers of the courts-the attorneys of America. With few exceptions, they have flunked, asleep at the switch or loaded with excuses.
The exceptions are a number of law professors such as David Cole (Georgetown University) and Jonathan Turley (George Washington University) and the magnificent one-year presidency of Michael Greco at the conservative American Bar Association.
...
Unfortunately, the courage of Greco and his colleagues has not been contagious with hundreds of thousands of lawyers throughout America or the 50 state bar associations who might have taken some action or position to stand after the ABA stood tall in 2005-2006. ...
...
Lawyer jokes aside, the first defense outside of government against the rejection of due process, probable cause and habeas corpus should come from the officers of the courts-the attorneys of America. With few exceptions, they have flunked, asleep at the switch or loaded with excuses.
The exceptions are a number of law professors such as David Cole (Georgetown University) and Jonathan Turley (George Washington University) and the magnificent one-year presidency of Michael Greco at the conservative American Bar Association.
...
Unfortunately, the courage of Greco and his colleagues has not been contagious with hundreds of thousands of lawyers throughout America or the 50 state bar associations who might have taken some action or position to stand after the ABA stood tall in 2005-2006. ...
what Mr. Bush really wants is to avoid lawsuits that could uncover the extent of the illegal spying he authorized after 9/11.
Spies, Lies and FISA | Published: October 14, 2007
As Democratic lawmakers try to repair a deeply flawed bill on electronic eavesdropping, the White House is pumping out the same fog of fear and disinformation it used to push the bill through Congress this summer. President Bush has been telling Americans that any change would deny the government critical information, make it easier for terrorists to infiltrate, expose state secrets, and make it harder “to save American lives.”
...
Last week, The Times reported that the C.I.A. director, Gen. Michael V. Hayden, is investigating the office of his agency’s inspector general after it inquired into policies on detention and interrogation. This improper, perhaps illegal investigation sends a clear message of intimidation. We also know that the F.B.I. has abused expanded powers it was granted after 9/11 and that the former attorney general, Alberto Gonzales, systematically covered up the president’s actions with deliberately misleading testimony.
Mr. Bush says the law should give immunity to communications companies that gave data to the government over the last five years without a court order. He says they should not be punished for helping to protect America, but what Mr. Bush really wants is to avoid lawsuits that could uncover the extent of the illegal spying he authorized after 9/11.
It may be possible to shield these companies from liability, since the government lied to them about the legality of its requests. But the law should allow suits aimed at forcing disclosure of Mr. Bush’s actions. It should also require a full accounting to Congress of all surveillance conducted since 9/11. And it should have an expiration date, which the White House does not want.
Ever since 9/11, we have watched Republican lawmakers help Mr. Bush shred the Constitution in the name of fighting terrorism. We have seen Democrats acquiesce or retreat in fear. It is time for that to stop.
As Democratic lawmakers try to repair a deeply flawed bill on electronic eavesdropping, the White House is pumping out the same fog of fear and disinformation it used to push the bill through Congress this summer. President Bush has been telling Americans that any change would deny the government critical information, make it easier for terrorists to infiltrate, expose state secrets, and make it harder “to save American lives.”
...
Last week, The Times reported that the C.I.A. director, Gen. Michael V. Hayden, is investigating the office of his agency’s inspector general after it inquired into policies on detention and interrogation. This improper, perhaps illegal investigation sends a clear message of intimidation. We also know that the F.B.I. has abused expanded powers it was granted after 9/11 and that the former attorney general, Alberto Gonzales, systematically covered up the president’s actions with deliberately misleading testimony.
Mr. Bush says the law should give immunity to communications companies that gave data to the government over the last five years without a court order. He says they should not be punished for helping to protect America, but what Mr. Bush really wants is to avoid lawsuits that could uncover the extent of the illegal spying he authorized after 9/11.
It may be possible to shield these companies from liability, since the government lied to them about the legality of its requests. But the law should allow suits aimed at forcing disclosure of Mr. Bush’s actions. It should also require a full accounting to Congress of all surveillance conducted since 9/11. And it should have an expiration date, which the White House does not want.
Ever since 9/11, we have watched Republican lawmakers help Mr. Bush shred the Constitution in the name of fighting terrorism. We have seen Democrats acquiesce or retreat in fear. It is time for that to stop.
AT&T contract for NSA to surveill all internet traffic, foreign and domestic, started before 9/11
Even worse than we imagined: AT&T contract for NSA to surveill all internet traffic, foreign and domestic, started before 9/11 | Submitted by lambert on Fri, 2007-10-12 21:37.
That’s all Internet traffic, foreign and domestic, data and voice. And the decision to do this was taken, not because of 9/11, but as soon as Bush took office. As was the decision to ignore the rule of law. So much for the idea that the extremely benevolent and trustworthy Bush administration was reacting to 9/11, and just wants “surgical” surveillance* to keep us safe from terrorists, eh? Could this program be Spencer Ackerman’s “Project X”? ...
That’s all Internet traffic, foreign and domestic, data and voice. And the decision to do this was taken, not because of 9/11, but as soon as Bush took office. As was the decision to ignore the rule of law. So much for the idea that the extremely benevolent and trustworthy Bush administration was reacting to 9/11, and just wants “surgical” surveillance* to keep us safe from terrorists, eh? Could this program be Spencer Ackerman’s “Project X”? ...
Former CEO Says U.S. Punished Phone Firm ... refused NSA spying program as illegal ... 6 months BEFORE 9/11 ...
Former CEO Says U.S. Punished Phone Firm | Qwest Feared NSA Plan Was Illegal, Filing Says | By Ellen Nakashima and Dan Eggen | Washington Post Staff Writers | Saturday, October 13, 2007; Page A01
A former Qwest Communications International executive, appealing a conviction for insider trading, has alleged that the government withdrew opportunities for contracts worth hundreds of millions of dollars after Qwest refused to participate in an unidentified National Security Agency program that the company thought might be illegal.
Former chief executive Joseph P. Nacchio, convicted in April of 19 counts of insider trading, said the NSA approached Qwest more than six months before the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, according to court documents unsealed in Denver this week.
...
In the court filings disclosed this week, Nacchio suggests that Qwest's refusal to take part in that program led the government to cancel a separate, lucrative contract with the NSA in retribution. He is using the allegation to try to show why his stock sale should not have been considered improper.
...
Nacchio's account, which places the NSA proposal at a meeting on Feb. 27, 2001, suggests that the Bush administration was seeking to enlist telecommunications firms in programs without court oversight before the terrorist attacks on New York and the Pentagon. The Sept. 11 attacks have been cited by the government as the main impetus for its warrantless surveillance efforts. ...
Wednesday, October 10, 2007
"Of course...our society is such that minorities don't become elderly. The way that white people do. They die first." ...
Brad Friedman ON 10/9/2007 1:09PM | Former DoJ Officials Say Voting Chief's Comments on Photo ID 'False' 'Cherry Picked' 'Ludicrous'
Statement Suggesting Whites More Disenfranchised Than Minorities Because Minorities 'Die First' Before Becoming Elderly, Disputed by John Tanner's Predecessor, Former Colleagues | An 'Imus Moment' Declares a BRAD BLOG DoJ Source...
...
Tanner had told a group in Los Angeles last Friday --- and our own Alan Breslauer was there to catch it on video tape --- that non-minorities were more likely to be disenfranchised by such restrictive polling laws laws than African-Americans.
Statement Suggesting Whites More Disenfranchised Than Minorities Because Minorities 'Die First' Before Becoming Elderly, Disputed by John Tanner's Predecessor, Former Colleagues | An 'Imus Moment' Declares a BRAD BLOG DoJ Source...
...
Tanner had told a group in Los Angeles last Friday --- and our own Alan Breslauer was there to catch it on video tape --- that non-minorities were more likely to be disenfranchised by such restrictive polling laws laws than African-Americans.
"It's probably true that among those who don't [have Photo ID], it's primarily elderly persons. And that's a shame," Tanner told the audience. He then added: "Of course...our society is such that minorities don't become elderly. The way that white people do. They die first." The implication being that, therefore, minorities are somehow less likely to be disenfranchised by draconian Photo ID laws at the polling place.
Tanner had approved a disenfranchising Georgia Photo ID scheme on behalf of the DoJ in 2005, despite the fact that 4 out of the 5 career civil rights unit staffers who had reviewed the law recommended against pre-approval under the Voting Rights Act. The law, once approved by Tanner, was later found unconstitutional by two federal courts, and described by one of the judges to be little more than a "Jim Crow-era poll tax."
ePluribus Media has much more on Tanner's resume and discriminatory reign as voting section chief in the Civil Rights Division.
Restrictive Photo ID laws, being strongly and strategically pushed by elements of the GOP around the nation, are controversial since anywhere from 10 to 30 million Americans, largely Democratic-leaning voters who are elderly, minorities, and/or urban dwellers, are believed to have no driver's licenses. Most states already have requirements for some form of ID when voting, though not necessarily state-issued Photo ID.
Further, the federal Help America Vote of Act of 2002 already requires proof of identity when a voter registers to vote. In the meantime, by even the DoJ's own numbers, voter fraud at the polls is exceedingly rare in America. That, despite GOP kool-aid drinkers like Rep. Duncan Hunter and his recent unfounded claims to the contrary. ...
Tuesday, October 09, 2007
Bush administration claimed state secrets to block Supreme Court case ... used 39 times since 2001 ... vs. 6 times from 1952-1976
Court Rejects Alleged CIA Kidnap Victim | Oct 9, 11:53 AM (ET) | By MARK SHERMAN
WASHINGTON (AP) - The Supreme Court on Tuesday terminated a lawsuit from a man who claims he was abducted and tortured by the CIA, effectively endorsing Bush administration arguments that state secrets would be revealed if the case were allowed to proceed.
Khaled el-Masri, 44, alleged that he was kidnapped by CIA agents in Europe and held in an Afghan prison for four months in a case of mistaken identity.
...
... U.S. presidents used the state secrets privilege six times from 1953 to 1976, according to OpenTheGovernment.org. Since 2001, it has been used 39 times, enabling the government to unilaterally withhold documents from the court system, the group said.
...
The U.S. government has neither confirmed nor denied el-Masri's account. But German Chancellor Angela Merkel has said that U.S. officials acknowledged that El-Masri's detention was a mistake.
El-Masri's account also has been bolstered by European investigations and U.S. news reports. In January, German prosecutors issued arrest warrants for 13 suspected CIA agents who allegedly took part in the operation against him.
...
The state secrets privilege arose from a 1953 Supreme Court ruling that allowed the executive branch to keep secret, even from the court, details about a military plane's fatal crash.
Three widows sued to get the accident report after their husbands died aboard a B-29 bomber, but the Air Force refused to release it claiming that the plane was on a secret mission to test new equipment. The high court accepted the argument, but when the report was released decades later there was nothing in it about a secret mission or equipment.
WASHINGTON (AP) - The Supreme Court on Tuesday terminated a lawsuit from a man who claims he was abducted and tortured by the CIA, effectively endorsing Bush administration arguments that state secrets would be revealed if the case were allowed to proceed.
Khaled el-Masri, 44, alleged that he was kidnapped by CIA agents in Europe and held in an Afghan prison for four months in a case of mistaken identity.
...
... U.S. presidents used the state secrets privilege six times from 1953 to 1976, according to OpenTheGovernment.org. Since 2001, it has been used 39 times, enabling the government to unilaterally withhold documents from the court system, the group said.
...
The U.S. government has neither confirmed nor denied el-Masri's account. But German Chancellor Angela Merkel has said that U.S. officials acknowledged that El-Masri's detention was a mistake.
El-Masri's account also has been bolstered by European investigations and U.S. news reports. In January, German prosecutors issued arrest warrants for 13 suspected CIA agents who allegedly took part in the operation against him.
...
The state secrets privilege arose from a 1953 Supreme Court ruling that allowed the executive branch to keep secret, even from the court, details about a military plane's fatal crash.
Three widows sued to get the accident report after their husbands died aboard a B-29 bomber, but the Air Force refused to release it claiming that the plane was on a secret mission to test new equipment. The high court accepted the argument, but when the report was released decades later there was nothing in it about a secret mission or equipment.
Sunday, October 07, 2007
George Orwell would have been impressed by the phrase “enhanced interrogation technique”. ... Verschärfte Verneh-mung [the Nazi term]
Bush’s torturers follow where the Nazis led | By Andrew Sullivan | 10/07/07 | From The Sunday Times
I remember that my first response to the reports of abuse and torture at Guantanamo Bay was to accuse the accusers of exaggeration or deliberate deception. I didn’t believe America would ever do those things. ...
...
Classic torture techniques, such as waterboarding, hypothermia, beatings, excruciating stress positions, days and days of sleep deprivation, and threats to family members (even the children of terror suspects), were approved by Bush and inflicted on an unknown number of terror suspects by American officials, CIA agents and, in the chaos of Iraq, incompetents and sadists at Abu Ghraib. And when the horror came to light, they denied all of it and prosecuted a few grunts at the lowest level. The official reports were barred from investigating fully up the chain of command.
Legally, the White House knew from the start that it was on extremely shaky ground. And so officials told pliant in-house lawyers to concoct memos to make what was illegal legal. Their irritation with the rule of law, and their belief that the president had the constitutional authority to waive it, became a hallmark of their work.
They redefined torture solely as something that would be equivalent to the loss of major organs or leading to imminent death. [seeVerschärfte Verneh-mung, Nazi's below] Everything else was what was first called “coercive interrogation”, subsequently amended to “enhanced interrogation”. These terms were deployed in order for the president to be able to say that he didn’t support “torture”. We were through the looking glass. ...
...
George Orwell would have been impressed by the phrase “enhanced interrogation technique”. By relying on it, the White House spokesman last week was able to say with a straight face that the administration strongly opposed torture and that “any procedures they use are tough, safe, necessary and lawful”.
So is “enhanced interrogation” torture? One way to answer this question is to examine history. The phrase has a lineage. Verschärfte Verneh-mung, enhanced or intensified interrogation, was the exact term innovated by the Gestapo to describe what became known as the “third degree”. It left no marks. It included hypothermia, stress positions and long-time sleep deprivation.
The United States prosecuted it as a war crime in Norway in 1948. ...
The Nazis even argued that “the acts of torture in no case resulted in death. Most of the injuries inflicted were slight and did not result in permanent disablement”. This argument is almost verbatim that made by John Yoo, the Bush administration’s house lawyer, who now sits comfortably at the Washington think tank, the American Enterprise Institute. ...
I remember that my first response to the reports of abuse and torture at Guantanamo Bay was to accuse the accusers of exaggeration or deliberate deception. I didn’t believe America would ever do those things. ...
...
Classic torture techniques, such as waterboarding, hypothermia, beatings, excruciating stress positions, days and days of sleep deprivation, and threats to family members (even the children of terror suspects), were approved by Bush and inflicted on an unknown number of terror suspects by American officials, CIA agents and, in the chaos of Iraq, incompetents and sadists at Abu Ghraib. And when the horror came to light, they denied all of it and prosecuted a few grunts at the lowest level. The official reports were barred from investigating fully up the chain of command.
Legally, the White House knew from the start that it was on extremely shaky ground. And so officials told pliant in-house lawyers to concoct memos to make what was illegal legal. Their irritation with the rule of law, and their belief that the president had the constitutional authority to waive it, became a hallmark of their work.
They redefined torture solely as something that would be equivalent to the loss of major organs or leading to imminent death. [seeVerschärfte Verneh-mung, Nazi's below] Everything else was what was first called “coercive interrogation”, subsequently amended to “enhanced interrogation”. These terms were deployed in order for the president to be able to say that he didn’t support “torture”. We were through the looking glass. ...
...
George Orwell would have been impressed by the phrase “enhanced interrogation technique”. By relying on it, the White House spokesman last week was able to say with a straight face that the administration strongly opposed torture and that “any procedures they use are tough, safe, necessary and lawful”.
So is “enhanced interrogation” torture? One way to answer this question is to examine history. The phrase has a lineage. Verschärfte Verneh-mung, enhanced or intensified interrogation, was the exact term innovated by the Gestapo to describe what became known as the “third degree”. It left no marks. It included hypothermia, stress positions and long-time sleep deprivation.
The United States prosecuted it as a war crime in Norway in 1948. ...
The Nazis even argued that “the acts of torture in no case resulted in death. Most of the injuries inflicted were slight and did not result in permanent disablement”. This argument is almost verbatim that made by John Yoo, the Bush administration’s house lawyer, who now sits comfortably at the Washington think tank, the American Enterprise Institute. ...
Thursday, October 04, 2007
Justice Department’s most authoritative legal approval to ... head slapping, exposure to cold and simulated drowning,
Debate Erupts on Techniques Used by C.I.A. | By DAVID JOHNSTON and SCOTT SHANE | Published: October 5, 2007
WASHINGTON, Oct. 4 — The disclosure of secret Justice Department legal opinions on interrogation on Thursday set off a bitter round of debate over the treatment of terrorism suspects in American custody and whether Congress has been adequately informed of legal policies.
...
Democrats on Capitol Hill demanded to see the classified memorandums, disclosed Thursday by The New York Times, that gave the Central Intelligence Agency expansive approval in 2005 for harsh interrogation techniques.
...
One 2005 opinion gave the Justice Department’s most authoritative legal approval to the harshest agency techniques, including head slapping, exposure to cold and simulated drowning, even when used in combination.
The second opinion declared that under some circumstances, such techniques were not “cruel, inhuman or degrading,” a category of treatment that Congress banned in December 2005.
...
Senator Patrick J. Leahy, the Vermont Democrat who is chairman of the Judiciary Committee, said the 2005 opinions had “reinstated a secret regime by, in essence, reinterpreting the law in secret.” Mr. Leahy said his panel had sought information on the opinions on interrogation for two years without success. ...
WASHINGTON, Oct. 4 — The disclosure of secret Justice Department legal opinions on interrogation on Thursday set off a bitter round of debate over the treatment of terrorism suspects in American custody and whether Congress has been adequately informed of legal policies.
...
Democrats on Capitol Hill demanded to see the classified memorandums, disclosed Thursday by The New York Times, that gave the Central Intelligence Agency expansive approval in 2005 for harsh interrogation techniques.
...
One 2005 opinion gave the Justice Department’s most authoritative legal approval to the harshest agency techniques, including head slapping, exposure to cold and simulated drowning, even when used in combination.
The second opinion declared that under some circumstances, such techniques were not “cruel, inhuman or degrading,” a category of treatment that Congress banned in December 2005.
...
Senator Patrick J. Leahy, the Vermont Democrat who is chairman of the Judiciary Committee, said the 2005 opinions had “reinstated a secret regime by, in essence, reinterpreting the law in secret.” Mr. Leahy said his panel had sought information on the opinions on interrogation for two years without success. ...
Wednesday, October 03, 2007
Bush administration domestic eavesdropping plan: “It was the biggest legal mess I had ever encountered,” [former head of Office of Legal Counsel]
Panel Is Told of ‘Mess’ Over Eavesdropping | By NEIL A. LEWIS | Published: October 3, 2007
WASHINGTON, Oct. 2 — Jack L. Goldsmith, a Harvard law professor who led the Justice Department office that objected to a Bush administration domestic eavesdropping plan, told a Senate committee on Tuesday that the situation became a “legal mess” because the White House did not believe either the courts or Congress had any role to play.
Professor Goldsmith told the Judiciary Committee that chances to create a legally justified program were undercut by senior White House officials who were averse to any restraint on presidential power and devoted to extreme secrecy.
“It was the biggest legal mess I had ever encountered,” said Professor Goldsmith, who raised his objections to the program run by the National Security Agency while head of the Office of Legal Counsel. ..
Sunday, September 30, 2007
Republicans pushed 'bogus' terror threat to expand FISA, lawmaker says
Republicans pushed 'bogus' terror threat to expand FISA, lawmaker says | Nick Juliano | Published: Wednesday September 19, 2007
Republicans and the Bush administration used a 'bogus' terror threat that raised specific fears of an attack on the Capitol to scare lawmakers into adopting a dramatic temporary expansion of the government's spy powers last month, a former top intelligence committee Democrat said Wednesday.
...
"That specific intelligence claim, it turned out, was bogus; the intelligence agencies knew that," Rep. Jane Harman (D-CA) said at a forum on the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act organized by the Center for American Progress in Washington. However, lawmakers did not learn of the claim's unreliability until "the day" they approved the FISA expansion, she said. ....
Republicans and the Bush administration used a 'bogus' terror threat that raised specific fears of an attack on the Capitol to scare lawmakers into adopting a dramatic temporary expansion of the government's spy powers last month, a former top intelligence committee Democrat said Wednesday.
...
"That specific intelligence claim, it turned out, was bogus; the intelligence agencies knew that," Rep. Jane Harman (D-CA) said at a forum on the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act organized by the Center for American Progress in Washington. However, lawmakers did not learn of the claim's unreliability until "the day" they approved the FISA expansion, she said. ....
“In place of the Fourth Amendment, ... the people are expected to defer to the Executive Branch ...
Judge Rules Provisions in Patriot Act to Be Illegal | By SUSAN JO KELLER | Published: September 27, 2007
WASHINGTON, Sept. 26 — A federal judge in Oregon ruled Wednesday that crucial parts of the USA Patriot Act were not constitutional because they allowed federal surveillance and searches of Americans without demonstrating probable cause.
...
“For over 200 years, this nation has adhered to the rule of law — with unparalleled success,” Judge Aiken’s opinion said in finding violations of the Fourth Amendment prohibitions against unreasonable search and seizure. “A shift to a nation based on extraconstitutional authority is prohibited, as well as ill advised.”
...
“In place of the Fourth Amendment,” the judge wrote, “the people are expected to defer to the Executive Branch and its representation that it will authorize such surveillance only when appropriate.”
She said the government was “asking this court to, in essence, amend the Bill of Rights, by giving it an interpretation that would deprive it of any real meaning.”
WASHINGTON, Sept. 26 — A federal judge in Oregon ruled Wednesday that crucial parts of the USA Patriot Act were not constitutional because they allowed federal surveillance and searches of Americans without demonstrating probable cause.
...
“For over 200 years, this nation has adhered to the rule of law — with unparalleled success,” Judge Aiken’s opinion said in finding violations of the Fourth Amendment prohibitions against unreasonable search and seizure. “A shift to a nation based on extraconstitutional authority is prohibited, as well as ill advised.”
...
“In place of the Fourth Amendment,” the judge wrote, “the people are expected to defer to the Executive Branch and its representation that it will authorize such surveillance only when appropriate.”
She said the government was “asking this court to, in essence, amend the Bill of Rights, by giving it an interpretation that would deprive it of any real meaning.”
Monday, September 24, 2007
today conservatives are curtailing established rights, such as habeas corpus and protection against self-incrimination ... abandoned “original intent"
September 17, 2007 | Conservatism Isn't What It Used to Be | By PAUL CRAIG ROBERTS
...
On September 14, 2007, the Los Angeles Times reported that the appointment of the distinguished legal scholar Erwin Chemerinsky as the Dean of a new law school at the University of California at Irvine had been withdrawn by the university’s chancellor, Michael V. Drake, who gave in to the demands of conservatives outside the university. Conservatives are outraged at Chemerinsky because he criticized Attorney General Gonzales. In withdrawing Chemerinsky’s appointment, Drake told him: “I didn’t realize there would be conservatives out to get you.”
Gonzales is the attorney general who wrote memos justifying torture and denying that the Bush administration was bound by the Geneva Conventions. Gonzales told a stunned Senate Judiciary Committee that the US Constitution did not provide habeas corpus protection to American citizens.
To experience an attorney general of the US fiercely attacking the US Constitution, rending its every provision, is the most frightening experience of my lifetime. That the head of the legal branch of the executive, sworn to uphold the Constitution, would turn against it in order to enhance unaccountable executive power is a clear impeachable offense. If anyone anywhere in the world deserved criticism, Gonzales did. But when Chemerinsky unbraided the despicable Gonzales, conservatives rushed to Gonzales’ defense, not to the defense of the American Constitution.
It seems only yesterday that conservatives were complaining about the liberties that liberals took with the Constitution. Liberals were expanding rights, fancifully perhaps. But today conservatives are curtailing long established rights, such as habeas corpus and protection against self-incrimination. Conservatives abandoned “original intent” and all of their constitutional scruples once they had a chance to cram more power into the presidency.
In my conservative days as an academic, I experienced some liberal blackballs. But liberals did not attack academic freedom per se. The new conservatives despise academic freedom and have created organizations to monitor departments of Middle East studies in order to lower the boom on scholars who follow the truth instead of neoconservative ideology or Israeli policy. Today academic freedom has disappeared just like the independent media. No one but powerful organized interest groups has a voice. In the media truth can only emerge on comic shows like The Colbert Report and Jon Stewart’s The Daily Show. ...
...
On September 14, 2007, the Los Angeles Times reported that the appointment of the distinguished legal scholar Erwin Chemerinsky as the Dean of a new law school at the University of California at Irvine had been withdrawn by the university’s chancellor, Michael V. Drake, who gave in to the demands of conservatives outside the university. Conservatives are outraged at Chemerinsky because he criticized Attorney General Gonzales. In withdrawing Chemerinsky’s appointment, Drake told him: “I didn’t realize there would be conservatives out to get you.”
Gonzales is the attorney general who wrote memos justifying torture and denying that the Bush administration was bound by the Geneva Conventions. Gonzales told a stunned Senate Judiciary Committee that the US Constitution did not provide habeas corpus protection to American citizens.
To experience an attorney general of the US fiercely attacking the US Constitution, rending its every provision, is the most frightening experience of my lifetime. That the head of the legal branch of the executive, sworn to uphold the Constitution, would turn against it in order to enhance unaccountable executive power is a clear impeachable offense. If anyone anywhere in the world deserved criticism, Gonzales did. But when Chemerinsky unbraided the despicable Gonzales, conservatives rushed to Gonzales’ defense, not to the defense of the American Constitution.
It seems only yesterday that conservatives were complaining about the liberties that liberals took with the Constitution. Liberals were expanding rights, fancifully perhaps. But today conservatives are curtailing long established rights, such as habeas corpus and protection against self-incrimination. Conservatives abandoned “original intent” and all of their constitutional scruples once they had a chance to cram more power into the presidency.
In my conservative days as an academic, I experienced some liberal blackballs. But liberals did not attack academic freedom per se. The new conservatives despise academic freedom and have created organizations to monitor departments of Middle East studies in order to lower the boom on scholars who follow the truth instead of neoconservative ideology or Israeli policy. Today academic freedom has disappeared just like the independent media. No one but powerful organized interest groups has a voice. In the media truth can only emerge on comic shows like The Colbert Report and Jon Stewart’s The Daily Show. ...
In a terrifying front-page article Saturday, the Post outlines the latest in US government surveillance.
Massive surveillance net keeps track of American's travel -- down to the size of your hotel bed | RAW STORY | Published: Saturday September 22, 2007
The Bush Administration has been collecting detailed records on the travel habits of Americans headed overseas, whether you fly, drive or take cruises abroad -- not simply your method of transit but the personal items you carry with you and the people you stay with, according to documents and statements obtained by the Washington Post.
The Bush Administration has been collecting detailed records on the travel habits of Americans headed overseas, whether you fly, drive or take cruises abroad -- not simply your method of transit but the personal items you carry with you and the people you stay with, according to documents and statements obtained by the Washington Post.
They even keep sometimes keep track of what books you read. For as long as 15 years.
In a terrifying front-page article Saturday, the Post outlines the latest in US government surveillance.
...
"The federal government is trying to build a surveillance society," said John Gilmore, a civil liberties activist in San Francisco whose records were requested and then first revealed in Wired News. The government, he said, "may be doing it with the best or worst of intentions. . . . But the job of building a surveillance database and populating it with information about us is happening largely without our awareness and without our consent." ...
Saturday, September 22, 2007
military detainees to protest decision fails with 56 votes FOR, 43 votes AGAINST [... Democracy in action! ed.]
September 19, 2007 | How Senate Voted on Detainee Rights | By The Associated Press
The 56-43 roll call by which the Senate refused to consider an amendment to give military detainees the right to protest their detention in federal court.
On this vote, a "yes" vote was a vote in favor of an amendment and a "no" vote was a vote against it. Supporters fell four votes shy of the 60 they needed to bring the amendment up as part of a defense bill.
Voting "yes" were 49 Democrats, 6 Republicans and 1 independent.
Voting "no" were 0 Democrats, 42 Republicans and 1 independent. ...
The 56-43 roll call by which the Senate refused to consider an amendment to give military detainees the right to protest their detention in federal court.
On this vote, a "yes" vote was a vote in favor of an amendment and a "no" vote was a vote against it. Supporters fell four votes shy of the 60 they needed to bring the amendment up as part of a defense bill.
Voting "yes" were 49 Democrats, 6 Republicans and 1 independent.
Voting "no" were 0 Democrats, 42 Republicans and 1 independent. ...
[Democracy? majority wins? not really ...] procedural obstructions doubled in 2007, triple the nummber from 2005 ...
New Figures Reveal Aggressive GOP Obstructionist Strategy | September 21, 2007 01:35 PM
...
Technically speaking, Webb's measure - which would have given soldiers as much time at home as their previous tour deployed - was not filibustered. Prior to its introduction, Senate Democrats and Republicans agreed that, in order to avoid a procedural tit-for-tat, there would be a 60-vote threshold on all Defense Authorization amendments. Nevertheless, seeing his pet project defeated for the second time, even with the support of 55 other Senators, left Webb a bit steamed.
"I would say to my colleagues that the American people are watching us today, and they are watching closely," the Virginian declared. "They are tired of the posturing that is giving the Congress such a bad reputation. And they are tired of the procedural strategies designed to protect politicians from accountability."
...
Using obstructionism to defeat or delay an opponent's agenda is nothing new in Washington. Over the past five years, there have been more than 260 threats of a legislative filibuster in the Senate. But the numbers suggest that with Democrats now in power, such tactics are dramatically on the rise. Sixty-four times this year legislation has come before the Senate requiring 60 votes or more to pass - almost twice as many as all of last year, when the balance of power was switched, and nearly three times as much as 2005.
...
Combined, these methods of forcing super-majority votes have made the current Congress a paradigm of political gridlock. Among the legislation that has succumbed to natural and pseudo-filibustering are amendments to advance stem cell research, a bill that would have reduced the cost of attending college, multiple pieces of legislation designed to facilitate a drawdown of troops from Iraq, and a provision that would have allowed the Department of Health and Human Services to negotiate drug prices with drug companies.
"This is part of a longer trend, whereby 60 votes are now required for anything significant," Stuart Rothenberg, editor of the Rothenberg Political Report, said to the Huffington Post. "It used to be that requiring 60 votes, members had to bring in cots and have a real filibuster. Now the minority simply says no, we're not going let you bring that up. It's the way the process has changed on the Hill." ...
...
Technically speaking, Webb's measure - which would have given soldiers as much time at home as their previous tour deployed - was not filibustered. Prior to its introduction, Senate Democrats and Republicans agreed that, in order to avoid a procedural tit-for-tat, there would be a 60-vote threshold on all Defense Authorization amendments. Nevertheless, seeing his pet project defeated for the second time, even with the support of 55 other Senators, left Webb a bit steamed.
"I would say to my colleagues that the American people are watching us today, and they are watching closely," the Virginian declared. "They are tired of the posturing that is giving the Congress such a bad reputation. And they are tired of the procedural strategies designed to protect politicians from accountability."
...
Using obstructionism to defeat or delay an opponent's agenda is nothing new in Washington. Over the past five years, there have been more than 260 threats of a legislative filibuster in the Senate. But the numbers suggest that with Democrats now in power, such tactics are dramatically on the rise. Sixty-four times this year legislation has come before the Senate requiring 60 votes or more to pass - almost twice as many as all of last year, when the balance of power was switched, and nearly three times as much as 2005.
...
Combined, these methods of forcing super-majority votes have made the current Congress a paradigm of political gridlock. Among the legislation that has succumbed to natural and pseudo-filibustering are amendments to advance stem cell research, a bill that would have reduced the cost of attending college, multiple pieces of legislation designed to facilitate a drawdown of troops from Iraq, and a provision that would have allowed the Department of Health and Human Services to negotiate drug prices with drug companies.
"This is part of a longer trend, whereby 60 votes are now required for anything significant," Stuart Rothenberg, editor of the Rothenberg Political Report, said to the Huffington Post. "It used to be that requiring 60 votes, members had to bring in cots and have a real filibuster. Now the minority simply says no, we're not going let you bring that up. It's the way the process has changed on the Hill." ...
Friday, September 14, 2007
Justice Dept - "longstanding Republican electoral tactic -- thinning the ranks of likely Democratic voters in states where there may be close races."
Purge of voter rolls could swing 2008 election | Jason Rhyne | Published: Wednesday September 12, 2007
Using statistics and methodology that some voting experts are calling "flawed," the Justice Department's Voting Section is telling 10 US states to purge voter rolls which allegedly show more registered voters than are eligible--a house-cleaning effort AlterNet's Steven Rosenfeld says could swing the 2008 election.
...
According to experts interviewed by Rosenfeld, however, the Justice Department is misrepresenting the information they are using to make their recommendations.
"That data does not say what they purport it says," David Becker, senior voting rights counsel for People for the American Way, said. "They are saying the data shows the 10 worst voter rolls. They have a lot of explaining to do." Rosenfeld also quotes U.S. Election Assistance Commission consultant Kim Brace, who said "You are basically seeing them grasping at whatever straws are possible to make their point."
Obtaining the same data used by the Voting Section, AlterNet's analysis found that "some states facing Justice Department pressure to purge voters have long been targeted by GOP 'vote fraud' activists, especially where concentrations of minority voters have historically elected Democrats -- such as St. Louis, Philadelphia and South Dakota's Indian reservations."
"Voter roll purges, if incorrectly done, can be a factor in determining election outcomes -- particularly in tight races," Rosenfeld writes. "Looking toward the 2008 election, it appears the purges could be a new and legal way to accomplish a controversial longstanding Republican Party electoral tactic -- thinning the ranks of likely Democratic voters in states where there may be close races." ...
Using statistics and methodology that some voting experts are calling "flawed," the Justice Department's Voting Section is telling 10 US states to purge voter rolls which allegedly show more registered voters than are eligible--a house-cleaning effort AlterNet's Steven Rosenfeld says could swing the 2008 election.
...
According to experts interviewed by Rosenfeld, however, the Justice Department is misrepresenting the information they are using to make their recommendations.
"That data does not say what they purport it says," David Becker, senior voting rights counsel for People for the American Way, said. "They are saying the data shows the 10 worst voter rolls. They have a lot of explaining to do." Rosenfeld also quotes U.S. Election Assistance Commission consultant Kim Brace, who said "You are basically seeing them grasping at whatever straws are possible to make their point."
Obtaining the same data used by the Voting Section, AlterNet's analysis found that "some states facing Justice Department pressure to purge voters have long been targeted by GOP 'vote fraud' activists, especially where concentrations of minority voters have historically elected Democrats -- such as St. Louis, Philadelphia and South Dakota's Indian reservations."
"Voter roll purges, if incorrectly done, can be a factor in determining election outcomes -- particularly in tight races," Rosenfeld writes. "Looking toward the 2008 election, it appears the purges could be a new and legal way to accomplish a controversial longstanding Republican Party electoral tactic -- thinning the ranks of likely Democratic voters in states where there may be close races." ...
Monday, September 10, 2007
Lafayette man wants Congress to investigate whether White House sought ballot initiative to change system ... to benefit Republican elections
Attorney seeks probe of electoral vote plan | By Steven Harmon | MEDIANEWS SACRAMENTO BUREAU | Article Launched: 09/08/2007 03:04:50 AM PDT
# Lafayette man wants Congress to investigate whether White House sought ballot initiative to change system
SACRAMENTO -- A Lafayette attorney who specializes in election law is seeking a Congressional investigation into whether the White House was involved in pushing a California ballot initiative to change the way the state allocates its electoral votes.
...
But the idea had been around since at least 2002, when Sacramento GOP attorney Tom Hiltachk and others approached the Republican National Committee that year, asking if they'd like them to pursue such an initiative. But Bush's political team decided against it, confident he could win without it, according to Rob Stutzman, a California Republican consultant familiar with the discussions -- who dismissed their significance.
"This is quite funny," Stutzman said. "There is no grand conspiracy. This is the idea of a Republican attorney in California. This FOIA effort is all politics, trying to tie the Bush White House to the initiative. There's no there there because the proprietors of the initiative are California Republicans."
Opponents say they're particularly interested in a 2002 memo written by the RNC to Karl Rove, the former White House political advisor to President Bush, discussing the 2004 presidential election.
"We do have information indicating that a meeting did take place involving high level White House aides, including Karl Rove, in the context of the 2004 election," said Chris Lehane, a Democratic consultant and spokesman for Californians for Fair Election Reform. "This initiative seems to be a byproduct of these discussions. It's important to find out who discussed it, why, and where this information came from."
# Lafayette man wants Congress to investigate whether White House sought ballot initiative to change system
SACRAMENTO -- A Lafayette attorney who specializes in election law is seeking a Congressional investigation into whether the White House was involved in pushing a California ballot initiative to change the way the state allocates its electoral votes.
...
But the idea had been around since at least 2002, when Sacramento GOP attorney Tom Hiltachk and others approached the Republican National Committee that year, asking if they'd like them to pursue such an initiative. But Bush's political team decided against it, confident he could win without it, according to Rob Stutzman, a California Republican consultant familiar with the discussions -- who dismissed their significance.
"This is quite funny," Stutzman said. "There is no grand conspiracy. This is the idea of a Republican attorney in California. This FOIA effort is all politics, trying to tie the Bush White House to the initiative. There's no there there because the proprietors of the initiative are California Republicans."
Opponents say they're particularly interested in a 2002 memo written by the RNC to Karl Rove, the former White House political advisor to President Bush, discussing the 2004 presidential election.
"We do have information indicating that a meeting did take place involving high level White House aides, including Karl Rove, in the context of the 2004 election," said Chris Lehane, a Democratic consultant and spokesman for Californians for Fair Election Reform. "This initiative seems to be a byproduct of these discussions. It's important to find out who discussed it, why, and where this information came from."
Tuesday, September 04, 2007
voter fraud and intimidastion ... EAC publicly released a report ... that completely stood our own work on its head.
A Rigged Report on U.S. Voting? | By Tova Andrea Wang | Thursday, August 30, 2007; Page A21
After the 2000 Florida election debacle, Congress established a body called the Election Assistance Commission to improve voting and democracy in this country. Two years ago, the commission approached me about doing a project that would take a preliminary look at voter fraud and intimidation and make recommendations for further research on the issues.
Because my approach to election issues tends to be more closely aligned with Democrats, I was paired with a Republican co-author. To further remove any taint of partisanship, my co-author and I convened a bipartisan working group to help us. We spent a year doing research and consulting with leaders in the field to produce a draft report. What happened next seems inexplicable. After submitting the draft in July 2006, we were barred by the commission's staff from having anything more to do with it.
...
... The EAC finally released me from the gag order this summer, and, under pressure from Congress, it has publicly released 40,000 pages of revealing documents and e-mail.
...
Yet, after sitting on the draft for six months, the EAC publicly released a report -- citing it as based on work by me and my co-author -- that completely stood our own work on its head.
Consider the title. Whereas the commission is mandated by law to study voter fraud and intimidation, this new report was titled simply "Election Crimes" and excluded a wide range of serious offenses that harm the system and suppress voting but are not currently crimes under the U.S. criminal code. ...
...
We have learned that several Republican officials, including a state official, a former political appointee at the Justice Department and current Federal Election Commission member (Hans Von Spakovsky), and a Capitol Hill staffer complained about our project, particularly about my role in it. Officials at Justice were actively involved in the report throughout the process and even exerted some degree of editorial control over the new report. And it is evident from the commission's "document dump" that its Republican general counsel assumed primary control over the rewriting of the report.
Even without a smoking gun showing political motives in the handling of the draft, the results are disappointing. This is not the way an institution created to promote democracy should function. A government entity that seeks democratic progress should be transparent. It should not be in the business of suppressing information or ideas. Such an institution must be thoroughly insulated from political interference from outside operatives or other parts of the executive branch. ...
After the 2000 Florida election debacle, Congress established a body called the Election Assistance Commission to improve voting and democracy in this country. Two years ago, the commission approached me about doing a project that would take a preliminary look at voter fraud and intimidation and make recommendations for further research on the issues.
Because my approach to election issues tends to be more closely aligned with Democrats, I was paired with a Republican co-author. To further remove any taint of partisanship, my co-author and I convened a bipartisan working group to help us. We spent a year doing research and consulting with leaders in the field to produce a draft report. What happened next seems inexplicable. After submitting the draft in July 2006, we were barred by the commission's staff from having anything more to do with it.
...
... The EAC finally released me from the gag order this summer, and, under pressure from Congress, it has publicly released 40,000 pages of revealing documents and e-mail.
...
Yet, after sitting on the draft for six months, the EAC publicly released a report -- citing it as based on work by me and my co-author -- that completely stood our own work on its head.
Consider the title. Whereas the commission is mandated by law to study voter fraud and intimidation, this new report was titled simply "Election Crimes" and excluded a wide range of serious offenses that harm the system and suppress voting but are not currently crimes under the U.S. criminal code. ...
...
We have learned that several Republican officials, including a state official, a former political appointee at the Justice Department and current Federal Election Commission member (Hans Von Spakovsky), and a Capitol Hill staffer complained about our project, particularly about my role in it. Officials at Justice were actively involved in the report throughout the process and even exerted some degree of editorial control over the new report. And it is evident from the commission's "document dump" that its Republican general counsel assumed primary control over the rewriting of the report.
Even without a smoking gun showing political motives in the handling of the draft, the results are disappointing. This is not the way an institution created to promote democracy should function. A government entity that seeks democratic progress should be transparent. It should not be in the business of suppressing information or ideas. Such an institution must be thoroughly insulated from political interference from outside operatives or other parts of the executive branch. ...
White House Won't Name Tech Contractor ... responsible for email archives ...
Bush E-Mail Mystery Deepens: White House Won't Name Tech Contractor | August 31, 2007 11:20 AM | Justin Rood Reports:
The White House will not identify a private company which appears to be involved in the disappearance of potentially millions of White House e-mails.
The company was responsible for reviewing and archiving White House e-mails, a White House official told congressional staff in May, according to a letter yesterday from House Oversight and Government Reform Committee Chairman Henry Waxman, D-Calif. Congressional investigators asked then for the name of the company and "have repeatedly requested" the information since then, according to Waxman.
They are still waiting for an answer, the chairman wrote to White House counsel Fred Fielding. Waxman asked the White House to come up with the company's name by Sept. 10. ...
The White House will not identify a private company which appears to be involved in the disappearance of potentially millions of White House e-mails.
The company was responsible for reviewing and archiving White House e-mails, a White House official told congressional staff in May, according to a letter yesterday from House Oversight and Government Reform Committee Chairman Henry Waxman, D-Calif. Congressional investigators asked then for the name of the company and "have repeatedly requested" the information since then, according to Waxman.
They are still waiting for an answer, the chairman wrote to White House counsel Fred Fielding. Waxman asked the White House to come up with the company's name by Sept. 10. ...
Friday, August 31, 2007
whether the meetings violated the Hatch Act, which prohibits federal employees from engaging in partisan political activity on federal government prop
Gonzales Now Says Top Aides Got Political BriefingsBy Dan Eggen and Paul Kane | Washington Post Staff Writer and washingtonpost.com Staff Writer | Saturday, August 4, 2007; Page A05
Justice Department officials attended at least a dozen political briefings at the White House since 2001, including some meetings led by Karl Rove, President Bush's chief political adviser, and others that were focused on election trends prior to the 2006 midterm contest, according to documents released yesterday.
...
Internal guidelines forbid partisan meetings at the Justice Department and sharply restrict the ability of employees to participate directly in election campaigns or other political activities, a Justice official said yesterday. ... But the official, who declined to be identified publicly discussing the issue, said the type of meetings held at the White House did not appear to run afoul of department policy.
...
Political briefings by White House aides have become a political flashpoint on Capitol Hill in recent months. Waxman is investigating whether the meetings violated the Hatch Act, which prohibits federal employees from engaging in partisan political activity on federal government property. ...
Justice Department officials attended at least a dozen political briefings at the White House since 2001, including some meetings led by Karl Rove, President Bush's chief political adviser, and others that were focused on election trends prior to the 2006 midterm contest, according to documents released yesterday.
...
Internal guidelines forbid partisan meetings at the Justice Department and sharply restrict the ability of employees to participate directly in election campaigns or other political activities, a Justice official said yesterday. ... But the official, who declined to be identified publicly discussing the issue, said the type of meetings held at the White House did not appear to run afoul of department policy.
...
Political briefings by White House aides have become a political flashpoint on Capitol Hill in recent months. Waxman is investigating whether the meetings violated the Hatch Act, which prohibits federal employees from engaging in partisan political activity on federal government property. ...
"it would be improper for the RNC to refuse to produce subpoenaed documents in its possession based on an assertion of privilege by a third party"
Conyers Threatens Contempt Proceedings against RNC ChairBy Paul Kiel - July 17, 2007, 6:41 PM
Now on to the third development of this afternoon in the U.S. attorney firings subpoena battle.
On Friday, the House Judiciary Committee issued a subpoena to the Republican National Committee for the emails of White House staffers who used the RNC addresses -- the Justice Department emails show that Karl Rove and his aides often used the email addresses to communicate about the U.S. attorneys. The RNC has deferred to the White House on this, and the White House has in turn refused to turn over the emails, citing executive privilege.
...
Conyers accordingly agreed to postpone the subpoena deadline, but warned the RNC in a letter (see below) that "it would be improper for the RNC to refuse to produce subpoenaed documents in its possession based on an assertion of privilege by a third party" (i.e. the White House). It's not for the RNC to decide whether to hand the documents over, Conyers wrote -- if the White House wants to stop them, then the White House should do that in court.
But if the RNC still decides not to produce the documents, Conyers says that the committee may conduct contempt proceedings against RNC Chairman Robert Duncan. ...
Now on to the third development of this afternoon in the U.S. attorney firings subpoena battle.
On Friday, the House Judiciary Committee issued a subpoena to the Republican National Committee for the emails of White House staffers who used the RNC addresses -- the Justice Department emails show that Karl Rove and his aides often used the email addresses to communicate about the U.S. attorneys. The RNC has deferred to the White House on this, and the White House has in turn refused to turn over the emails, citing executive privilege.
...
Conyers accordingly agreed to postpone the subpoena deadline, but warned the RNC in a letter (see below) that "it would be improper for the RNC to refuse to produce subpoenaed documents in its possession based on an assertion of privilege by a third party" (i.e. the White House). It's not for the RNC to decide whether to hand the documents over, Conyers wrote -- if the White House wants to stop them, then the White House should do that in court.
But if the RNC still decides not to produce the documents, Conyers says that the committee may conduct contempt proceedings against RNC Chairman Robert Duncan. ...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)