Amnesty International weighs in in the lack of progress in the torture issue, and how threats to human rights could get even worse given Bush's sidestepping of the law.
From a press release:
-----
Marking the fourth anniversary of the first transfers of detainees to Guantanamo Bay in Cuba, January 11, 2006, Amnesty International released new testimonies alleging the use of torture and ill treatment against prisoners in the U.S. detention center and additional details on several detainee cases.
The testimonies include that of one of the first detainees to be transferred to Guantanamo, Jumah al-Dossari, a 32-year-old Bahraini national who was taken to the U.S. Naval Base in January 2002 after being held by U.S. forces in the Kandahar airbase in Afghanistan.
Al-Dossari's testimony, corroborated by people who have now been released from Guantanamo, includes several allegations of physical and psychological torture and ill treatment inflicted by U.S. personnel both on him and on other inmates in Afghanistan and Guantanamo.
"Anniversaries usually represent milestones. Today's milestone is a frightening and disheartening one. The situation at Guantanamo is not getting better -- in fact, it may be worse. First, the Bush Administration wants all 186 pending habeas corpus petitions filed on behalf of the detainees to be dismissed based on a new law that was not meant to apply to cases filed before the law went into effect. And now, after Congress overwhelming passed the historic Anti-Torture Amendment, President Bush is asserting that he can waive the restrictions on the use of cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment against detainees. When does the hypocrisy of defending democracy around the world while continuing to curtail fundamental due process end?" said Dr. William F. Schulz, Executive Director of Amnesty International USA.
"There are approximately 500 men who have been treated with complete and utter disdain -- the antipathy of the American value of recognizing the basic human dignity of all people. It isn't surprising that after years of uncertainty about their fate, some of these men have expressed their intention to die rather than remain in Guantanamo indefinitely," added Schulz.
Amnesty International also revealed further details on the cases of Al-Jazeera journalist Sami al Hajj, transferred to Guantanamo in June 2002 after spending time in detention in Bagram and Kandahar, and Abdulsalam al-Hela, a Yemeni businessman, subjected to rendition and secret detention before being transferred to Guantánamo.
-----
[Read more.]
14 January 2006
Army whitewashed probe of prisoner abuse
If the truth gets in the way of your agenda, you sweep it under the carpet. Or you spin it, or you make up excuses for the inexcusable. Or maybe you just blame the victim, which is even easier if he's not a white American. Politics as usual in Bush's wartime.
From Capitol Hill Blue:
-----
The Army closed a criminal investigation of abuse allegations by an Iraqi detainee last year, finding no reason to believe his claims, even though no Americans involved in the case were questioned, according to Pentagon records made public Thursday.
Internal Army documents about the Iraqi's capture on Jan. 4, 2004, and his subsequent interrogation at an unspecified facility at or near Baghdad International Airport were not reviewed, the records show, because investigators were told they had been lost in a computer malfunction.
The Iraqi, whose full name was blacked out in the documents by U.S. censors, is described as a relative of a former bodyguard for Saddam Hussein.
The detainee alleged that he was kicked in the stomach once and punched in the spine once by his interrogators. He said he was placed in front of a window air conditioner after being stripped naked and having a bag placed over his head. Cold water was poured over the bag every few minutes, he said, and he was dragged around a room by his arm.
The investigation records were among thousands of pages of records released by the American Civil Liberties Union, which obtained them from the Defense Department as part of a Freedom of Information request.
Army spokesman Paul Boyce said more than 500 investigations have been conducted on allegations of detainee abuse and that so far at least 251 military members have been court-martialed or given other forms of punishment.
"This effort by the U.S. Army Criminal Investigation Command demonstrates the Army's continuing and tireless commitment to investigate any allegation of detainee abuse by any unit or soldier, and to locate possible witnesses to allegations of detainee abuse," he said.
The documents include numerous references to investigators being blocked from a thorough investigation, yet the matter was closed a final time on June 17, 2005, by the Army Criminal Investigation Command.
-----
[Read more.]
From Capitol Hill Blue:
-----
The Army closed a criminal investigation of abuse allegations by an Iraqi detainee last year, finding no reason to believe his claims, even though no Americans involved in the case were questioned, according to Pentagon records made public Thursday.
Internal Army documents about the Iraqi's capture on Jan. 4, 2004, and his subsequent interrogation at an unspecified facility at or near Baghdad International Airport were not reviewed, the records show, because investigators were told they had been lost in a computer malfunction.
The Iraqi, whose full name was blacked out in the documents by U.S. censors, is described as a relative of a former bodyguard for Saddam Hussein.
The detainee alleged that he was kicked in the stomach once and punched in the spine once by his interrogators. He said he was placed in front of a window air conditioner after being stripped naked and having a bag placed over his head. Cold water was poured over the bag every few minutes, he said, and he was dragged around a room by his arm.
The investigation records were among thousands of pages of records released by the American Civil Liberties Union, which obtained them from the Defense Department as part of a Freedom of Information request.
Army spokesman Paul Boyce said more than 500 investigations have been conducted on allegations of detainee abuse and that so far at least 251 military members have been court-martialed or given other forms of punishment.
"This effort by the U.S. Army Criminal Investigation Command demonstrates the Army's continuing and tireless commitment to investigate any allegation of detainee abuse by any unit or soldier, and to locate possible witnesses to allegations of detainee abuse," he said.
The documents include numerous references to investigators being blocked from a thorough investigation, yet the matter was closed a final time on June 17, 2005, by the Army Criminal Investigation Command.
-----
[Read more.]
Dale McFeatters: Bush's misuse of presidential power
More fun with presidential tyranny, from Capitol Hill Blue:
-----
Over White House objections and by convincing, veto-proof margins, Congress voted late last year to ban the torture of anyone in U.S. government custody.
When President Bush signed that ban last month, he added a disclaimer, saying that nothing in the ban affected his prerogatives in a time of national emergency to fight the war on terrorism how he chose. In other words, he reserved the right to torture even though Congress explicitly outlawed it.
And he used the same justification for bypassing the courts and ordering the National Security Agency to conduct warrantless eavesdropping on American citizens.
Bush also invoked this same authority to assert that he could hold U.S. citizens indefinitely, without trial or counsel, simply on his say-so.
Taking an expansionist view of a new law on the treatment of the Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, detainees, the administration insists that it bars federal courts from any jurisdiction over the detainees, "including application for writs of habeas corpus." The right to be brought before a judge is fundamental to civil liberties, but the administration has decided it can selectively suspend that right. It has asked the federal courts to dismiss all detainee lawsuits, effectively leaving the detainees' fate in the hands of a legal process effectively controlled by the president.
The assertion of these powers has its roots in the War Powers Act of 1973, a controversial law, parts of which are widely believed to be unconstitutional, and resolutions on the war on terror and the invasion of Iraq that Congress passed post-9/11.
-----
[Read more.]
-----
Over White House objections and by convincing, veto-proof margins, Congress voted late last year to ban the torture of anyone in U.S. government custody.
When President Bush signed that ban last month, he added a disclaimer, saying that nothing in the ban affected his prerogatives in a time of national emergency to fight the war on terrorism how he chose. In other words, he reserved the right to torture even though Congress explicitly outlawed it.
And he used the same justification for bypassing the courts and ordering the National Security Agency to conduct warrantless eavesdropping on American citizens.
Bush also invoked this same authority to assert that he could hold U.S. citizens indefinitely, without trial or counsel, simply on his say-so.
Taking an expansionist view of a new law on the treatment of the Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, detainees, the administration insists that it bars federal courts from any jurisdiction over the detainees, "including application for writs of habeas corpus." The right to be brought before a judge is fundamental to civil liberties, but the administration has decided it can selectively suspend that right. It has asked the federal courts to dismiss all detainee lawsuits, effectively leaving the detainees' fate in the hands of a legal process effectively controlled by the president.
The assertion of these powers has its roots in the War Powers Act of 1973, a controversial law, parts of which are widely believed to be unconstitutional, and resolutions on the war on terror and the invasion of Iraq that Congress passed post-9/11.
-----
[Read more.]
Doug Thompson: Bush could seize absolute control of U.S. goverment
In his latest column at Capitol Hill Blue, Doug Thompson paints a bleak picture of the potential consequences of Bush's quest for unbridled power, laws be damned.
Thompson's dramatic opening paragraph might seem an exaggeration, but now is not the time to dismiss these threats to our Constitutional rights and freedoms.
I am convinced that Bush presents a much greater threat to democracy than Osama does, and Osama is no nice guy.
And, during his confirmation hearings this past week, Supreme Court nominee Sam Alito found numerous ways to avoid answering questions about out-of-control presidential power.
Be nervous.
Some excerpts:
-----
President George W. Bush has signed executive orders giving him sole authority to impose martial law, suspend habeas corpus and ignore the Posse Comitatus Act that prohibits deployment of U.S. troops on American streets. This would give him absolute dictatorial power over the government with no checks and balances.
Bush discussed imposing martial law on American streets in the aftermath of the 9/11 terrorist attacks by activating "national security initiatives" put in place by Ronald Reagan during the 1980s.
These "national security initiatives," hatched in 1982 by controversial Marine Colonel Oliver North, later one of the key players in the Iran-Contra Scandal, charged the Federal Emergency Management Agency with administering executive orders that allowed suspension of the Constitution, implementation of martial law, establishment of internment camps, and the turning the government over to the President.
John Brinkerhoff, deputy director of FEMA, developed the martial law implementation plan, following a template originally developed by former FEMA director Louis Guiffrida to battle a "national uprising of black militants." Gifuffrida’s implementation of martial law called for jailing at least 21 million African Americans in "relocation camps." Brinkerhoff later admitted in an interview with the Miami Herald that President Reagan signed off on the initiatives and they remained in place, dormant, until George W. Bush took office.
Brinkerhoff moved on the Anser Institute for Homeland Security and, following the 9/11 terrorist attacks, provided the Bush White House and the Pentagon with talking points supporting revised "national security initiatives" that would could allow imposition of martial law and suspension of the Posse Comitatus Act of 1878, the law that is supposed to forbid use of troops for domestic law enforcement.
Brinkerhoff wrote that intentions of Posse Comitatus are "misunderstood and misapplied" and that the U.S. has in times of national emergency the "full and absolute authority" to send troops into American streets to "enforce order and maintain the peace."
[...]
The Department of Homeland Security established the "Northern Command for National Defense," a wide-ranging program that includes FEMA, the Pentagon, the FBI and the National Security Agency. Executive orders already signed by Bush allow the Northern Command to send troops into American streets, seize control of radio and television stations and networks and impose martial law "in times of national emergency."
The authority to declare what is or is not a national emergency rests entirely with Bush who does not have to either consult or seek the approval of Congress for permission to assume absolute control over the government of the United States.
-----
[Read more.]
Thompson's dramatic opening paragraph might seem an exaggeration, but now is not the time to dismiss these threats to our Constitutional rights and freedoms.
I am convinced that Bush presents a much greater threat to democracy than Osama does, and Osama is no nice guy.
And, during his confirmation hearings this past week, Supreme Court nominee Sam Alito found numerous ways to avoid answering questions about out-of-control presidential power.
Be nervous.
Some excerpts:
-----
President George W. Bush has signed executive orders giving him sole authority to impose martial law, suspend habeas corpus and ignore the Posse Comitatus Act that prohibits deployment of U.S. troops on American streets. This would give him absolute dictatorial power over the government with no checks and balances.
Bush discussed imposing martial law on American streets in the aftermath of the 9/11 terrorist attacks by activating "national security initiatives" put in place by Ronald Reagan during the 1980s.
These "national security initiatives," hatched in 1982 by controversial Marine Colonel Oliver North, later one of the key players in the Iran-Contra Scandal, charged the Federal Emergency Management Agency with administering executive orders that allowed suspension of the Constitution, implementation of martial law, establishment of internment camps, and the turning the government over to the President.
John Brinkerhoff, deputy director of FEMA, developed the martial law implementation plan, following a template originally developed by former FEMA director Louis Guiffrida to battle a "national uprising of black militants." Gifuffrida’s implementation of martial law called for jailing at least 21 million African Americans in "relocation camps." Brinkerhoff later admitted in an interview with the Miami Herald that President Reagan signed off on the initiatives and they remained in place, dormant, until George W. Bush took office.
Brinkerhoff moved on the Anser Institute for Homeland Security and, following the 9/11 terrorist attacks, provided the Bush White House and the Pentagon with talking points supporting revised "national security initiatives" that would could allow imposition of martial law and suspension of the Posse Comitatus Act of 1878, the law that is supposed to forbid use of troops for domestic law enforcement.
Brinkerhoff wrote that intentions of Posse Comitatus are "misunderstood and misapplied" and that the U.S. has in times of national emergency the "full and absolute authority" to send troops into American streets to "enforce order and maintain the peace."
[...]
The Department of Homeland Security established the "Northern Command for National Defense," a wide-ranging program that includes FEMA, the Pentagon, the FBI and the National Security Agency. Executive orders already signed by Bush allow the Northern Command to send troops into American streets, seize control of radio and television stations and networks and impose martial law "in times of national emergency."
The authority to declare what is or is not a national emergency rests entirely with Bush who does not have to either consult or seek the approval of Congress for permission to assume absolute control over the government of the United States.
-----
[Read more.]
13 January 2006
New Fiore animation: "Jackopoly"
Up until now, I had avoided writing about the Jack Abramoff scandal on this blog, even though there is a social justice element to it.
But political cartoonist Mark Fiore's latest animation, "Jackopoly", is too good not to share.
[Check it out.]
But political cartoonist Mark Fiore's latest animation, "Jackopoly", is too good not to share.
[Check it out.]
12 January 2006
No justice for the exonerated
You're walking down the street, peacefully minding your own business. Suddenly, a stranger points to you and says, "He did it." Police officers frisk you, knock you around a bit, handcuff you, and throw you in jail. They tell you that an eyewitness has identified you as the perpetrator of a rape. Or maybe a murder.
You're innocent, so you look forward to the opportunity to clear your name in a court of law. But you cannot afford a top-notch defense attorney, so the court assigns an overworked novice public defender to your case. He drops the ball. You are found guilty, and you spend the next several years in one of the most horrible settings on this planet.
If you're lucky, maybe DNA or other evidence will eventually surface to prove your innocence.
And, if you're lucky, maybe the court will agree to admit that evidence and give you a new trial.
And, if you're lucky, maybe your conviction will be overturned and you will be exonerated.
But there's a good chance that this is where your luck will end. The nightmare of your wrongful conviction is far from over.
As compensation for the years you spent behind bars for a crime you did not commit, the state might give you $10 and a bus ticket.
And that $10 might well be all that you own now. Studies have shown that over 90 percent of exonerees in the U.S. lost all their assets, including their savings, vehicles, and homes, while imprisoned.
Newly free, you try to find work and rebuild your life. But prospective employers often do a background check, and they learn of that conviction on your record. Most states do not automatically expunge the records of exonerees, and expungement is an expensive undertaking that isn't always successful. So you get work where you can - most likely in a low-paying job like taxi driving or janitorial work.
Sound far-fetched? Think it could never happen to you? Guess again. I recently met two men who learned these things the hard way right here in Pennsylvania. And they are just the tip of the iceberg.
In this country to date, nearly 400 wrongfully convicted individuals have been exonerated after conclusively proving their innocence. Some were on death row, and were lucky to have had the chance to prove their innocence prior to their execution dates.
The system must change. The state must not continue to punish the innocent after their names have been cleared.
For starters, all states should implement the following three measures:
1. Expungement: A criminal conviction must not mar the permanent record of an innocent person. An exoneree's record should be automatically cleared when a conviction is overturned. Any records of these cases should be sealed, and should not be available to potential employers, credit agencies, or other parties who might do a background check.
2. Compensation: Currently, only 17 jurisdictions provide exonerees with financial compensation. When they do, it is often woefully inadequate. While no amount of money could ever make up for the lost years and suffering of the wrongfully convicted, states should provide exonerees with adequate funds to build a new life.
3. Social services: Most states do not have social programs in place for exonerees as they do for parolees. So, if you're innocent, there's less help for you on the outside than there would be if you were actually guilty! Returning to life on the outside is difficult. Exonerees often require assistance with housing, finding employment, and obtaining medical, dental, and psychological care. These services should be provided by the state, since the state's own misjudgments were responsible for creating the need.
It's the least we can do.
Until these changes take place, our criminal justice system cannot be called just.
You're innocent, so you look forward to the opportunity to clear your name in a court of law. But you cannot afford a top-notch defense attorney, so the court assigns an overworked novice public defender to your case. He drops the ball. You are found guilty, and you spend the next several years in one of the most horrible settings on this planet.
If you're lucky, maybe DNA or other evidence will eventually surface to prove your innocence.
And, if you're lucky, maybe the court will agree to admit that evidence and give you a new trial.
And, if you're lucky, maybe your conviction will be overturned and you will be exonerated.
But there's a good chance that this is where your luck will end. The nightmare of your wrongful conviction is far from over.
As compensation for the years you spent behind bars for a crime you did not commit, the state might give you $10 and a bus ticket.
And that $10 might well be all that you own now. Studies have shown that over 90 percent of exonerees in the U.S. lost all their assets, including their savings, vehicles, and homes, while imprisoned.
Newly free, you try to find work and rebuild your life. But prospective employers often do a background check, and they learn of that conviction on your record. Most states do not automatically expunge the records of exonerees, and expungement is an expensive undertaking that isn't always successful. So you get work where you can - most likely in a low-paying job like taxi driving or janitorial work.
Sound far-fetched? Think it could never happen to you? Guess again. I recently met two men who learned these things the hard way right here in Pennsylvania. And they are just the tip of the iceberg.
In this country to date, nearly 400 wrongfully convicted individuals have been exonerated after conclusively proving their innocence. Some were on death row, and were lucky to have had the chance to prove their innocence prior to their execution dates.
The system must change. The state must not continue to punish the innocent after their names have been cleared.
For starters, all states should implement the following three measures:
1. Expungement: A criminal conviction must not mar the permanent record of an innocent person. An exoneree's record should be automatically cleared when a conviction is overturned. Any records of these cases should be sealed, and should not be available to potential employers, credit agencies, or other parties who might do a background check.
2. Compensation: Currently, only 17 jurisdictions provide exonerees with financial compensation. When they do, it is often woefully inadequate. While no amount of money could ever make up for the lost years and suffering of the wrongfully convicted, states should provide exonerees with adequate funds to build a new life.
3. Social services: Most states do not have social programs in place for exonerees as they do for parolees. So, if you're innocent, there's less help for you on the outside than there would be if you were actually guilty! Returning to life on the outside is difficult. Exonerees often require assistance with housing, finding employment, and obtaining medical, dental, and psychological care. These services should be provided by the state, since the state's own misjudgments were responsible for creating the need.
It's the least we can do.
Until these changes take place, our criminal justice system cannot be called just.
11 January 2006
Marjorie Cohn: Alito sounds death knell for individual rights
Political analysts and pundits are digging into Alito's past and pulling out all kinds of scary possibilities for how we'll all suffer if he is confirmed.
In a column posted yesterday at truthout, Marjorie Cohn lays it all on the table. This stuff all paints a pretty bleak picture of the fate of human rights and civil liberties if Alito does make it onto the Supreme Court. He's all about giving power to the government and to businesses, not to the individual American citizen.
An excerpt:
-----
Yesterday, the Senate Judiciary Committee began its confirmation hearings on the nomination of Samuel Alito for Associate Justice of the Supreme Court.
Alito is no John Roberts. Whereas Roberts had barely been a judge for two years when Bush nominated him for the Supreme Court, Alito has authored 361 opinions during his 15-year tenure on the federal court bench. Whereas Roberts is photogenic, with a winning smile, Alito is stiff and awkward before the cameras. Most significantly, whereas Roberts replaced Chief Justice William Rehnquist, who had a similar judicial philosophy, Alito would take the place of Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, who provided the swing vote 77 percent of the time.
If confirmed, Alito would tip the high court's delicate balance radically to the right. Nearly always favoring the government, corporations and universities, Alito has ruled against individual rights in 84 percent of his dissents.
In a 196-page report released last week, the Alliance for Justice (AFJ) determined that in split decisions - the "difficult cases" - "the reasoning Judge Alito employs and the results he reaches are not balanced. Rather," the report found, "they track the staunchly conservative political and legal views he expressed in his 1985 application to be Deputy Assistant Attorney General for the Office of Legal Counsel in President Reagan's Justice Department."
Alito's 1985 application stresses his commitment to federalism (states' rights), his view that "the Constitution does not protect a right to an abortion," and his disagreement with the criminal procedure, reapportionment (one-man, one-vote), and Establishment Clause (church-state separation) decisions of the Warren Court.
The members of the Senate Judiciary Committee drew clear lines in yesterday's session. Although abortion was a significant concern for three senators from each party, the limitation on executive power was a much more prominent theme during the opening statements.
Six Democratic senators, as well as committee chairman Sen. Arlen Specter (R-Pa.), expressed alarm at the recent revelation that Bush has been secretly spying on Americans since 2002. Five Democrats made reference to O'Connor's opinion for the Court in Hamdi v. Rumsfeld: "We have long since made clear that a state of war is not a blank check for the President when it comes to the rights of the Nation's citizens."
Alito's record reveals that he "has been extraordinarily deferential to the exercise of government power, especially executive branch power, except in cases involving alleged infringements on religious expression," according to the AFJ. His "judicial record strongly suggests that he will ... interpret the Constitution as giving the president greater authority to evade Congressional statutes and constitutional limitations whenever deemed essential to national security."
Indeed, in a memorandum he wrote as a lawyer in the Reagan Justice Department, Alito argued that the attorney general should receive absolute immunity from lawsuits when he illegally wiretaps Americans. The Supreme Court rejected Alito's view in a 1985 decision.
Alito also advocated that the president make a "signing statement" indicating what he thinks the law means when he signs a bill. Even though the Constitution grants the lawmaking power only to Congress, and thus courts look to congressional intent to interpret statutes, Alito hoped that the president could divert the courts' focus away from congressional intent in favor of what he called "the President's intent."
George W. Bush has issued at least 108 such "signing statements," according to the Washington Post. Most recently, Bush qualified his concurrence with the McCain amendment that outlaws torture and cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment, implying that he would be free to torture if he felt it was necessary for national security.
In 2000, Alito told a Federalist Society meeting that he was a strong proponent of the "unitary executive," which means that all federal executive power resides in the president. This theory would reject discretionary executive power of independent agencies Congress has created since the New Deal, such as the Securities and Exchange Commission, the Federal Communications Commission, and the Federal Reserve Board.
Alito argued in other memoranda that the Federal Bureau of Investigation should have broad latitude to investigate federal employees, and that an American Bar Association opinion prohibiting lawyers from secretly taping conversations should not prevent IRS lawyers from secretly taping as part of a federal criminal investigation.
Although the senators only touched on Alito's alarming civil rights record in yesterday's session, one would hope they would fully inquire into this area during the questioning.
In split decisions on claims involving violations of the civil rights of women, racial minorities, seniors and the disabled, Alito almost uniformly ruled against the claimants.
As America mourns the deaths of the 12 miners in West Virginia, we are reminded of the importance of mine safety regulations. Yet Alito disagreed with the Department of Labor and would not have applied mine safety rules to an area of a defunct Pennsylvania mine from which the company was still extracting materials to process into energy.
-----
[Read more.]
In a column posted yesterday at truthout, Marjorie Cohn lays it all on the table. This stuff all paints a pretty bleak picture of the fate of human rights and civil liberties if Alito does make it onto the Supreme Court. He's all about giving power to the government and to businesses, not to the individual American citizen.
An excerpt:
-----
Yesterday, the Senate Judiciary Committee began its confirmation hearings on the nomination of Samuel Alito for Associate Justice of the Supreme Court.
Alito is no John Roberts. Whereas Roberts had barely been a judge for two years when Bush nominated him for the Supreme Court, Alito has authored 361 opinions during his 15-year tenure on the federal court bench. Whereas Roberts is photogenic, with a winning smile, Alito is stiff and awkward before the cameras. Most significantly, whereas Roberts replaced Chief Justice William Rehnquist, who had a similar judicial philosophy, Alito would take the place of Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, who provided the swing vote 77 percent of the time.
If confirmed, Alito would tip the high court's delicate balance radically to the right. Nearly always favoring the government, corporations and universities, Alito has ruled against individual rights in 84 percent of his dissents.
In a 196-page report released last week, the Alliance for Justice (AFJ) determined that in split decisions - the "difficult cases" - "the reasoning Judge Alito employs and the results he reaches are not balanced. Rather," the report found, "they track the staunchly conservative political and legal views he expressed in his 1985 application to be Deputy Assistant Attorney General for the Office of Legal Counsel in President Reagan's Justice Department."
Alito's 1985 application stresses his commitment to federalism (states' rights), his view that "the Constitution does not protect a right to an abortion," and his disagreement with the criminal procedure, reapportionment (one-man, one-vote), and Establishment Clause (church-state separation) decisions of the Warren Court.
The members of the Senate Judiciary Committee drew clear lines in yesterday's session. Although abortion was a significant concern for three senators from each party, the limitation on executive power was a much more prominent theme during the opening statements.
Six Democratic senators, as well as committee chairman Sen. Arlen Specter (R-Pa.), expressed alarm at the recent revelation that Bush has been secretly spying on Americans since 2002. Five Democrats made reference to O'Connor's opinion for the Court in Hamdi v. Rumsfeld: "We have long since made clear that a state of war is not a blank check for the President when it comes to the rights of the Nation's citizens."
Alito's record reveals that he "has been extraordinarily deferential to the exercise of government power, especially executive branch power, except in cases involving alleged infringements on religious expression," according to the AFJ. His "judicial record strongly suggests that he will ... interpret the Constitution as giving the president greater authority to evade Congressional statutes and constitutional limitations whenever deemed essential to national security."
Indeed, in a memorandum he wrote as a lawyer in the Reagan Justice Department, Alito argued that the attorney general should receive absolute immunity from lawsuits when he illegally wiretaps Americans. The Supreme Court rejected Alito's view in a 1985 decision.
Alito also advocated that the president make a "signing statement" indicating what he thinks the law means when he signs a bill. Even though the Constitution grants the lawmaking power only to Congress, and thus courts look to congressional intent to interpret statutes, Alito hoped that the president could divert the courts' focus away from congressional intent in favor of what he called "the President's intent."
George W. Bush has issued at least 108 such "signing statements," according to the Washington Post. Most recently, Bush qualified his concurrence with the McCain amendment that outlaws torture and cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment, implying that he would be free to torture if he felt it was necessary for national security.
In 2000, Alito told a Federalist Society meeting that he was a strong proponent of the "unitary executive," which means that all federal executive power resides in the president. This theory would reject discretionary executive power of independent agencies Congress has created since the New Deal, such as the Securities and Exchange Commission, the Federal Communications Commission, and the Federal Reserve Board.
Alito argued in other memoranda that the Federal Bureau of Investigation should have broad latitude to investigate federal employees, and that an American Bar Association opinion prohibiting lawyers from secretly taping conversations should not prevent IRS lawyers from secretly taping as part of a federal criminal investigation.
Although the senators only touched on Alito's alarming civil rights record in yesterday's session, one would hope they would fully inquire into this area during the questioning.
In split decisions on claims involving violations of the civil rights of women, racial minorities, seniors and the disabled, Alito almost uniformly ruled against the claimants.
As America mourns the deaths of the 12 miners in West Virginia, we are reminded of the importance of mine safety regulations. Yet Alito disagreed with the Department of Labor and would not have applied mine safety rules to an area of a defunct Pennsylvania mine from which the company was still extracting materials to process into energy.
-----
[Read more.]
10 January 2006
IRS tracked taxpayers' political affiliation
So now we learn of yet another violation of the privacy of American citizens. I suppose we shouldn't be suprised. But perhaps we should be outraged.
From the Tacoma News Tribune:
-----
As it hunted down tax scofflaws, the Internal Revenue Service collected information on the political party affiliations of taxpayers in 20 states.
Sen. Patty Murray, D-Wash., a member of an appropriations subcommittee with jurisdiction over the IRS, said the practice was an "outrageous violation of the public trust" that could undermine the agency’s credibility.
IRS officials acknowledged that party affiliation information was routinely collected by a vendor for several months. They told the vendor last month to screen the information out.
"The bottom line is that we have never used this information," said John Lipold, an IRS spokesman. "There are strict laws in place that forbid it."
Washington state residents do not express a party preference when they register to vote. Residents of 20 other states and the District of Columbia have to provide a party affiliation when registering. Voter registration information is publicly available.
Murray said she learned about the problem from the president of the National Treasury Employees Union, Colleen Kelly. The IRS is part of the Treasury Department.
"This agency should not have that type of information," Murray said in a telephone interview from Seattle. "No one should question whether they are being audited because of party affiliation."
-----
[Read more.]
From the Tacoma News Tribune:
-----
As it hunted down tax scofflaws, the Internal Revenue Service collected information on the political party affiliations of taxpayers in 20 states.
Sen. Patty Murray, D-Wash., a member of an appropriations subcommittee with jurisdiction over the IRS, said the practice was an "outrageous violation of the public trust" that could undermine the agency’s credibility.
IRS officials acknowledged that party affiliation information was routinely collected by a vendor for several months. They told the vendor last month to screen the information out.
"The bottom line is that we have never used this information," said John Lipold, an IRS spokesman. "There are strict laws in place that forbid it."
Washington state residents do not express a party preference when they register to vote. Residents of 20 other states and the District of Columbia have to provide a party affiliation when registering. Voter registration information is publicly available.
Murray said she learned about the problem from the president of the National Treasury Employees Union, Colleen Kelly. The IRS is part of the Treasury Department.
"This agency should not have that type of information," Murray said in a telephone interview from Seattle. "No one should question whether they are being audited because of party affiliation."
-----
[Read more.]
Senator Feingold on Alito
Last night, I stayed up very late watching C-SPAN's reruns of the opening statements at the Alito hearings. Now that is the kind of reality TV that I can watch. I was particularly impressed with Senator Russ Feingold's speech.
Here it is in its entirety:
-----
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to welcome our nominee and thank him in advance for the long hours he will put in this week. I greatly admire your legal qualifications and record of public service, Judge Alito, and I wish you well here. As with the hearing on the nomination of Chief Justice Roberts, I approach this proceeding with an open mind.
Judge Alito, as a longtime student of the law and the Supreme Court, I know you appreciate the importance of the process that we begin today. A position on the Supreme Court is one of the highest honors and greatest responsibilities in our country. The Constitution requires the Senate to offer its advice and decide whether to grant its consent to your nomination. And the Senate has delegated to the Judiciary Committee the task of examining your record and hearing your testimony and responses to questions about your views.
So it is our job in these hearings to try to get a sense for ourselves, for our colleagues who are not on the Committee, and for the American people, of whether you should be given the enormous responsibility of protecting our citizens’ constitutional freedoms on the Supreme Court. So you will obviously face tough questions here, Judge Alito. No one is entitled to a seat on the Supreme Court simply because he has been nominated by the President. The burden is on the nominee to demonstrate that he should be confirmed.
We begin these hearings today at an important time. Less than a month ago, we learned that this Administration has for years been spying on American citizens without a court order and without following the laws passed by Congress. Americans are understandably asking each other whether our government believes it is subject to the rule of law. Now, more than ever, we need a strong and independent judicial branch. We need judges who will stand up and tell the executive branch it is wrong when it ignores or distorts the laws passed by Congress. We need judges who see themselves as custodians of the rights and freedoms that the Constitution guarantees, even when the President of the United States is telling the country that he should be able to decide unilaterally how far those freedoms go.
To win my support, Judge Alito will have to show that he is up to this challenge. His instincts sometimes seem to be to defer to the executive branch, to minimize the ability of the courts to question the executive in national security cases, to grant prosecutors whatever powers they seek, to deny relief to those accused of crimes who assert that their constitutional rights were violated. It will be up to Judge Alito to satisfy the Senate that he can be fair and objective in these kinds of cases. We need judges on the bench who will ensure that the judicial branch of government is the independent check on executive power that the Constitution requires and the American people expect.
In these days of corruption investigations and indictments in Washington, we also need judges who are beyond ethical reproach. In 1990, when he appeared before this Committee in connection with his nomination to the Court of Appeals, Judge Alito promised to recuse himself from cases involving a mutual fund company with which he had substantial investments, Vanguard. He kept those investments throughout his service on the Court of Appeals and still has them today, but in 2002, he sat on a panel in a case involving Vanguard. Since his nomination to the Supreme Court, we have heard different explanations, from the nominee and his supporters, about why he failed to recuse himself. Needless to say, the shifting explanations and justifications are troubling. I hope that we will get the full and final story in these hearings. Before we grant lifetime tenure to federal judges, and particularly justices of the Supreme Court, we must make sure that they have the highest ethical standards.
The stakes for this nomination could hardly be higher. Justice O’Connor was the swing vote in many important decisions in the past decade. Her successor could well be the deciding vote in a number of cases that have already been argued this term, but may have to be reargued after a new Justice is confirmed. The outcome of these cases could shape our society for generations to come. We don’t have the right to know how a nominee would rule on those cases. Indeed, we should all hope that the nominee doesn’t know either. But we do have a right to know what and how a nominee thinks about the important legal issues that have come to the court in recent years. Commenting on past Supreme Court decisions would no more disqualify a nominee from hearing a future case on a similar topic than would a current Justice participating in those past decisions. It simply cannot be that the only person in America who can’t express an opinion on a case where Justice O’Connor cast the deciding vote is the person who has been nominated to replace her on the Court.
So I look forward to questioning Judge Alito about executive power, the death penalty, employment discrimination, criminal procedure, and other important topics. And I look forward to his candid answers. I was pleased that he was less guarded in our private meeting than were the other Supreme Court nominees whom I have had the privilege to meet. I hope he is even more forthcoming in this hearing. Given his long judicial record and the memos we have seen that express his personal views on legal issues, I expect complete answers and I think my colleagues do, too. If a nominee expresses a personal view on a legal issue in a memo written over a decade ago, we, and the American people, have the right to know if he still holds that view today.
Mr. Chairman, if confirmed to the Supreme Court, Judge Alito is likely to have a profound impact on the lives of Americans for decades to come. That is a fact. It is clear from how you have planned these hearings that you recognize that, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for your efforts to ensure a full and fair evaluation of this nominee and I look forward to the questioning.
-----
[Read it on Sen. Feingold's site.]
Here it is in its entirety:
-----
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to welcome our nominee and thank him in advance for the long hours he will put in this week. I greatly admire your legal qualifications and record of public service, Judge Alito, and I wish you well here. As with the hearing on the nomination of Chief Justice Roberts, I approach this proceeding with an open mind.
Judge Alito, as a longtime student of the law and the Supreme Court, I know you appreciate the importance of the process that we begin today. A position on the Supreme Court is one of the highest honors and greatest responsibilities in our country. The Constitution requires the Senate to offer its advice and decide whether to grant its consent to your nomination. And the Senate has delegated to the Judiciary Committee the task of examining your record and hearing your testimony and responses to questions about your views.
So it is our job in these hearings to try to get a sense for ourselves, for our colleagues who are not on the Committee, and for the American people, of whether you should be given the enormous responsibility of protecting our citizens’ constitutional freedoms on the Supreme Court. So you will obviously face tough questions here, Judge Alito. No one is entitled to a seat on the Supreme Court simply because he has been nominated by the President. The burden is on the nominee to demonstrate that he should be confirmed.
We begin these hearings today at an important time. Less than a month ago, we learned that this Administration has for years been spying on American citizens without a court order and without following the laws passed by Congress. Americans are understandably asking each other whether our government believes it is subject to the rule of law. Now, more than ever, we need a strong and independent judicial branch. We need judges who will stand up and tell the executive branch it is wrong when it ignores or distorts the laws passed by Congress. We need judges who see themselves as custodians of the rights and freedoms that the Constitution guarantees, even when the President of the United States is telling the country that he should be able to decide unilaterally how far those freedoms go.
To win my support, Judge Alito will have to show that he is up to this challenge. His instincts sometimes seem to be to defer to the executive branch, to minimize the ability of the courts to question the executive in national security cases, to grant prosecutors whatever powers they seek, to deny relief to those accused of crimes who assert that their constitutional rights were violated. It will be up to Judge Alito to satisfy the Senate that he can be fair and objective in these kinds of cases. We need judges on the bench who will ensure that the judicial branch of government is the independent check on executive power that the Constitution requires and the American people expect.
In these days of corruption investigations and indictments in Washington, we also need judges who are beyond ethical reproach. In 1990, when he appeared before this Committee in connection with his nomination to the Court of Appeals, Judge Alito promised to recuse himself from cases involving a mutual fund company with which he had substantial investments, Vanguard. He kept those investments throughout his service on the Court of Appeals and still has them today, but in 2002, he sat on a panel in a case involving Vanguard. Since his nomination to the Supreme Court, we have heard different explanations, from the nominee and his supporters, about why he failed to recuse himself. Needless to say, the shifting explanations and justifications are troubling. I hope that we will get the full and final story in these hearings. Before we grant lifetime tenure to federal judges, and particularly justices of the Supreme Court, we must make sure that they have the highest ethical standards.
The stakes for this nomination could hardly be higher. Justice O’Connor was the swing vote in many important decisions in the past decade. Her successor could well be the deciding vote in a number of cases that have already been argued this term, but may have to be reargued after a new Justice is confirmed. The outcome of these cases could shape our society for generations to come. We don’t have the right to know how a nominee would rule on those cases. Indeed, we should all hope that the nominee doesn’t know either. But we do have a right to know what and how a nominee thinks about the important legal issues that have come to the court in recent years. Commenting on past Supreme Court decisions would no more disqualify a nominee from hearing a future case on a similar topic than would a current Justice participating in those past decisions. It simply cannot be that the only person in America who can’t express an opinion on a case where Justice O’Connor cast the deciding vote is the person who has been nominated to replace her on the Court.
So I look forward to questioning Judge Alito about executive power, the death penalty, employment discrimination, criminal procedure, and other important topics. And I look forward to his candid answers. I was pleased that he was less guarded in our private meeting than were the other Supreme Court nominees whom I have had the privilege to meet. I hope he is even more forthcoming in this hearing. Given his long judicial record and the memos we have seen that express his personal views on legal issues, I expect complete answers and I think my colleagues do, too. If a nominee expresses a personal view on a legal issue in a memo written over a decade ago, we, and the American people, have the right to know if he still holds that view today.
Mr. Chairman, if confirmed to the Supreme Court, Judge Alito is likely to have a profound impact on the lives of Americans for decades to come. That is a fact. It is clear from how you have planned these hearings that you recognize that, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for your efforts to ensure a full and fair evaluation of this nominee and I look forward to the questioning.
-----
[Read it on Sen. Feingold's site.]
Senator Kennedy: "Judge Alito's record troubles me deeply"
Sammy Alito's confirmation hearings started yesterday with opening statements. Senator Ted Kennedy's opening remarks pretty much echoed my own concerns about Alito -- and more.
From a transcript via truthout:
-----
As we have seen from Justice O'Connor's example, even one justice can profoundly alter the meaning of those words for our citizens. Even one justice can deeply affect the rights and liberties of the American people. Even one justice can advance or reverse the progress of our journey.
So the question before us in these hearings is this: Does Judge Alito's record hold true to the letter and spirit of equal justice? Is he committed to the core values of our Constitution that are at the heart of our nation's progress? Can he truly be evenhanded and fair in his decisions?
In a way, Judge Alito has faced this issue before as a nominee to the Court of Appeals. I had the privilege of chairing his confirmation hearing in 1990. At that time, he had practiced law for fourteen years, but only represented one client - the United States government. And I asked whether he believed he could be impartial in deciding cases involving the government.
In that hearing, Judge Alito said on the record that the most important quality for a judge is "open-mindedness to the arguments."
He promised the Committee that he would make "a very conscious effort to be absolutely impartial."
We took him at his word, and overwhelmingly confirmed him to the Third Circuit Court of Appeals.
We now have the record of Judge Alito's fifteen years on the bench, and the benefit of some of his earlier writings that were not available fifteen years ago. I regret to say that the record troubles me deeply.
In an era when the White House is abusing power, is excusing and authorizing torture, and is spying on American citizens, I find Judge Alito's support for an all-powerful executive branch to be genuinely troubling. Under the President's spying program, there are no checks and no balances. There is no outside review of the legality of this brazen infringement on the civil rights and liberties of the American people. Undeterred by the public outcry, the President vows to continue spying on American citizens.
Ultimately, the courts will make the final judgment whether the White House has gone too far. Independent and impartial judges must assess the proper balance between protecting our liberties and protecting our national security.
I am gravely concerned by Judge Alito's clear record of support for vast presidential authority, unchecked by the other two branches of government. In decision after decision on the bench, he has excused abusive actions by the authorities that intrude on the personal privacy and freedoms of average Americans. And in his writings and speeches, he has supported a level of overreaching presidential power that frankly most Americans find disturbing and even frightening.
In fact, it is extraordinary that each of the three individuals this President has nominated for the Supreme Court - Chief Justice Roberts, Harriet Miers, and now Judge Alito - has served not only as a lawyer for the Executive Branch, but has defended the most expansive views of presidential authority. Perhaps that is why this President nominated them.
But as Justice O'Connor stated, even a state of war is not a "blank check" for a President to do whatever he wants. The Supreme Court must serve as an independent check on abuses by the executive branch, and a protector of our liberties, not as a cheerleader for an imperial presidency.
There are other areas of concern. In an era when too many Americans are losing their jobs, or working for less and trying to make ends meet, in close cases Judge Alito has ruled the vast majority of the time against the claims of individual citizens. He has acted instead in favor of the government, large corporations, and other powerful interests. In a study by a well-respected expert, Professor Cass Sunstein of the University of Chicago Law School, Judge Alito was found to rule against the individual in 84 percent of his dissents. To put it plainly, average Americans have had a hard time getting a fair shake in his courtroom.
In an era when America is still too often divided by race and by riches, Judge Alito has not written one single opinion on the merits in favor of a person of color alleging race discrimination on the job. In fifteen years on the bench, not one.
And when I look at that record in light of his 1985 job application to the Reagan Justice Department, it is even more troubling. That document lays out an ideological agenda that highlights his pride in belonging to an alumni group at Princeton that opposed the admission of women and proposed to curb the admission of racial minorities. It proclaims his legal opinion that the Constitution does not protect the right of women to make their own reproductive decisions. It expresses outright hostility to the basic principle of one person, one vote, affirmed by the Supreme Court as essential to ensuring that all Americans have a voice in their government.
This application was not a youthful indiscretion. It was a document prepared by a mature, 35-year-old professional.
Finally, many of us are concerned about conflicting statements that Judge Alito has made in response to questions from this Committee and others. As Chairman Specter has stated, this confirmation largely depends on the credibility of Judge Alito's statements to us. And we have questions.
When asked about the ideological statements and specific legal opinions in his 1985 application, Judge Alito has dismissed those statements as "just applying for a job."
When he was before this committee in 1990, applying for a job to the circuit court, he promised under oath that he would recuse himself from cases involving Vanguard, the mutual fund company in which he had most of his investments. But as a judge, he participated in a Vanguard case anyway, and has offered many conflicting reasons to explain why he broke his word.
We need to get to the bottom of this matter to assure ourselves that what Judge Alito says in these hearings will not be just words, but pledges that guide him in the future, if he is confirmed.
-----
[Read more.]
From a transcript via truthout:
-----
As we have seen from Justice O'Connor's example, even one justice can profoundly alter the meaning of those words for our citizens. Even one justice can deeply affect the rights and liberties of the American people. Even one justice can advance or reverse the progress of our journey.
So the question before us in these hearings is this: Does Judge Alito's record hold true to the letter and spirit of equal justice? Is he committed to the core values of our Constitution that are at the heart of our nation's progress? Can he truly be evenhanded and fair in his decisions?
In a way, Judge Alito has faced this issue before as a nominee to the Court of Appeals. I had the privilege of chairing his confirmation hearing in 1990. At that time, he had practiced law for fourteen years, but only represented one client - the United States government. And I asked whether he believed he could be impartial in deciding cases involving the government.
In that hearing, Judge Alito said on the record that the most important quality for a judge is "open-mindedness to the arguments."
He promised the Committee that he would make "a very conscious effort to be absolutely impartial."
We took him at his word, and overwhelmingly confirmed him to the Third Circuit Court of Appeals.
We now have the record of Judge Alito's fifteen years on the bench, and the benefit of some of his earlier writings that were not available fifteen years ago. I regret to say that the record troubles me deeply.
In an era when the White House is abusing power, is excusing and authorizing torture, and is spying on American citizens, I find Judge Alito's support for an all-powerful executive branch to be genuinely troubling. Under the President's spying program, there are no checks and no balances. There is no outside review of the legality of this brazen infringement on the civil rights and liberties of the American people. Undeterred by the public outcry, the President vows to continue spying on American citizens.
Ultimately, the courts will make the final judgment whether the White House has gone too far. Independent and impartial judges must assess the proper balance between protecting our liberties and protecting our national security.
I am gravely concerned by Judge Alito's clear record of support for vast presidential authority, unchecked by the other two branches of government. In decision after decision on the bench, he has excused abusive actions by the authorities that intrude on the personal privacy and freedoms of average Americans. And in his writings and speeches, he has supported a level of overreaching presidential power that frankly most Americans find disturbing and even frightening.
In fact, it is extraordinary that each of the three individuals this President has nominated for the Supreme Court - Chief Justice Roberts, Harriet Miers, and now Judge Alito - has served not only as a lawyer for the Executive Branch, but has defended the most expansive views of presidential authority. Perhaps that is why this President nominated them.
But as Justice O'Connor stated, even a state of war is not a "blank check" for a President to do whatever he wants. The Supreme Court must serve as an independent check on abuses by the executive branch, and a protector of our liberties, not as a cheerleader for an imperial presidency.
There are other areas of concern. In an era when too many Americans are losing their jobs, or working for less and trying to make ends meet, in close cases Judge Alito has ruled the vast majority of the time against the claims of individual citizens. He has acted instead in favor of the government, large corporations, and other powerful interests. In a study by a well-respected expert, Professor Cass Sunstein of the University of Chicago Law School, Judge Alito was found to rule against the individual in 84 percent of his dissents. To put it plainly, average Americans have had a hard time getting a fair shake in his courtroom.
In an era when America is still too often divided by race and by riches, Judge Alito has not written one single opinion on the merits in favor of a person of color alleging race discrimination on the job. In fifteen years on the bench, not one.
And when I look at that record in light of his 1985 job application to the Reagan Justice Department, it is even more troubling. That document lays out an ideological agenda that highlights his pride in belonging to an alumni group at Princeton that opposed the admission of women and proposed to curb the admission of racial minorities. It proclaims his legal opinion that the Constitution does not protect the right of women to make their own reproductive decisions. It expresses outright hostility to the basic principle of one person, one vote, affirmed by the Supreme Court as essential to ensuring that all Americans have a voice in their government.
This application was not a youthful indiscretion. It was a document prepared by a mature, 35-year-old professional.
Finally, many of us are concerned about conflicting statements that Judge Alito has made in response to questions from this Committee and others. As Chairman Specter has stated, this confirmation largely depends on the credibility of Judge Alito's statements to us. And we have questions.
When asked about the ideological statements and specific legal opinions in his 1985 application, Judge Alito has dismissed those statements as "just applying for a job."
When he was before this committee in 1990, applying for a job to the circuit court, he promised under oath that he would recuse himself from cases involving Vanguard, the mutual fund company in which he had most of his investments. But as a judge, he participated in a Vanguard case anyway, and has offered many conflicting reasons to explain why he broke his word.
We need to get to the bottom of this matter to assure ourselves that what Judge Alito says in these hearings will not be just words, but pledges that guide him in the future, if he is confirmed.
-----
[Read more.]
09 January 2006
US troops seize award-winning Iraqi journalist
How do we "liberate" the Iraqi people?
From today's Guardian (UK):
-----
American troops in Baghdad yesterday blasted their way into the home of an Iraqi journalist working for the Guardian and Channel 4, firing bullets into the bedroom where he was sleeping with his wife and children.
Ali Fadhil, who two months ago won the Foreign Press Association young journalist of the year award, was hooded and taken for questioning. He was released hours later.
Dr Fadhil is working with Guardian Films on an investigation for Channel 4's Dispatches programme into claims that tens of millions of dollars worth of Iraqi funds held by the Americans and British have been misused or misappropriated.
The troops told Dr Fadhil that they were looking for an Iraqi insurgent and seized video tapes he had shot for the programme. These have not yet been returned.
The director of the film, Callum Macrae, said yesterday: "The timing and nature of this raid is extremely disturbing. It is only a few days since we first approached the US authorities and told them Ali was doing this investigation, and asked them then to grant him an interview about our findings.
"We need a convincing assurance from the American authorities that this terrifying experience was not harassment and a crude attempt to discourage Ali's investigation."
Dr Fadhil was asleep with his wife, their three-year-old daughter, Sarah, and seven-month-old son, Adam, when the troops forced their way in.
"They fired into the bedroom where we were sleeping, then three soldiers came in. They rolled me on to the floor and tied my hands. When I tried to ask them what they were looking for they just told me to shut up," he said.
-----
[Go to original.]
From today's Guardian (UK):
-----
American troops in Baghdad yesterday blasted their way into the home of an Iraqi journalist working for the Guardian and Channel 4, firing bullets into the bedroom where he was sleeping with his wife and children.
Ali Fadhil, who two months ago won the Foreign Press Association young journalist of the year award, was hooded and taken for questioning. He was released hours later.
Dr Fadhil is working with Guardian Films on an investigation for Channel 4's Dispatches programme into claims that tens of millions of dollars worth of Iraqi funds held by the Americans and British have been misused or misappropriated.
The troops told Dr Fadhil that they were looking for an Iraqi insurgent and seized video tapes he had shot for the programme. These have not yet been returned.
The director of the film, Callum Macrae, said yesterday: "The timing and nature of this raid is extremely disturbing. It is only a few days since we first approached the US authorities and told them Ali was doing this investigation, and asked them then to grant him an interview about our findings.
"We need a convincing assurance from the American authorities that this terrifying experience was not harassment and a crude attempt to discourage Ali's investigation."
Dr Fadhil was asleep with his wife, their three-year-old daughter, Sarah, and seven-month-old son, Adam, when the troops forced their way in.
"They fired into the bedroom where we were sleeping, then three soldiers came in. They rolled me on to the floor and tied my hands. When I tried to ask them what they were looking for they just told me to shut up," he said.
-----
[Go to original.]
CRS concludes that Bush's domestic spying does not appear to be legal
A post last Friday on the Daily Kos contains a link to a PDF file containing the report of the non-partisan Congressional Research Service regarding the legality of Bush's domestic spying program.
The report carefully deconstructs each Bush argument, and concludes that "the Administration's legal justification, as presented in the summary analysis from the Office of Legislative Affairs, does not seem to be as well-grounded as the tenor of that letter suggests."
[Read more and download the report.]
The report carefully deconstructs each Bush argument, and concludes that "the Administration's legal justification, as presented in the summary analysis from the Office of Legislative Affairs, does not seem to be as well-grounded as the tenor of that letter suggests."
[Read more and download the report.]
Frank Rich: The wiretappers that couldn't shoot straight
In his column in yesterday's New York Times, Frank Rich raises some good points - and some intriguing theories - about the NSA domestic spying scandal
An excerpt:
-----
Almost two weeks before The New York Times published its scoop about our government's extralegal wiretapping, the cable network Showtime blew the whole top-secret shebang. In its mini-series "Sleeper Cell," about Islamic fundamentalist terrorists in Los Angeles, the cell's ringleader berates an underling for chatting about an impending operation during a phone conversation with an uncle in Egypt. "We can only pray that the N.S.A. is not listening," the leader yells at the miscreant, who is then stoned for his blabbing.
If fictional terrorists concocted by Hollywood can figure out that the National Security Agency is listening to their every call, guess what? Real-life terrorists know this, too. So when a hyperventilating President Bush rants that the exposure of his warrant-free wiretapping in a newspaper is shameful and puts "our citizens at risk" by revealing our espionage playbook, you have to wonder what he is really trying to hide. Our enemies, as America has learned the hard way, are not morons. Even if Al Qaeda hasn't seen "Sleeper Cell" because it refuses to spring for pay cable, it has surely assumed from the get-go that the White House would ignore legal restraints on eavesdropping, just as it has on detainee jurisprudence and torture. That the White House's over-the-top outrage about the Times scoop is a smokescreen contrived to cover up something else is only confirmed by Dick Cheney's disingenuousness. In last week's oration at a right-wing think tank, he defended warrant-free wiretapping by saying it could have prevented the 9/11 attacks. Really? Not with this administration in charge.
On 9/10 the N.S.A. (lawfully) intercepted messages in Arabic saying, "The match is about to begin," and, "Tomorrow is zero hour." You know the rest. Like all the chatter our government picked up during the president's excellent brush-clearing Crawford vacation of 2001, it was relegated to mañana; the N.S.A. didn't rouse itself to translate those warnings until 9/12.Given that the reporters on the Times story, James Risen and Eric Lichtblau, wrote that nearly a dozen current and former officials had served as their sources, there may be more leaks to come, and not just to The Times.
Sooner or later we'll find out what the White House is really so defensive about. Perhaps it's the obvious: the errant spying ensnared Americans talking to Americans, not just Americans talking to jihadists in Afghanistan. In a raw interview transcript posted on MSNBC's Web site last week - and quickly seized on by John Aravosis of AmericaBlog - the NBC News foreign affairs correspondent Andrea Mitchell asked Mr. Risen if he knew whether the CNN correspondent Christiane Amanpour might have been wiretapped. (Mr. Risen said, "I hadn't heard that.") Surely a pro like Ms. Mitchell wasn't speculating idly. NBC News, which did not broadcast this exchange and later edited it out of the Web transcript, said Friday it was still pursuing the story. If the Bush administration did indeed eavesdrop on American journalists and political opponents (Ms. Amanpour's husband, Jamie Rubin, was a foreign policy adviser to the Kerry campaign), it's déjà Watergate all over again. But even now we can see that there's another, simpler - and distinctly Bushian - motive at play here, hiding in plain sight. That motive is not, as many liberals would have it, a simple ideological crusade to gut the Bill of Rights. Real conservatives, after all, are opposed to Big Brother; even the staunch Bush ally Grover Norquist has criticized the N.S.A.'s overreaching.
The highest priority for the Karl Rove-driven presidency is instead to preserve its own power at all costs. With this gang, political victory and the propaganda needed to secure it always trump principles, even conservative principles, let alone the truth. Whenever the White House most vociferously attacks the press, you can be sure its No. 1 motive is to deflect attention from embarrassing revelations about its incompetence and failures. That's why Paul Wolfowitz, in a 2004 remark for which he later apologized, dismissed reporting on the raging insurgency in Iraq as "rumors" he attributed to a Baghdad press corps too "afraid to travel." That's also why the White House tried in May to blame lethal anti-American riots in Afghanistan and Pakistan on a single erroneous Newsweek item about Koran desecration - as if 200-odd words in an American magazine could take the fall for the indelible photos from Abu Ghraib.
Such is the blame-shifting game Mr. Cheney was up to last week. By dragging 9/11 into his defense of possibly unconstitutional bugging, he was hoping to rewrite history to absolve the White House of its bungling. And no wonder. He knows all too well that the timing of Mr. Bush's signing of the secret executive order to initiate the desperate tactic of warrant-free N.S.A. eavesdropping - early 2002, according to Mr. Risen's new book, "State of War" - is nothing if not a giant arrow pointing to one of the administration's most catastrophic failures. It was only weeks earlier, in December 2001, that we had our best crack at nailing Osama bin Laden in Tora Bora and blew it.
-----
[Read more.]
An excerpt:
-----
Almost two weeks before The New York Times published its scoop about our government's extralegal wiretapping, the cable network Showtime blew the whole top-secret shebang. In its mini-series "Sleeper Cell," about Islamic fundamentalist terrorists in Los Angeles, the cell's ringleader berates an underling for chatting about an impending operation during a phone conversation with an uncle in Egypt. "We can only pray that the N.S.A. is not listening," the leader yells at the miscreant, who is then stoned for his blabbing.
If fictional terrorists concocted by Hollywood can figure out that the National Security Agency is listening to their every call, guess what? Real-life terrorists know this, too. So when a hyperventilating President Bush rants that the exposure of his warrant-free wiretapping in a newspaper is shameful and puts "our citizens at risk" by revealing our espionage playbook, you have to wonder what he is really trying to hide. Our enemies, as America has learned the hard way, are not morons. Even if Al Qaeda hasn't seen "Sleeper Cell" because it refuses to spring for pay cable, it has surely assumed from the get-go that the White House would ignore legal restraints on eavesdropping, just as it has on detainee jurisprudence and torture. That the White House's over-the-top outrage about the Times scoop is a smokescreen contrived to cover up something else is only confirmed by Dick Cheney's disingenuousness. In last week's oration at a right-wing think tank, he defended warrant-free wiretapping by saying it could have prevented the 9/11 attacks. Really? Not with this administration in charge.
On 9/10 the N.S.A. (lawfully) intercepted messages in Arabic saying, "The match is about to begin," and, "Tomorrow is zero hour." You know the rest. Like all the chatter our government picked up during the president's excellent brush-clearing Crawford vacation of 2001, it was relegated to mañana; the N.S.A. didn't rouse itself to translate those warnings until 9/12.Given that the reporters on the Times story, James Risen and Eric Lichtblau, wrote that nearly a dozen current and former officials had served as their sources, there may be more leaks to come, and not just to The Times.
Sooner or later we'll find out what the White House is really so defensive about. Perhaps it's the obvious: the errant spying ensnared Americans talking to Americans, not just Americans talking to jihadists in Afghanistan. In a raw interview transcript posted on MSNBC's Web site last week - and quickly seized on by John Aravosis of AmericaBlog - the NBC News foreign affairs correspondent Andrea Mitchell asked Mr. Risen if he knew whether the CNN correspondent Christiane Amanpour might have been wiretapped. (Mr. Risen said, "I hadn't heard that.") Surely a pro like Ms. Mitchell wasn't speculating idly. NBC News, which did not broadcast this exchange and later edited it out of the Web transcript, said Friday it was still pursuing the story. If the Bush administration did indeed eavesdrop on American journalists and political opponents (Ms. Amanpour's husband, Jamie Rubin, was a foreign policy adviser to the Kerry campaign), it's déjà Watergate all over again. But even now we can see that there's another, simpler - and distinctly Bushian - motive at play here, hiding in plain sight. That motive is not, as many liberals would have it, a simple ideological crusade to gut the Bill of Rights. Real conservatives, after all, are opposed to Big Brother; even the staunch Bush ally Grover Norquist has criticized the N.S.A.'s overreaching.
The highest priority for the Karl Rove-driven presidency is instead to preserve its own power at all costs. With this gang, political victory and the propaganda needed to secure it always trump principles, even conservative principles, let alone the truth. Whenever the White House most vociferously attacks the press, you can be sure its No. 1 motive is to deflect attention from embarrassing revelations about its incompetence and failures. That's why Paul Wolfowitz, in a 2004 remark for which he later apologized, dismissed reporting on the raging insurgency in Iraq as "rumors" he attributed to a Baghdad press corps too "afraid to travel." That's also why the White House tried in May to blame lethal anti-American riots in Afghanistan and Pakistan on a single erroneous Newsweek item about Koran desecration - as if 200-odd words in an American magazine could take the fall for the indelible photos from Abu Ghraib.
Such is the blame-shifting game Mr. Cheney was up to last week. By dragging 9/11 into his defense of possibly unconstitutional bugging, he was hoping to rewrite history to absolve the White House of its bungling. And no wonder. He knows all too well that the timing of Mr. Bush's signing of the secret executive order to initiate the desperate tactic of warrant-free N.S.A. eavesdropping - early 2002, according to Mr. Risen's new book, "State of War" - is nothing if not a giant arrow pointing to one of the administration's most catastrophic failures. It was only weeks earlier, in December 2001, that we had our best crack at nailing Osama bin Laden in Tora Bora and blew it.
-----
[Read more.]
08 January 2006
Bush advisor says the president has the legal power to torture children
John Yoo publicly argued that Bush has the right to crush the testicles of detained children.
How can these guys sleep at night?!
From revcom.us via Information Clearing House:
-----
John Yoo publicly argued there is no law that could prevent the President from ordering the torture of a child of a suspect in custody – including by crushing that child’s testicles.
This came out in response to a question in a December 1st debate in Chicago with Notre Dame professor and international human rights scholar Doug Cassel.
What is particularly chilling and revealing about this is that John Yoo was a key architect post-9/11 Bush Administration legal policy. As a deputy assistant to then-Attorney General John Ashcroft, John Yoo authored a number of legal memos arguing for unlimited presidential powers to order torture of captive suspects, and to declare war anytime, any where, and on anyone the President deemed a threat.
It has now come out Yoo also had a hand in providing legal reasoning for the President to conduct unauthorized wiretaps of U.S. citizens. Georgetown Law Professor David Cole wrote, "Few lawyers have had more influence on President Bush’s legal policies in the 'war on terror’ than John Yoo."
This part of the exchange during the debate with Doug Cassel, reveals the logic of Yoo’s theories, adopted by the Administration as bedrock principles, in the real world.
Cassel: If the President deems that he’s got to torture somebody, including by crushing the testicles of the person’s child, there is no law that can stop him?
Yoo: No treaty.
Cassel: Also no law by Congress. That is what you wrote in the August 2002 memo.
Yoo: I think it depends on why the President thinks he needs to do that.
-----
[Read more.]
How can these guys sleep at night?!
From revcom.us via Information Clearing House:
-----
John Yoo publicly argued there is no law that could prevent the President from ordering the torture of a child of a suspect in custody – including by crushing that child’s testicles.
This came out in response to a question in a December 1st debate in Chicago with Notre Dame professor and international human rights scholar Doug Cassel.
What is particularly chilling and revealing about this is that John Yoo was a key architect post-9/11 Bush Administration legal policy. As a deputy assistant to then-Attorney General John Ashcroft, John Yoo authored a number of legal memos arguing for unlimited presidential powers to order torture of captive suspects, and to declare war anytime, any where, and on anyone the President deemed a threat.
It has now come out Yoo also had a hand in providing legal reasoning for the President to conduct unauthorized wiretaps of U.S. citizens. Georgetown Law Professor David Cole wrote, "Few lawyers have had more influence on President Bush’s legal policies in the 'war on terror’ than John Yoo."
This part of the exchange during the debate with Doug Cassel, reveals the logic of Yoo’s theories, adopted by the Administration as bedrock principles, in the real world.
Cassel: If the President deems that he’s got to torture somebody, including by crushing the testicles of the person’s child, there is no law that can stop him?
Yoo: No treaty.
Cassel: Also no law by Congress. That is what you wrote in the August 2002 memo.
Yoo: I think it depends on why the President thinks he needs to do that.
-----
[Read more.]
Bush spying was not authorized by Congress
Bush insists that his warrantless spying is within the scope of the law of the land. However, the nation's lawmakers suggest otherwise.
From The New York Times via truthout:
-----
President Bush's rationale for eavesdropping on Americans without warrants rests on questionable legal ground, and Congress does not appear to have given him the authority to order the surveillance, said a Congressional analysis released Friday.
The analysis, by the Congressional Research Service, a nonpartisan research arm of Congress, was the first official assessment of a question that has gripped Washington for three weeks: Did Mr. Bush act within the law when he ordered the National Security Agency, the country's most secretive spy agency, to eavesdrop on some Americans?
The report, requested by several members of Congress, reached no bottom-line conclusions on the legality of the program, in part because it said so many details remained classified. But it raised numerous doubts about the power to bypass Congress in ordering such operations, saying the legal rationale "does not seem to be as well grounded" as the administration's lawyers have argued.
The administration quickly disputed several conclusions in the report.
The report was particularly critical of a central administration justification for the program, that Congress had effectively approved such eavesdropping soon after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks by authorizing "all necessary and appropriate force" against the terrorist groups responsible. Congress "does not appear to have authorized or acquiesced in such surveillance," the report said, adding that the administration reading of some provisions of federal wiretap law could render them "meaningless."
The president acknowledged last month that he had given the security agency the power to eavesdrop on the international telephone and e-mail communications of Americans and others in the United States without a warrant if they are suspected of ties to Al Qaeda.
The Justice Department is investigating the disclosure of the program, first reported in The New York Times. With Congressional hearings expected this month, the Congressional research report intensified debate on the program. Administration lawyers quickly responded that Mr. Bush had acted within his constitutional and statutory powers.
"The president has made clear that he will use his constitutional and statutory authorities to protect the American people from further terrorist attacks," said Brian Roehrkasse, a Justice Department spokesman, adding that the program represented "a critical tool in the war on terror that saves lives and protects civil liberties at the same time."
Many Democrats and some Republicans pointed to the findings as perhaps the strongest indication that Mr. Bush might have exceeded his authority in fighting terrorism.
Representative George Miller, Democrat of California, who leads the House Democratic Policy Committee, said the report "raises serious questions about the president's legal authority to conduct domestic spying."
Mr. Miller said the justifications for the program were unacceptable.
Senator Dianne Feinstein, Democrat of California, said the report made "absolutely clear that the legal authorities advanced by the president in justifying domestic surveillance are on very shaky ground."
Thomas H. Kean, a Republican who was chairman of the Sept. 11 commission, weighed in for the first time in the debate. Mr. Kean said he counted himself among those who doubted the legality of the program. He said in an interview that the administration did not inform his commission about the program and that he wished it had.
-----
[Read more.]
From The New York Times via truthout:
-----
President Bush's rationale for eavesdropping on Americans without warrants rests on questionable legal ground, and Congress does not appear to have given him the authority to order the surveillance, said a Congressional analysis released Friday.
The analysis, by the Congressional Research Service, a nonpartisan research arm of Congress, was the first official assessment of a question that has gripped Washington for three weeks: Did Mr. Bush act within the law when he ordered the National Security Agency, the country's most secretive spy agency, to eavesdrop on some Americans?
The report, requested by several members of Congress, reached no bottom-line conclusions on the legality of the program, in part because it said so many details remained classified. But it raised numerous doubts about the power to bypass Congress in ordering such operations, saying the legal rationale "does not seem to be as well grounded" as the administration's lawyers have argued.
The administration quickly disputed several conclusions in the report.
The report was particularly critical of a central administration justification for the program, that Congress had effectively approved such eavesdropping soon after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks by authorizing "all necessary and appropriate force" against the terrorist groups responsible. Congress "does not appear to have authorized or acquiesced in such surveillance," the report said, adding that the administration reading of some provisions of federal wiretap law could render them "meaningless."
The president acknowledged last month that he had given the security agency the power to eavesdrop on the international telephone and e-mail communications of Americans and others in the United States without a warrant if they are suspected of ties to Al Qaeda.
The Justice Department is investigating the disclosure of the program, first reported in The New York Times. With Congressional hearings expected this month, the Congressional research report intensified debate on the program. Administration lawyers quickly responded that Mr. Bush had acted within his constitutional and statutory powers.
"The president has made clear that he will use his constitutional and statutory authorities to protect the American people from further terrorist attacks," said Brian Roehrkasse, a Justice Department spokesman, adding that the program represented "a critical tool in the war on terror that saves lives and protects civil liberties at the same time."
Many Democrats and some Republicans pointed to the findings as perhaps the strongest indication that Mr. Bush might have exceeded his authority in fighting terrorism.
Representative George Miller, Democrat of California, who leads the House Democratic Policy Committee, said the report "raises serious questions about the president's legal authority to conduct domestic spying."
Mr. Miller said the justifications for the program were unacceptable.
Senator Dianne Feinstein, Democrat of California, said the report made "absolutely clear that the legal authorities advanced by the president in justifying domestic surveillance are on very shaky ground."
Thomas H. Kean, a Republican who was chairman of the Sept. 11 commission, weighed in for the first time in the debate. Mr. Kean said he counted himself among those who doubted the legality of the program. He said in an interview that the administration did not inform his commission about the program and that he wished it had.
-----
[Read more.]
07 January 2006
3 GOP senators blast Bush bid to bypass torture ban
Bravo to these strong and righteous senators for standing up for human rights and decency, and for demonstrating that torture is not a partisan issue.
From The Boston Globe via Common Dreams:
-----
Three key Republican senators yesterday condemned President Bush's assertion that his powers as commander in chief give him the authority to bypass a new law restricting the use of torture when interrogating detainees.
John W. Warner Jr., a Virginia Republican who chairs the Senate Armed Services Committee, and Senator John McCain, an Arizona Republican, issued a joint statement rejecting Bush's assertion that he can waive the restrictions on the use of cruel, inhuman, and degrading treatment against detainees to protect national security.
"We believe the president understands Congress's intent in passing, by very large majorities, legislation governing the treatment of detainees," the senators said. "The Congress declined when asked by administration officials to include a presidential waiver of the restrictions included in our legislation. Our committee intends through strict oversight to monitor the administration's implementation of the new law."
Separately, the third primary sponsor of the detainee treatment law, Senator Lindsey O. Graham, Republican of South Carolina, told the Globe in a phone interview that he agreed with everything McCain and Warner said "and would go a little bit further."
"I do not believe that any political figure in the country has the ability to set aside any . . . law of armed conflict that we have adopted or treaties that we have ratified," Graham said. "If we go down that road, it will cause great problems for our troops in future conflicts because [nothing] is to prevent other nations' leaders from doing the same."
The White House did not return calls yesterday about the senators' statements. On Friday, in signing the ban on torture, Bush issued a "signing statement," saying he would interpret the restrictions in the context of his broader constitutional powers as commander in chief. A "signing statement" is an official document in which a president lays out his interpretation of a new law.
A senior administration official later confirmed that the president believes the Constitution gives him the power to authorize interrogation techniques that go beyond the law to protect national security. But in enacting the law, Congress intended to close every loophole and impose an absolute ban on all forms of torture, no matter the circumstances, Graham said.
David Golove, a New York University law professor who specializes in executive power issues, said the senators' statements "mean that the battle lines are drawn" for an escalating fight over the balance of power between the two branches of government.
"The president is pointing to his commander in chief power, claiming that it somehow gives him the power to dispense with the law when he's conducting war," Golove said. "The senators are saying: 'Wait a minute, we've gone over this. This is a law Congress has passed by very large margins, and you are compelled and bound to comply with it.'"
-----
[Read more.]
From The Boston Globe via Common Dreams:
-----
Three key Republican senators yesterday condemned President Bush's assertion that his powers as commander in chief give him the authority to bypass a new law restricting the use of torture when interrogating detainees.
John W. Warner Jr., a Virginia Republican who chairs the Senate Armed Services Committee, and Senator John McCain, an Arizona Republican, issued a joint statement rejecting Bush's assertion that he can waive the restrictions on the use of cruel, inhuman, and degrading treatment against detainees to protect national security.
"We believe the president understands Congress's intent in passing, by very large majorities, legislation governing the treatment of detainees," the senators said. "The Congress declined when asked by administration officials to include a presidential waiver of the restrictions included in our legislation. Our committee intends through strict oversight to monitor the administration's implementation of the new law."
Separately, the third primary sponsor of the detainee treatment law, Senator Lindsey O. Graham, Republican of South Carolina, told the Globe in a phone interview that he agreed with everything McCain and Warner said "and would go a little bit further."
"I do not believe that any political figure in the country has the ability to set aside any . . . law of armed conflict that we have adopted or treaties that we have ratified," Graham said. "If we go down that road, it will cause great problems for our troops in future conflicts because [nothing] is to prevent other nations' leaders from doing the same."
The White House did not return calls yesterday about the senators' statements. On Friday, in signing the ban on torture, Bush issued a "signing statement," saying he would interpret the restrictions in the context of his broader constitutional powers as commander in chief. A "signing statement" is an official document in which a president lays out his interpretation of a new law.
A senior administration official later confirmed that the president believes the Constitution gives him the power to authorize interrogation techniques that go beyond the law to protect national security. But in enacting the law, Congress intended to close every loophole and impose an absolute ban on all forms of torture, no matter the circumstances, Graham said.
David Golove, a New York University law professor who specializes in executive power issues, said the senators' statements "mean that the battle lines are drawn" for an escalating fight over the balance of power between the two branches of government.
"The president is pointing to his commander in chief power, claiming that it somehow gives him the power to dispense with the law when he's conducting war," Golove said. "The senators are saying: 'Wait a minute, we've gone over this. This is a law Congress has passed by very large margins, and you are compelled and bound to comply with it.'"
-----
[Read more.]
06 January 2006
New Fiore animation: "Gentle Genocide"
Mark Fiore's latest animation sheds light on the genocide currently taking place in the Darfur region of Sudan, and America's apathy.
[View it.]
[View it.]
Bush ignored explicit warnings about mine safety
In 2001, George W. Bush ignored a Presidential Daily Briefing entitled "Bin Laden Determined to Strike In US". Then 9/11 happened.
He continually ignored pleas from Lousiana Senator Mary Landrieu for funds to repair and fortify the levy system in New Orleans. Then Hurricane Katrina happened.
Now we learn that Bush ignored warnings about mine safety, and failed to fund mine safety initiatives. And we all saw what happened earlier this week.
On his blog, David Sirota provides some alarming information about Bush's lack of concern for the safety of mine workers. [Read it.]
He continually ignored pleas from Lousiana Senator Mary Landrieu for funds to repair and fortify the levy system in New Orleans. Then Hurricane Katrina happened.
Now we learn that Bush ignored warnings about mine safety, and failed to fund mine safety initiatives. And we all saw what happened earlier this week.
On his blog, David Sirota provides some alarming information about Bush's lack of concern for the safety of mine workers. [Read it.]
05 January 2006
Bush prepares to bypass new torture ban
Threatening to veto the torture ban didn't work, so Bush found a new loophole to reserve the right to torture human beings.
The checks and balances that our founding fathers established are a thing of the past -- all because George ("Mr. family values") wants to spy and detain and torture at will.
From The Boston Globe:
-----
When President Bush last week signed the bill outlawing the torture of detainees, he quietly reserved the right to bypass the law under his powers as commander in chief.
After approving the bill last Friday, Bush issued a "signing statement" - an official document in which a president lays out his interpretation of a new law - declaring that he will view the interrogation limits in the context of his broader powers to protect national security. This means Bush believes he can waive the restrictions, the White House and legal specialists said.
"The executive branch shall construe [the law] in a manner consistent with the constitutional authority of the President . . . as Commander in Chief," Bush wrote, adding that this approach "will assist in achieving the shared objective of the Congress and the President . . . of protecting the American people from further terrorist attacks."
Some legal specialists said yesterday that the president's signing statement, which was posted on the White House website but had gone unnoticed over the New Year's weekend, raises serious questions about whether he intends to follow the law.
A senior administration official, who spoke to a Globe reporter about the statement on condition of anonymity because he is not an official spokesman, said the president intended to reserve the right to use harsher methods in special situations involving national security.
"We are not going to ignore this law," the official said, noting that Bush, when signing laws, routinely issues signing statements saying he will construe them consistent with his own constitutional authority. "We consider it a valid statute. We consider ourselves bound by the prohibition on cruel, unusual, and degrading treatment."
But, the official said, a situation could arise in which Bush may have to waive the law's restrictions to carry out his responsibilities to protect national security. He cited as an example a "ticking time bomb" scenario, in which a detainee is believed to have information that could prevent a planned terrorist attack.
"Of course the president has the obligation to follow this law, [but] he also has the obligation to defend and protect the country as the commander in chief, and he will have to square those two responsibilities in each case," the official added. "We are not expecting that those two responsibilities will come into conflict, but it's possible that they will."
David Golove, a New York University law professor who specializes in executive power issues, said that the signing statement means that Bush believes he can still authorize harsh interrogation tactics when he sees fit.
"The signing statement is saying 'I will only comply with this law when I want to, and if something arises in the war on terrorism where I think it's important to torture or engage in cruel, inhuman, and degrading conduct, I have the authority to do so and nothing in this law is going to stop me,' " he said. "They don't want to come out and say it directly because it doesn't sound very nice, but it's unmistakable to anyone who has been following what's going on."
Golove and other legal specialists compared the signing statement to Bush's decision, revealed last month, to bypass a 1978 law forbidding domestic wiretapping without a warrant. Bush authorized the National Security Agency to eavesdrop on Americans' international phone calls and e-mails without a court order starting after the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001.
The president and his aides argued that the Constitution gives the commander in chief the authority to bypass the 1978 law when necessary to protect national security. They also argued that Congress implicitly endorsed that power when it authorized the use of force against the perpetrators of the attacks.
Legal academics and human rights organizations said Bush's signing statement and his stance on the wiretapping law are part of a larger agenda that claims exclusive control of war-related matters for the executive branch and holds that any involvement by Congress or the courts should be minimal.
-----
[Read more.]
The checks and balances that our founding fathers established are a thing of the past -- all because George ("Mr. family values") wants to spy and detain and torture at will.
From The Boston Globe:
-----
When President Bush last week signed the bill outlawing the torture of detainees, he quietly reserved the right to bypass the law under his powers as commander in chief.
After approving the bill last Friday, Bush issued a "signing statement" - an official document in which a president lays out his interpretation of a new law - declaring that he will view the interrogation limits in the context of his broader powers to protect national security. This means Bush believes he can waive the restrictions, the White House and legal specialists said.
"The executive branch shall construe [the law] in a manner consistent with the constitutional authority of the President . . . as Commander in Chief," Bush wrote, adding that this approach "will assist in achieving the shared objective of the Congress and the President . . . of protecting the American people from further terrorist attacks."
Some legal specialists said yesterday that the president's signing statement, which was posted on the White House website but had gone unnoticed over the New Year's weekend, raises serious questions about whether he intends to follow the law.
A senior administration official, who spoke to a Globe reporter about the statement on condition of anonymity because he is not an official spokesman, said the president intended to reserve the right to use harsher methods in special situations involving national security.
"We are not going to ignore this law," the official said, noting that Bush, when signing laws, routinely issues signing statements saying he will construe them consistent with his own constitutional authority. "We consider it a valid statute. We consider ourselves bound by the prohibition on cruel, unusual, and degrading treatment."
But, the official said, a situation could arise in which Bush may have to waive the law's restrictions to carry out his responsibilities to protect national security. He cited as an example a "ticking time bomb" scenario, in which a detainee is believed to have information that could prevent a planned terrorist attack.
"Of course the president has the obligation to follow this law, [but] he also has the obligation to defend and protect the country as the commander in chief, and he will have to square those two responsibilities in each case," the official added. "We are not expecting that those two responsibilities will come into conflict, but it's possible that they will."
David Golove, a New York University law professor who specializes in executive power issues, said that the signing statement means that Bush believes he can still authorize harsh interrogation tactics when he sees fit.
"The signing statement is saying 'I will only comply with this law when I want to, and if something arises in the war on terrorism where I think it's important to torture or engage in cruel, inhuman, and degrading conduct, I have the authority to do so and nothing in this law is going to stop me,' " he said. "They don't want to come out and say it directly because it doesn't sound very nice, but it's unmistakable to anyone who has been following what's going on."
Golove and other legal specialists compared the signing statement to Bush's decision, revealed last month, to bypass a 1978 law forbidding domestic wiretapping without a warrant. Bush authorized the National Security Agency to eavesdrop on Americans' international phone calls and e-mails without a court order starting after the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001.
The president and his aides argued that the Constitution gives the commander in chief the authority to bypass the 1978 law when necessary to protect national security. They also argued that Congress implicitly endorsed that power when it authorized the use of force against the perpetrators of the attacks.
Legal academics and human rights organizations said Bush's signing statement and his stance on the wiretapping law are part of a larger agenda that claims exclusive control of war-related matters for the executive branch and holds that any involvement by Congress or the courts should be minimal.
-----
[Read more.]
Jesus vs. George
George W. Bush won the presidency twice by playing the religion card. He convinced the Christian majority that he was one of them, and that he would defend their good Christian family values. Christian leaders endorsed him fervently.
But wait a minute. I was raised to believe that a Christian is one who follows the teachings of Jesus Christ and the Bible, and who lives by those teachings.
So then can George W. Bush truly be called a Christian?
Let's compare the teachings of Jesus with the words of "born again" Bush, and then decide.
---
Jesus: "Blessed are the peacemakers, for they shall be called sons of God." (Matthew 5:9)
George: "I'm a war president. I make decisions here in the Oval Office in foreign policy matters with war on my mind." (NBC's "Meet the Press", February 2004)
---
Jesus: "Judge not, that you be not judged." (Matthew 7:1)
George: "States like [North Korea, Iran, and Iraq], and their terrorist allies, constitute an axis of evil." (State of the Union Address, January 2002)
---
Jesus: "Let your 'Yes' mean 'Yes', and your 'No' mean 'No'. Anything more is from the evil one." (Matthew 5:37)
George: "The fundamental question is, did Saddam Hussein have a weapons program? And the answer is, absolutely. And we gave him a chance to allow the inspectors in, and he wouldn't let them in." (Washington, DC, July 2003)
---
Jesus: "Again I tell you, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God." (Matthew 19:24)
George: "This is an impressive crowd -- the haves and the have-mores. Some people call you the elite, I call you my base." (At a dinner for wealthy New York socialites, October 2000)
---
Jesus: "I tell you the truth, this poor widow has put more into the [temple] treasury than all the others. They all gave out of their wealth; but she, out of her poverty, put in everything -- all she had to live on." (Mark 12:43)
George: "Poor people are poor because they're lazy." (To one of his professors at Harvard Business School, as quoted in the "Seattle Weekly", December 2004)
---
Jesus: "Blessed are the meek, for they shall inherit the earth." (Matthew 5:5)
George: "I'm the commander -- see, I don't need to explain -- I do not need to explain why I say things. That's the interesting thing about being the president. Maybe somebody needs to explain to me why they say something, but I don't feel like I owe anybody an explanation." (Washington, DC, September 2001)
---
Jesus: "Whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers of mine, you did for me... Whatever you did not do for one of the least of these, you did not do for me." (Matthew 25:40-45)
George: "Please don't kill me." (Mocking convicted murderer Karla Faye Tucker after her plea for clemency, as quoted in "Talk Magazine", September 1999)
---
Jesus: "Render unto Caesar the things which are Caesar’s." (Matthew 22:21)
George: "The really rich people figure out how to dodge taxes anyway." (Annandale, VA, August 2004)
---
Jesus: "Watch out that you are not deceived." (Luke 21:8)
George: "You can fool some of the people all the time, and those are the ones you want to concentrate on." (At a Washington dinner, March 2001)
---
Jesus: "Honor your father and mother." (Matthew 19:19)
George: "[George H. W. Bush] is the wrong father to appeal to for advice. The wrong father to go to, to appeal to in terms of strength. There's a higher Father that I appeal to." (As quoted by CBS News, April 2004)
---
Jesus: "And when you pray, do not be like the hypocrites, for they love to pray standing in the synagogues and on the street corners to be seen by men. I tell you the truth, they have received their reward in full. But when you pray, go into your room, close the door and pray to your Father, who is unseen. Then your Father, who sees what is done in secret, will reward you." (Matthew 6:5-6)
George: "Prayer is a vital part of our national life." (Washington, DC, May 2002)
---
Jesus: "False Christs and false prophets shall rise, and shall shew signs and wonders, to seduce, if it were possible, even the elect." (Mark 13:21-23)
George: "I trust God speaks through me." (Lancaster County, PA, July 2004)
---
And so on.
I searched the entire New Testament, and nowhere could I find a passage in which Jesus advocates for a life of arrogance, selfishness, dishonesty, or greed.
I'd say it's time to send George back to bible school -- or back to Texas!
But wait a minute. I was raised to believe that a Christian is one who follows the teachings of Jesus Christ and the Bible, and who lives by those teachings.
So then can George W. Bush truly be called a Christian?
Let's compare the teachings of Jesus with the words of "born again" Bush, and then decide.
---
Jesus: "Blessed are the peacemakers, for they shall be called sons of God." (Matthew 5:9)
George: "I'm a war president. I make decisions here in the Oval Office in foreign policy matters with war on my mind." (NBC's "Meet the Press", February 2004)
---
Jesus: "Judge not, that you be not judged." (Matthew 7:1)
George: "States like [North Korea, Iran, and Iraq], and their terrorist allies, constitute an axis of evil." (State of the Union Address, January 2002)
---
Jesus: "Let your 'Yes' mean 'Yes', and your 'No' mean 'No'. Anything more is from the evil one." (Matthew 5:37)
George: "The fundamental question is, did Saddam Hussein have a weapons program? And the answer is, absolutely. And we gave him a chance to allow the inspectors in, and he wouldn't let them in." (Washington, DC, July 2003)
---
Jesus: "Again I tell you, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God." (Matthew 19:24)
George: "This is an impressive crowd -- the haves and the have-mores. Some people call you the elite, I call you my base." (At a dinner for wealthy New York socialites, October 2000)
---
Jesus: "I tell you the truth, this poor widow has put more into the [temple] treasury than all the others. They all gave out of their wealth; but she, out of her poverty, put in everything -- all she had to live on." (Mark 12:43)
George: "Poor people are poor because they're lazy." (To one of his professors at Harvard Business School, as quoted in the "Seattle Weekly", December 2004)
---
Jesus: "Blessed are the meek, for they shall inherit the earth." (Matthew 5:5)
George: "I'm the commander -- see, I don't need to explain -- I do not need to explain why I say things. That's the interesting thing about being the president. Maybe somebody needs to explain to me why they say something, but I don't feel like I owe anybody an explanation." (Washington, DC, September 2001)
---
Jesus: "Whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers of mine, you did for me... Whatever you did not do for one of the least of these, you did not do for me." (Matthew 25:40-45)
George: "Please don't kill me." (Mocking convicted murderer Karla Faye Tucker after her plea for clemency, as quoted in "Talk Magazine", September 1999)
---
Jesus: "Render unto Caesar the things which are Caesar’s." (Matthew 22:21)
George: "The really rich people figure out how to dodge taxes anyway." (Annandale, VA, August 2004)
---
Jesus: "Watch out that you are not deceived." (Luke 21:8)
George: "You can fool some of the people all the time, and those are the ones you want to concentrate on." (At a Washington dinner, March 2001)
---
Jesus: "Honor your father and mother." (Matthew 19:19)
George: "[George H. W. Bush] is the wrong father to appeal to for advice. The wrong father to go to, to appeal to in terms of strength. There's a higher Father that I appeal to." (As quoted by CBS News, April 2004)
---
Jesus: "And when you pray, do not be like the hypocrites, for they love to pray standing in the synagogues and on the street corners to be seen by men. I tell you the truth, they have received their reward in full. But when you pray, go into your room, close the door and pray to your Father, who is unseen. Then your Father, who sees what is done in secret, will reward you." (Matthew 6:5-6)
George: "Prayer is a vital part of our national life." (Washington, DC, May 2002)
---
Jesus: "False Christs and false prophets shall rise, and shall shew signs and wonders, to seduce, if it were possible, even the elect." (Mark 13:21-23)
George: "I trust God speaks through me." (Lancaster County, PA, July 2004)
---
And so on.
I searched the entire New Testament, and nowhere could I find a passage in which Jesus advocates for a life of arrogance, selfishness, dishonesty, or greed.
I'd say it's time to send George back to bible school -- or back to Texas!
04 January 2006
History professor's mail opened by Homeland Security
Well, I've received some mangled mail recently, but it didn't have any official government seals on it. Maybe the feds have just gotten tired of all the junk mail and catalogs I get every day and gave up.
Seriously, though, I wouldn't be surprised if they were spying on me. After all, I criticize the Bush administration in writing almost daily. But a retired professor and a little old lady who goes to mass every morning? While Osama runs loose?
From The Progressive:
-----
Grant Goodman is an 81-year-old emeritus professor of Asian history at the University of Kansas.
He has had an ongoing correspondence by snail mail with a former professor of history at the University of the Philippines, where Goodman had taught on three separate occasions.
In early December, he was shocked when a letter arrived from her that had already been opened.
"The bottom of the envelope had been slashed open and then retaped with green tape," says Goodman. "And it said, 'Opened by Border Protection' in great big letters. The U.S. Department of Homeland Security seal is on it, too."
Goodman believes his rights have been "absolutely" violated, he says. "I just couldn’t believe it and wondered what in the world is going on."
This story was broken by Joel Mathis of the Lawrence Journal-World.
No one at the press office at the Department of Homeland Security was available for comment to The Progressive on January 2, but a spokesman told the Journal-World that "he didn’t know how often the agency opened mail from abroad. And he wouldn’t discuss the criteria for opening letters."
Goodman worries that he "must be under surveillance for one reason or other."
He won’t release the name of the former professor in the Philippines, but says she is in her mid-80s and hardly a security risk. "This is a very devout Catholic woman who goes to 6:00 mass every evening, and I don’t know what they would be interested in her for," he says. "She hasn’t written about anything in years."
-----
[Read more.]
Seriously, though, I wouldn't be surprised if they were spying on me. After all, I criticize the Bush administration in writing almost daily. But a retired professor and a little old lady who goes to mass every morning? While Osama runs loose?
From The Progressive:
-----
Grant Goodman is an 81-year-old emeritus professor of Asian history at the University of Kansas.
He has had an ongoing correspondence by snail mail with a former professor of history at the University of the Philippines, where Goodman had taught on three separate occasions.
In early December, he was shocked when a letter arrived from her that had already been opened.
"The bottom of the envelope had been slashed open and then retaped with green tape," says Goodman. "And it said, 'Opened by Border Protection' in great big letters. The U.S. Department of Homeland Security seal is on it, too."
Goodman believes his rights have been "absolutely" violated, he says. "I just couldn’t believe it and wondered what in the world is going on."
This story was broken by Joel Mathis of the Lawrence Journal-World.
No one at the press office at the Department of Homeland Security was available for comment to The Progressive on January 2, but a spokesman told the Journal-World that "he didn’t know how often the agency opened mail from abroad. And he wouldn’t discuss the criteria for opening letters."
Goodman worries that he "must be under surveillance for one reason or other."
He won’t release the name of the former professor in the Philippines, but says she is in her mid-80s and hardly a security risk. "This is a very devout Catholic woman who goes to 6:00 mass every evening, and I don’t know what they would be interested in her for," he says. "She hasn’t written about anything in years."
-----
[Read more.]
03 January 2006
White House to withdraw funding for rebuilding Iraq
We attacked a country that posed no immediate threat to us. We bombed it to bits and destroyed the infrastructure.
We killed tens of thousands of innocent Iraqi men, women, and children. We said that we were "liberating" them.
Now, almost three years later, the infrastructure is still in shambles, many people don't have potable water or reliable electricity, and innocent civilians keep dying.
And we're not going to fix it.
God bless America.
From The Independent (UK):
-----
The US government is not planning to continue funding reconstruction projects in Iraq, in what appears to be a major climbdown from the White House's one-time pledge to build the best infrastructure in the region.
According to officials cited in yesterday's Washington Post, the Bush administration will not be adding construction funds to the $18.4bn (£10.7bn) it has allocated since the 2003 invasion.
In future it will be up to other foreign donors and the Iraqi government to do what it can to complete even basic tasks such as supplying reliable electricity and water to the country's 26 million people.
-----
[Read more.]
We killed tens of thousands of innocent Iraqi men, women, and children. We said that we were "liberating" them.
Now, almost three years later, the infrastructure is still in shambles, many people don't have potable water or reliable electricity, and innocent civilians keep dying.
And we're not going to fix it.
God bless America.
From The Independent (UK):
-----
The US government is not planning to continue funding reconstruction projects in Iraq, in what appears to be a major climbdown from the White House's one-time pledge to build the best infrastructure in the region.
According to officials cited in yesterday's Washington Post, the Bush administration will not be adding construction funds to the $18.4bn (£10.7bn) it has allocated since the 2003 invasion.
In future it will be up to other foreign donors and the Iraqi government to do what it can to complete even basic tasks such as supplying reliable electricity and water to the country's 26 million people.
-----
[Read more.]
Alito once made case for increased presidential power
Well, we're now gaining more insight into Bush's reasons for nominating Sammy Alito to the Supreme Court. The Washington Post reported yesterday that Alito, while working in Reagan's Justice Department, "tried to help tip the balance of power between Congress and the White House a little more in favor of the executive branch."
An excerpt:
-----
As a young Justice Department lawyer, Supreme Court nominee Samuel A. Alito Jr. tried to help tip the balance of power between Congress and the White House a little more in favor of the executive branch.
In the 1980s, the Reagan administration, like other White Houses before and after, chafed at the reality that Congress's reach on the meaning of laws extends beyond the words of statutes passed on Capitol Hill. Judges may turn to the trail of statements lawmakers left behind in the Congressional Record when trying to glean the intent behind a law. The White House left no comparable record.
In a Feb. 5, 1986, draft memo, Alito, then deputy assistant attorney general in the Office of Legal Counsel, outlined a strategy for changing that. It laid out a case for having the president routinely issue statements about the meaning of statutes when he signs them into law.
Such "interpretive signing statements" would be a significant departure from run-of-the-mill bill signing pronouncements, which are "often little more than a press release," Alito wrote. The idea was to flag constitutional concerns and get courts to pay as much attention to the president's take on a law as to "legislative intent."
-----
[Read more.]
An excerpt:
-----
As a young Justice Department lawyer, Supreme Court nominee Samuel A. Alito Jr. tried to help tip the balance of power between Congress and the White House a little more in favor of the executive branch.
In the 1980s, the Reagan administration, like other White Houses before and after, chafed at the reality that Congress's reach on the meaning of laws extends beyond the words of statutes passed on Capitol Hill. Judges may turn to the trail of statements lawmakers left behind in the Congressional Record when trying to glean the intent behind a law. The White House left no comparable record.
In a Feb. 5, 1986, draft memo, Alito, then deputy assistant attorney general in the Office of Legal Counsel, outlined a strategy for changing that. It laid out a case for having the president routinely issue statements about the meaning of statutes when he signs them into law.
Such "interpretive signing statements" would be a significant departure from run-of-the-mill bill signing pronouncements, which are "often little more than a press release," Alito wrote. The idea was to flag constitutional concerns and get courts to pay as much attention to the president's take on a law as to "legislative intent."
-----
[Read more.]
Bolton testimony revealed domestic spying
I was not surprised to learn recently that John Bolton, our not-so-diplomatic ambassador to the UN, is involved in the domestic spying scandal.
From an investigative piece by Jason Leopold for truthout:
-----
This past spring, an explosive nugget of information slipped out during the confirmation hearings of John Bolton - nominated by President Bush to be the United States Ambassador to the United Nations - that in hindsight should have blown the lid off Bush's four-year-old clandestine spy program involving the National Security Agency.
At the hearing in late April, Bolton, a former Under Secretary of State for Arms Control, told Congress that since 2001 he had asked the NSA on 10 different occasions to reveal to him the identities of American citizens who were caught in the NSA's raw intelligence reports in what appears to be a routine circumventing of the rules governing eavesdropping on the American public.
It turned out that Bolton was just one of many government officials who learned the identities of Americans caught in the NSA intercepts. The State Department asked the NSA to unmask the identities of American citizens 500 times since May 2001.
Newsweek revealed earlier this year that the NSA disclosed to senior White House officials and other policymakers at federal agencies the names of as many as 10,000 American citizens the agency obtained while eavesdropping on foreigners. The Americans weren't involved in any sort of terrorist activity, nor did they pose any sort of threat to national security, but had simply been named while the NSA was conducting wiretaps.
The "NSA received - and fulfilled - between 3,000 and 3,500 requests from other agencies to supply the names of U.S. citizens and officials (and citizens of other countries that help NSA eavesdrop around the world, including Britain, Canada and Australia) that initially were deleted from raw intercept reports," Newsweek said in its May 2 issue. "Sources say the number of names disclosed by NSA to other agencies during this period is more than 10,000. About one third of such disclosures were made to officials at the policymaking level; most of the rest were disclosed to other intel agencies and, perhaps surprisingly, only a small proportion to law-enforcement agencies."
The NSA has always blacked out the names of American citizens when it distributes reports about its activities to various governmental agencies because the NSA, by law, is not supposed to spy on Americans. If the NSA intercepts the names of Americans in the course of a wiretap, the agency is supposed to black out the names prior to distributing its reports to other agencies. The names of American citizens that are blacked out can be revealed to government officials if they ask for them in writing and only if they're needed to help the official better understand the context of the intelligence information they were included in.
But that didn't appear to be the case with Bolton.
During one routine wiretap, the NSA obtained the name of a state department official whose name had been blacked out when the agency submitted its report to various federal agencies. Bolton's chief of staff, Frederick Fleitz, a former CIA official, revealed during the confirmation hearings that Bolton had requested that the NSA unmask the unidentified official. Fleitz said that when Bolton found out his identity, he congratulated the official, and by doing so he had violated the NSA's rules by discussing classified information contained in the wiretap.
-----
[Read more.]
From an investigative piece by Jason Leopold for truthout:
-----
This past spring, an explosive nugget of information slipped out during the confirmation hearings of John Bolton - nominated by President Bush to be the United States Ambassador to the United Nations - that in hindsight should have blown the lid off Bush's four-year-old clandestine spy program involving the National Security Agency.
At the hearing in late April, Bolton, a former Under Secretary of State for Arms Control, told Congress that since 2001 he had asked the NSA on 10 different occasions to reveal to him the identities of American citizens who were caught in the NSA's raw intelligence reports in what appears to be a routine circumventing of the rules governing eavesdropping on the American public.
It turned out that Bolton was just one of many government officials who learned the identities of Americans caught in the NSA intercepts. The State Department asked the NSA to unmask the identities of American citizens 500 times since May 2001.
Newsweek revealed earlier this year that the NSA disclosed to senior White House officials and other policymakers at federal agencies the names of as many as 10,000 American citizens the agency obtained while eavesdropping on foreigners. The Americans weren't involved in any sort of terrorist activity, nor did they pose any sort of threat to national security, but had simply been named while the NSA was conducting wiretaps.
The "NSA received - and fulfilled - between 3,000 and 3,500 requests from other agencies to supply the names of U.S. citizens and officials (and citizens of other countries that help NSA eavesdrop around the world, including Britain, Canada and Australia) that initially were deleted from raw intercept reports," Newsweek said in its May 2 issue. "Sources say the number of names disclosed by NSA to other agencies during this period is more than 10,000. About one third of such disclosures were made to officials at the policymaking level; most of the rest were disclosed to other intel agencies and, perhaps surprisingly, only a small proportion to law-enforcement agencies."
The NSA has always blacked out the names of American citizens when it distributes reports about its activities to various governmental agencies because the NSA, by law, is not supposed to spy on Americans. If the NSA intercepts the names of Americans in the course of a wiretap, the agency is supposed to black out the names prior to distributing its reports to other agencies. The names of American citizens that are blacked out can be revealed to government officials if they ask for them in writing and only if they're needed to help the official better understand the context of the intelligence information they were included in.
But that didn't appear to be the case with Bolton.
During one routine wiretap, the NSA obtained the name of a state department official whose name had been blacked out when the agency submitted its report to various federal agencies. Bolton's chief of staff, Frederick Fleitz, a former CIA official, revealed during the confirmation hearings that Bolton had requested that the NSA unmask the unidentified official. Fleitz said that when Bolton found out his identity, he congratulated the official, and by doing so he had violated the NSA's rules by discussing classified information contained in the wiretap.
-----
[Read more.]
02 January 2006
A hit on students, elderly
Today's Toledo Blade contains a very good editorial about Congress's recent spending cuts.
An excerpt:
-----
When it came time for Republicans in Washington to show where their hearts are, here's what happened: Vice President Dick Cheney zoomed home from Asia at warp speed aboard Air Force 2 to cast the tie-breaking 51st vote in the Senate for the budget bill, which, in addition to slashing college aid, also makes nasty cuts in spending on medical care for the elderly and the poor and drops new unfunded mandates on the states.
This was legislation conservatives in Congress had demanded so they could assure voters next year that they had done something to curb federal spending. At the same time, lawmakers are hoping the public doesn't realize that this cut is only a faint scratch in a budget larded with tax cuts, war spending, and carefree pork-barrel projects that will balloon - not reduce - the size of the deficit.
As it turned out, a full one-third of the $39.7 billion lopped off the federal budget in the lawmakers' pre-Christmas rush will be realized in reduced college aid and higher interest rates on student loans.
As painful as the cuts in educational assistance may be to middle-class students and parents, two-thirds of the cuts target the least fortunate among us - the elderly and poor who have medical problems.
-----
[Read more.]
An excerpt:
-----
When it came time for Republicans in Washington to show where their hearts are, here's what happened: Vice President Dick Cheney zoomed home from Asia at warp speed aboard Air Force 2 to cast the tie-breaking 51st vote in the Senate for the budget bill, which, in addition to slashing college aid, also makes nasty cuts in spending on medical care for the elderly and the poor and drops new unfunded mandates on the states.
This was legislation conservatives in Congress had demanded so they could assure voters next year that they had done something to curb federal spending. At the same time, lawmakers are hoping the public doesn't realize that this cut is only a faint scratch in a budget larded with tax cuts, war spending, and carefree pork-barrel projects that will balloon - not reduce - the size of the deficit.
As it turned out, a full one-third of the $39.7 billion lopped off the federal budget in the lawmakers' pre-Christmas rush will be realized in reduced college aid and higher interest rates on student loans.
As painful as the cuts in educational assistance may be to middle-class students and parents, two-thirds of the cuts target the least fortunate among us - the elderly and poor who have medical problems.
-----
[Read more.]
Is Bush preparing to attack Iran?
I've been hearing rumors about this for a few days. Could it be true? Does Bush think he has the resources and the political capital to attack yet another country that has not attacked us?
From the Christian Science Monitor:
-----
Tehran on Monday rejected an offer by Russia to allow Iran to enrich uranium for its nuclear reactors in Russia. Ha'aretz reports that the proposal had been put forward by Russia, which is helping Iran develop and build the reactors, as a way to allay concerns about Iran's nuclear program and its potential to be turned into a weapons program. Iran continues to insist its program is being developed solely for peaceful purposes.
[...]
Meanwhile, the German magazine Der Spiegel reported in its English language version over the weekend that recent stories in the German media indicate that the US may be preparing to launch an attack against Iranian nuclear facilities.
-----
[Read more.]
From the Christian Science Monitor:
-----
Tehran on Monday rejected an offer by Russia to allow Iran to enrich uranium for its nuclear reactors in Russia. Ha'aretz reports that the proposal had been put forward by Russia, which is helping Iran develop and build the reactors, as a way to allay concerns about Iran's nuclear program and its potential to be turned into a weapons program. Iran continues to insist its program is being developed solely for peaceful purposes.
[...]
Meanwhile, the German magazine Der Spiegel reported in its English language version over the weekend that recent stories in the German media indicate that the US may be preparing to launch an attack against Iranian nuclear facilities.
-----
[Read more.]
Documents now available online reveal that Bush and Blair knowingly used intel from tortured Uzbeks
Chris-Floyd.com has published documents showing that the US and the UK knowingly used intel from tortured Uzbeks.
The documents were provided by Craig Murray, who was the UK ambassador to Uzbekistan, "until his complaints and protest at the use of intelligence gained by torture got too much for Jack Straw and the Foreign Office, who set about attempting to unsuccessfully smear him, and to boot him from office."
[Read the documents and other details.]
The documents were provided by Craig Murray, who was the UK ambassador to Uzbekistan, "until his complaints and protest at the use of intelligence gained by torture got too much for Jack Straw and the Foreign Office, who set about attempting to unsuccessfully smear him, and to boot him from office."
[Read the documents and other details.]
Justice deputy resisted parts of spy program
Wow. According to an article in yesterday's New York Times, in 2004 Bush was so desperate to continue with the National Security Agency's nefarious domestic surveillance program that he sent his thugs to visit a hospitalized John Ashcroft to obtain approval when Ashcroft's deputy objected.
An excerpt, via truthout:
-----
A top Justice Department official objected in 2004 to aspects of the National Security Agency's domestic surveillance program and refused to sign on to its continued use amid concerns about its legality and oversight, according to officials with knowledge of the tense internal debate. The concerns appear to have played a part in the temporary suspension of the secret program.
The concerns prompted two of President Bush's most senior aides - Andrew H. Card Jr., his chief of staff, and Alberto R. Gonzales, then White House counsel and now attorney general - to make an emergency visit to a Washington hospital in March 2004 to discuss the program's future and try to win the needed approval from Attorney General John Ashcroft, who was hospitalized for gallbladder surgery, the officials said.
The unusual meeting was prompted because Mr. Ashcroft's top deputy, James B. Comey, who was acting as attorney general in his absence, had indicated he was unwilling to give his approval to certifying central aspects of the program, as required under the White House procedures set up to oversee it.
With Mr. Comey unwilling to sign off on the program, the White House went to Mr. Ashcroft - who had been in the intensive care unit at George Washington University Hospital with pancreatitis and was housed under unusually tight security - because "they needed him for certification," according to an official briefed on the episode. The official, like others who discussed the issue, spoke on the condition of anonymity because of the classified nature of the program.
Mr. Comey declined to comment, and Mr. Gonzales could not be reached.
Accounts differed as to exactly what was said at the hospital meeting between Mr. Ashcroft and the White House advisers. But some officials said that Mr. Ashcroft, like his deputy, appeared reluctant to give Mr. Card and Mr. Gonzales his authorization to continue with aspects of the program in light of concerns among some senior government officials about whether the proper oversight was in place at the security agency and whether the president had the legal and constitutional authority to conduct such an operation.
It is unclear whether the White House ultimately persuaded Mr. Ashcroft to give his approval to the program after the meeting or moved ahead without it.
The White House and Mr. Ashcroft, through a spokeswoman, declined to comment Saturday on the hospital meeting. A White House spokeswoman, Jeannie Mamo, said she could not discuss any aspect of the meeting or the internal debate surrounding it, but said: "As the president has stated, the intelligence activities that have been under way to prevent future terrorist attacks have been approved at the highest levels of the Justice Department."
-----
[Read more.]
An excerpt, via truthout:
-----
A top Justice Department official objected in 2004 to aspects of the National Security Agency's domestic surveillance program and refused to sign on to its continued use amid concerns about its legality and oversight, according to officials with knowledge of the tense internal debate. The concerns appear to have played a part in the temporary suspension of the secret program.
The concerns prompted two of President Bush's most senior aides - Andrew H. Card Jr., his chief of staff, and Alberto R. Gonzales, then White House counsel and now attorney general - to make an emergency visit to a Washington hospital in March 2004 to discuss the program's future and try to win the needed approval from Attorney General John Ashcroft, who was hospitalized for gallbladder surgery, the officials said.
The unusual meeting was prompted because Mr. Ashcroft's top deputy, James B. Comey, who was acting as attorney general in his absence, had indicated he was unwilling to give his approval to certifying central aspects of the program, as required under the White House procedures set up to oversee it.
With Mr. Comey unwilling to sign off on the program, the White House went to Mr. Ashcroft - who had been in the intensive care unit at George Washington University Hospital with pancreatitis and was housed under unusually tight security - because "they needed him for certification," according to an official briefed on the episode. The official, like others who discussed the issue, spoke on the condition of anonymity because of the classified nature of the program.
Mr. Comey declined to comment, and Mr. Gonzales could not be reached.
Accounts differed as to exactly what was said at the hospital meeting between Mr. Ashcroft and the White House advisers. But some officials said that Mr. Ashcroft, like his deputy, appeared reluctant to give Mr. Card and Mr. Gonzales his authorization to continue with aspects of the program in light of concerns among some senior government officials about whether the proper oversight was in place at the security agency and whether the president had the legal and constitutional authority to conduct such an operation.
It is unclear whether the White House ultimately persuaded Mr. Ashcroft to give his approval to the program after the meeting or moved ahead without it.
The White House and Mr. Ashcroft, through a spokeswoman, declined to comment Saturday on the hospital meeting. A White House spokeswoman, Jeannie Mamo, said she could not discuss any aspect of the meeting or the internal debate surrounding it, but said: "As the president has stated, the intelligence activities that have been under way to prevent future terrorist attacks have been approved at the highest levels of the Justice Department."
-----
[Read more.]
Death threats shut down a Muslim youth retreat
If you're a Muslim in the United States, you're presumed guilty, to the point where death threats will force you to move a youth camp to an undisclosed location.
Imagine the uproar if threats were directed at Christian youth camps -- you know, the ones that might have inspired Tim McVeigh or Eric Rudolph.
From the St. Petersburg Times:
-----
Death threats have closed a church camp where a Muslim youth retreat was planned this weekend, after an Internet blogger alleged that a scheduled speaker was linked to al-Qaida. Mohamed Moharram, president of the Muslim American Society of Tampa, said the three-day event at Presbyterian Cedarkirk Camp and Conference Center was supposed to teach young Muslims leadership skills as well as the core tenets of Islam.
Then, four days ago, the threatening phone calls and e-mails began.
"We got threats to be burned, to be destroyed," he said. "It's appalling."
The Rev. Debbie Bronkema, Cedarkirk's director, said she also received threats.
Some were severe enough that she called the Hillsborough County Sheriff's Office and the FBI, and decided to close the center for the weekend.
On Friday, Moharram said the retreat would go forward at an alternate site. But he wouldn't give the address, citing security concerns. The retreat is for about 50 young adults, ages 18 and up, organizers said. Cedarkirk Camp is a conference center in a nature setting in rural eastern Hillsborough County.
What sparked the threats?
Apparently, articles about the upcoming retreat began to appear on right-wing blogs around Christmas, including americansagainsthate.com and frontpagemag.com. The most-linked blog article alleged that one of the scheduled speakers, Mazen Mokhtar of New Jersey, had ties to al-Qaida. Other bloggers picked up the theme.
"Nothing rings in the new year like bringing your kids to hang out with a bunch of terrorists," one blogger wrote on a site called Ace of Trump.
Another posted an obviously doctored photo showing a masked terrorist standing in front of the Cedarkirk sign.
On Thursday, blogger Joe Kaufman appeared on Fox News' show Your World with Neil Cavuto to talk about the retreat.
On the air, Kaufman said that Mokhtar had run a Web site to recruit al-Qaida fighters.
"I don't believe this person should be teaching any children," he said. "This person should be behind bars in shackles."
In fact, federal agents searched Mokhtar's New Jersey home in 2004, after a man in London was arrested for using a Web site to fund terrorist groups.
An identical Web site was registered under Mokhtar's name. But he was never arrested.
On Friday, Mokhtar, a computer programmer, said he ran a business selling server space to host Web sites. He never knew what was contained on the site in question, he said.
[...]
He said he was frustrated at having to proclaim his innocence.
"It's really, really sad that I have to keep repeating this," he said.
"The fact that people flew planes into buildings in New York has nothing to do with me. I wasn't one of them. I don't belong to that school of thought."
[...]
Meanwhile, Moharram said, he tried to explain to each angry caller that his organization was nonviolent. He also responded to every abusive e-mail, he said.
"I'm exhausted," he said Friday. "I took calls until midnight last night, replying to e-mails: "What are you guys doing? This is totally a mistake. This is totally out of context."'
With one caller, he said, "I told him we are trying to help the government and the U.S. citizens, the average people, to keep them from witnessing another disaster like what happened in 9/11.
"We're teaching the youth and the young kids the real Islam, the true Islam. Not the extremist Islam."
-----
[Read more.]
Imagine the uproar if threats were directed at Christian youth camps -- you know, the ones that might have inspired Tim McVeigh or Eric Rudolph.
From the St. Petersburg Times:
-----
Death threats have closed a church camp where a Muslim youth retreat was planned this weekend, after an Internet blogger alleged that a scheduled speaker was linked to al-Qaida. Mohamed Moharram, president of the Muslim American Society of Tampa, said the three-day event at Presbyterian Cedarkirk Camp and Conference Center was supposed to teach young Muslims leadership skills as well as the core tenets of Islam.
Then, four days ago, the threatening phone calls and e-mails began.
"We got threats to be burned, to be destroyed," he said. "It's appalling."
The Rev. Debbie Bronkema, Cedarkirk's director, said she also received threats.
Some were severe enough that she called the Hillsborough County Sheriff's Office and the FBI, and decided to close the center for the weekend.
On Friday, Moharram said the retreat would go forward at an alternate site. But he wouldn't give the address, citing security concerns. The retreat is for about 50 young adults, ages 18 and up, organizers said. Cedarkirk Camp is a conference center in a nature setting in rural eastern Hillsborough County.
What sparked the threats?
Apparently, articles about the upcoming retreat began to appear on right-wing blogs around Christmas, including americansagainsthate.com and frontpagemag.com. The most-linked blog article alleged that one of the scheduled speakers, Mazen Mokhtar of New Jersey, had ties to al-Qaida. Other bloggers picked up the theme.
"Nothing rings in the new year like bringing your kids to hang out with a bunch of terrorists," one blogger wrote on a site called Ace of Trump.
Another posted an obviously doctored photo showing a masked terrorist standing in front of the Cedarkirk sign.
On Thursday, blogger Joe Kaufman appeared on Fox News' show Your World with Neil Cavuto to talk about the retreat.
On the air, Kaufman said that Mokhtar had run a Web site to recruit al-Qaida fighters.
"I don't believe this person should be teaching any children," he said. "This person should be behind bars in shackles."
In fact, federal agents searched Mokhtar's New Jersey home in 2004, after a man in London was arrested for using a Web site to fund terrorist groups.
An identical Web site was registered under Mokhtar's name. But he was never arrested.
On Friday, Mokhtar, a computer programmer, said he ran a business selling server space to host Web sites. He never knew what was contained on the site in question, he said.
[...]
He said he was frustrated at having to proclaim his innocence.
"It's really, really sad that I have to keep repeating this," he said.
"The fact that people flew planes into buildings in New York has nothing to do with me. I wasn't one of them. I don't belong to that school of thought."
[...]
Meanwhile, Moharram said, he tried to explain to each angry caller that his organization was nonviolent. He also responded to every abusive e-mail, he said.
"I'm exhausted," he said Friday. "I took calls until midnight last night, replying to e-mails: "What are you guys doing? This is totally a mistake. This is totally out of context."'
With one caller, he said, "I told him we are trying to help the government and the U.S. citizens, the average people, to keep them from witnessing another disaster like what happened in 9/11.
"We're teaching the youth and the young kids the real Islam, the true Islam. Not the extremist Islam."
-----
[Read more.]
Rumsfeld admits to "ghosting" detainee
Under the Bush administration, you have no human rights unless George says so. They talk about liberation and freedom; but, at the same time, they are carefully sidestepping domestic and international laws, treaties, and standards.
All the while, they keep on chanting "God bless America", as if their God might condone the suffering we've caused.
From AfterDowningStreet.org:
-----
U.S. Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld has admitted that he "ghosted" a detainee, meaning that he made the decision to hold a prisoner without keeping any records of the fact.
While prisoners of war can be theoretically stripped of their rights by calling them other names (like "unlawful combatants"), they are probably most effectively stripped of all rights by keeping their imprisonment secret. That is what Rumsfeld says he did.
An account of what we know on this matter can be found on page 110 of a new report by Congressman John Conyers called "The Constitution in Crisis; The Downing Street Minutes and Deception, Manipulation, Torture, Retribution, and Cover-ups in the Iraq War."
Following a catalog of evidence of other crimes sanctioned by top Bush Administration officials, the report reads:
"We also have an admission that George Tenet specifically approved the ghosting in Iraq of a specific individual, and that Mr. Rumsfeld admitted to approving of ghosting of detainees as a special matter. During a press conference in June 2004, Secretary Rumsfeld confirmed not only that he was asked by CIA Director George Tenet to hide a specific detainee, but also that he hid the detainee and that the detainee was lost in the system for more than eight months:
"Q -- Mr. Secretary, I'd like to ask why last November you ordered the U.S. military to keep a suspected Ansar al-Islam prisoner in Iraq [Hiwa Abdul Rahman Rashul] secret from the Red Cross. He's now been secret for more than seven months. And there are other such shadowy prisoners in Iraq who are being kept secret from the Red Cross.
"SEC. RUMSFELD: With respect to the -- I want to separate the two. Iraq, my understanding is that the investigations on that subject are going forward. With respect to the detainee you're talking about, I'm not an expert on this, but I was requested by the Director of Central Intelligence to take custody of an Iraqi national who was believed to be a high-ranking member of Ansar al-Islam. And we did so. We were asked to not immediately register the individual. And we did that. It would -- it was -- he was brought to the attention of the Department, the senior level of the Department I think late last month. And we're in the process of registering him with the ICRC at the present time . . ."
[...]
This is the Secretary of Defense publicly stating that the Director of the CIA told him not to register a prisoner with the Red Cross, and that he obeyed, and that several months later the prisoner was still not registered.
Why do Nuremberg Principles III and IV both come to mind?
-----
[Read more.]
All the while, they keep on chanting "God bless America", as if their God might condone the suffering we've caused.
From AfterDowningStreet.org:
-----
U.S. Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld has admitted that he "ghosted" a detainee, meaning that he made the decision to hold a prisoner without keeping any records of the fact.
While prisoners of war can be theoretically stripped of their rights by calling them other names (like "unlawful combatants"), they are probably most effectively stripped of all rights by keeping their imprisonment secret. That is what Rumsfeld says he did.
An account of what we know on this matter can be found on page 110 of a new report by Congressman John Conyers called "The Constitution in Crisis; The Downing Street Minutes and Deception, Manipulation, Torture, Retribution, and Cover-ups in the Iraq War."
Following a catalog of evidence of other crimes sanctioned by top Bush Administration officials, the report reads:
"We also have an admission that George Tenet specifically approved the ghosting in Iraq of a specific individual, and that Mr. Rumsfeld admitted to approving of ghosting of detainees as a special matter. During a press conference in June 2004, Secretary Rumsfeld confirmed not only that he was asked by CIA Director George Tenet to hide a specific detainee, but also that he hid the detainee and that the detainee was lost in the system for more than eight months:
"Q -- Mr. Secretary, I'd like to ask why last November you ordered the U.S. military to keep a suspected Ansar al-Islam prisoner in Iraq [Hiwa Abdul Rahman Rashul] secret from the Red Cross. He's now been secret for more than seven months. And there are other such shadowy prisoners in Iraq who are being kept secret from the Red Cross.
"SEC. RUMSFELD: With respect to the -- I want to separate the two. Iraq, my understanding is that the investigations on that subject are going forward. With respect to the detainee you're talking about, I'm not an expert on this, but I was requested by the Director of Central Intelligence to take custody of an Iraqi national who was believed to be a high-ranking member of Ansar al-Islam. And we did so. We were asked to not immediately register the individual. And we did that. It would -- it was -- he was brought to the attention of the Department, the senior level of the Department I think late last month. And we're in the process of registering him with the ICRC at the present time . . ."
[...]
This is the Secretary of Defense publicly stating that the Director of the CIA told him not to register a prisoner with the Red Cross, and that he obeyed, and that several months later the prisoner was still not registered.
Why do Nuremberg Principles III and IV both come to mind?
-----
[Read more.]
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)