AG Holder Oversight Hearing, Two

/17 Comments/in , , /by

You can follow along on the Committee stream or CSPAN3.

Durbin: No complaints that Bush decided to try Moussaoui in Article III Court. Can you tell me what distinction might be.

Holder: Learned a lot from Moussaui trial. Determinations made about best forum for particular case. Best interest of American people.

Durbin: Mukasey: I was in awe of our system. We are a nation of law.

Durbin probably shouldn’t be arguing that Moussaoui was 20th hijacker, so long as al-Qahtani is unresolved.

Durbin: SCOTUS decisions in Hamdan and Congress, to come into conformance with requirements. Only 3 successfully tried in military tribunals. Are you not also aware of procedure that some will challenge this new decision.

Holder: Distinct possibility. That is something we will not have to deal with in bringing KSM in NYC. Question of legitimacy not a problem at all.

Durbin: Very close parallel. MCs have procedures not ruled upon by SCOTUS. I think those are things that should be made part of this record.

Durbin: Thompson IL which would be Gitmo North. New perimeter fence, if indeed most secured facility in America. Never had escape from SuperMax. 35 terrorists in IL.

Cornyn: [Has no voice, apologizes] Do you acknowledge legitimacy of MCs?

Holder: Absolutely. Legitimized them.

Cornyn: So your decision to try in Article III not compelled by any law.

Holder: Judgment, discretion, experience, interaction with Sec Def, all of that went into determination.

Cornyn: Does POTUS agree?

Holder: Have not had direct conversation with him, but consistent with his acrhives speech.

Cornyn: Miranda rights on battlefield?

Holder: misreporting. A very small number have been read miranda warnings after military lawyers, civ lawyers, some reason to give mirandas.

Cornyn: You support miranda rights to some suspected terrorists.

Holder: I defer to people in field. It gives us another option.

Cornyn: Should KSM have been read miaranda.

Holder; There’s no need, we don’t need his statements.

Cornyn: It’ll be a judge at trial or appellate level.

Holder: Yup. Confident that way in which this will be structured, needful miranda warnings, there is no need.

Cornyn: He did ask for lawyer, when he was detained.

Holder: I do remember that.

Cornyn: He’s getting his wish.

[WTF are they so worried about him getting THIS wish, but so pissed that Holder is not allowing him to get his wish to be martyred.]

Cornyn: Risks of KSM not being prosecuted bc didn’t get his rights.

Holder: No one can say with certainty. As I look at facts, detention of him. Evidence. I’m very confident that miranda issues not going to be part.

Cornyn: You won’t make that decision. Isn’t it the fact that you won’t make decision on miranda.

Holder: I hope that judge takes into account very real need for security.

Cornyn: If judge orders KSM to be released?

Holder: Hard to imagine set of circumstances if he were acquitted he would be released into US. Other things we have capacity to do.

Cornyn: You can’t hold someone indefinitely.

Holder: You can certainly hold people in matters pending.

Leahy: Might say only half-facetiously a lot of people in NY might like him to be released on streets of NY, he might not want to be released.

Cardin: Confidence in trial of this terrorist. Advantages of trying terrorist in Article III. Established process, used before. Credibility of our system. Our ability to showcase using American values. A lot of positive reasons to use Article III courts. Particularly the history of ignoring our own laws. F-up on Kohl’s point. Closing of Gitmo. Feingold’s point, informed decisions to classify.

Cardin: Cybersecurity. May be able to prevent 80% of attacks. We have to do better than that. HOw high a priority on this issue.

Holder: Need help of Congress. Have to be partners dealing with 21st century issue.

Cardin: Section on civil rights. Applauding you to continue to make civil rights priority. Voting rights, military personnel on absentee ballots, native americans, redistricting. To protect AMerican rights of voting.

Coburn: Letter about OKs freedmen.

Coburn: Terrorists serving lengthy sentences. HOw many picked up in Afghanistan. How many interrogated by CIA.

Holder: Will answer those questions.

Coburn: Recovery board. Submitted reports that were fraudulent. Plan to prosecute that fraudulent behavior?

Holder: Yes, one of the things we mentioned yesterday, misuse of recovery act funds. Fraud connected to it. partners at Treas and SEC, that is one of the priority areas.

Coburn; Going to be big. Over $50 billion. At least oversight. Hate crimes issue. Murder of some of recruiters in AR. Have you given any thougths, especially in light of Ft. Hood.

Holder: Hate crimes bill says such actions are potential hate crimes. Mandatory min Sessions introduced. Deals with set of facts you’re talking about.

Coburn: VRA. Kingston NC. In fact, in NC, only 9/550 localities hold election on partisan basis. 7/9 minority voted to eliminate, Civil Rights reversed. Would like to hear comments about that. How you justify reversing that, when majority think it’s prudent.

Holder: Written response.

Coburn: Really concerned. Drug abuse. Significant power of marijuana use to lead to other drug use. Federal crime to use or distribute it. Did you personally approve. Dramatic break?

Holder: it’s a break, logical break, given limited resources, the use of marijana in way state laws prescribes, for medical purposes, directive indicated that we are not blind, to extent people using to do things not consistent for state law, the federal law is still there. A number of factors that are set out. Mexican cartels make most of their money from importation of marijana into US.

Coburn: 95% of people in CA who have license for marijyana don’t have a real illness, they have a desire to smoke marijuana.

Coburn: #1 risk for our kids not obesity, it’s use of marijuana.

Whitehouse: Klobuchar was here first.

[What a gentleman]

Klobuchar. Thank you Sen Whitehouse. You mentioned tragedy at Ft. Hood. One of several Senators who went to memorial service. Waiting in line for physical ready to deploy. Family huddled next to that picture. Interested in thorough investigation, get results not only for strong prosecution. Make sure doesn’t happen again.

Holder: Obama unquivocal direction to find out what happened.

Klobuchar: Bread and butter. So many questions understandably about trial. Diligent citizens caught Moussaoui. First of all, focus on security. Mayor and police chief. Interested in getting these guys. Conviction rate is 90%.

Holder: 94%

Klobuchar: NY

Holder: Lawyers from EDVA and SDNY. NY has tried these cases before. Hardened detention facility. Means by which person can go from jail to court house. Marshalls service report.

Holder: Medicaid fraud. People who were once engaged in drug dealing, moving into this area, safer and easier. Determined to put an end to that. Sebelius and I giving particular attention. Already announced arrests in variety of cities.

Franken: Pick up on rape kit matter that both Chair and Klobuchar brought up. Important to realize, pro law enforcement. Protects innocents, brings victims closure. What’s gone wrong with this?

Holder: Don’t know why it has not worked.

Franken: 5% of world’s pop and 25% prisoners. So many drug problems and mental health. We’re essentially sending kids who are in possession of drugs, sending them to crime school. 2/3 come back within 3 years. More than a third of MN have drug courts. Offenderse in drug courts 10X more likely to continue treatment.

Holder: Supported with budgets. Support data driven analysis (recidivism v treatment). On this basis will be formulating policy.

Franken: Might I suggest increase of drug rehab in prison. Lot of people who should be in prison. It’d be nice if while in there they got treatment. One thing on health care fraud. I’d like to see those people in prison. Those folks might belong there more than people that are simply addicted to drugs. Trafficking in women. Trafficking of native american women, and international trafficking, trafficked into this country. Because some of these cases are sent to ICE, have a disincentive to report these crimes. That’s something that needs to be looked at.

Holder: Paying particular attention to plight of women on reservations. If you look at levels of violence that young girls and women subjected to. Simply unacceptable. President followed up on. Intl trafficking something we need to look at as well, to extent that that prevents enforcement in trafficking.

Whitehouse: React to two things. One is, inadvertantly disparaing tone about federal prosecutors. I hope itis inadvertant, having had some experience in that world, I’m extremely proud, I’ve had prosecutors go to court in body armor, have to explain why security system bc of threats. They are among the best lawyers in our country. I didn’t like the tone I was detecting. One in favor of prosecutorial independence. To extent that you get criticized that your decision is unpopular, the implication is taht prosecutors should seek to make decisions that meet with popualr opinoin, popular opinion a very dangerous bellweather. It gets worse when you move from popular opinion to legislative opinion. Very significant reasons why I as prosecutor didn’t want to hear from legislators. Very good reasons why isolated from these opinions. Nobody should not react that a prosecutor should not listen to threats. A prosecutor should not make decision on legislative opinion, TO make it worse is to make prosecutorial decisoin by talk show opinion. Want to stand by principles that have worked for hundreds of years. People like us–Senator–have no business attempting to influence prosecutors decision. In article III courts, tens of thousands. Everything leaves trail of precedent. MCs still have unreliability. Either new territory, or modeling on Article III,so you might as well be in Article III court.

Holder: Thank you for support in favor of career people.  To extent that anyone has any question about determination of people in DOJ. These people are among best of best. No question KSM will try to exploit same way he did MCs. Could be in other places making a lot more money, do it quite well. MCs much better than they were. A legitimate place in which we can try some of these defendants. No question that in terms of experience Article III have experience.

Whitehouse: 3 Qs for record. Drug enforcement, e-prescribing. Timing on that determination? People in bankruptcy, harshly treated under law, new trustee? When is OPR going to put out its report in OLC?

Holder: The report is completed. Being reviewed now, last stages,  a career prosecutor has to review report. At end of month report should be issued. Longer than anticipated bc of the amount of time we gave to lawyers representing subjects of report. Had to react those those responses. Report is complete being reviewed by last person.

Specter: I love Judy Miller!!

Specter: We are working hard to craft health care bill. Medicare and Medicaid fraud enormously consequential. So many cases result in fines. Adds to cost of doing business. Jail sentences are deterrent. Would you submit to committee an act to plan to see to it that there are jail sentences as matter of active govt policy.

Specter: Two-pronged approach to violent crime.

Specter: Distinction between trying people in Article III and MCs. Preliminarily support Whitehouse comment. As I take a look at protocol. As you look at interest, very similar, Yemen as opposed to NYC not all taht important. Article III courts quite a testimony to our criminal justice system. What standards to try terrorist in one place rather than other.

Holder: Evidentiary questions, location can be a problem.

Specter: less evidence than necessary.

Holder: Admissibility. If there are probs in one forum than another.

Specter: Can you give me an example.

Holder; The kind of interrogation might lead you to want to use  one forum as opposed to another. Might be questions of techniques, one forum might be more hospitable than another. No one should read into that. We will not use evidence derived from torture. Possibility that some techniques better received in one forum.

Leahy AG Holder’s fourth appearance. Republicans more rounds. American public, having been told that terrorists will gain access to classified material. Some of those same protections adopted into MCs. Concerns I have that MCs have repeatedly been overturned by SCOTUS. Federal courts have 200 years of precedent.

Kyl: Media shield discussion. Indicated address at more length. Did you ask Gates about shield law?

Holder: Conversation, but not lengthy one.

Kyl: Gates opposed

Holder: Previous bill.

Kyl: Propose we talk to people who expressed opinion. Did you talk to Mueller?

Holder: Different opinion wrt prior leg.

Kyl: Expressed as recently as September opinion still the same. Fitz recommended that law would include other provision, only if govt prevailed would info be turned over. Would you be open to provision like that. That clearly is one that both you and I and Fitz think is reasonable.

Holder: Bill as it exists is compromise

Kyl: Compromise between journalists, you and Democrats.

Holder: Graham cosponsor.

Kyl: none of us opposed.

Holder: Views letter: satisfactory to use in law enforcement.

Kyl: Did not comment on new absolute privilege. On privilege extending to protect those who violate federal law by leaking info. That act of leaking would be subject to privilege. Letter did not express itself.

Holder: I didn’t see absolute privilege to leak.

Holder: I didn’t mean to be flip about turning over names of previous conflicts. I don’t know if ethical concerns wrt atty client privilege. I didn’t mean to say I was not taking seriously.

Kyl: I suspect you and Grassley will have more conversations.

Cornyn: Fup on question that Specter asked about evidence in deciding which forum. Is it your position that it’ll be easier to get evidence of guilt in Article III court than it would be in MC.

Holder; I’m not sure I view it that way as opposed to what evidence would be used, as opposed to how Military prosecutors would prosecute case.

Cornyn: you wouldn’t try case where it’d be harder to get conviction.

Cornyn: Marshall’s report on all venues. Judge could transfer. What other venues?

Holder: Two districts: SDNY and EDVA.

Cornyn: Those are the only two.  When detainees come to US, immigration status?

Holder: Not immigration expert. Confident that given they would be here under supervision of being charged in federal court, we would be able to detain them, as we would be able to anyone charged with such serious.

Cornyn: Any claim of asylum bc of CAT?

Cornyn: Not immigration expert. One can be paroled solely for this purpose. Can’t imagine situation in which paroled into US.

Cornyn: Your position will not be conferred rights they did not have.

Holder: My expertise more on DOJ side, we can detain them and prevent them from walking streets of US.

Cornyn: Will you look into it, whether if detainee claims immigration status by virtue of presence, will allow them to get administration proceedings.

Cornyn: If detainees is acquitted. What basis you could detain?

Holder: Initial determination for detention of, would last beyond mistrial. Trial, hung jury, I suppose defense could move to have bail changed. It’s hard to imagine a judge would change status between time of hung jury and next trial.

Cornyn: You cannot indefinitely detain someone. Are you concerned that judge may say you’ve made an election to try as criminal and you’re bound by that, and you cannot revert to law of war.

Holder: No, I’m not. Under congressional provisions, and laws of war, we have ability–cannot indefinitely detain–but can detain for lawful reasons. I think very unlikely.

Cornyn: I hope you’re right.

Klobuchar: Would never want to muzzle Graham.

Graham: I wish more people felt that way. Preventative detention. America’s not a better place for letting them go.

Holder: Agree in general. Pursuant to laws of war. Dialing into due process. I think we should involve Congress in crafting law of war detention appropriately.

Graham: These are not easy decisions. Preventative detention only known in military law. Any theory in civlian law.Speedy trial rights.

Holder: Can detain someone that there’s going to be trial.

Graham: under military law can detain if in fact part of military force. My problem with what we’re doing. In Afghanistan if we capture an AQ member. Under your rationale, decision of criminal or MC, would not be known at point of capture.

Holder: these determinations have been made now, and have been made.

Graham: No one ever envisioned that terrorist captured on battlefield would end up in civilian court. Look forward on what we can do on preventative detention.

Sessions: I would just say Mr AG. If a police officer stops someone and gun in holster. I can’t imagine someone captured on battlefield, not being considered custody. Eventually he conceded. Intelligence way to go foward.

Holder: we have a great deal of flexibility. Do not think MCs illegitimate forum. Presumption of Article III.

Sessions: If presumption is cases tried in civilian courts, don’t know why soldier isn’t instructed to give miranda. Hostility by president toward MCs. For example soon after taking office suspended MCs and issued order suspending MCs.

Holder: That doesn’t indicate hostility toward MCs rather than desire to perfect them.

Sessions. SCOTUS raised some concerns. Congress did some things that make it clear to me that for these, reliable hearsay, don’t have to bring people off the battlefield. You have to have real high reason to do that in normal civilian trial. MCs go on the record in camera, protect sources and methods. I don’t think there’s any doubt about that. General Mukasey has expressed concerns. Your predecessor. NYC focus for mischief in form of murder. I don’t think that’s irresponsible.

Holder: Do believe can protect sources and methods in Article III courts. Great respect for Mukasey. I think great AG. Only thing he didnt’ have at Dept was gift of time. But I disagree with him about NY. NY is a target for AQ. I’m not at all certain that bringing of these trials makes it greater risk. One of the things I read was WSJ article Mukasey wrote, and asking people to respond to things he wrote.

Klobuchar: Asked about evidence, miranda. Could you go through notion that that’s one of considerations.

Holder: One of things we look at is the admissibility issue. Where can we get admitted evidence needed to be most successful. People in field have been making determinations for some time. Thousands who have come into custody. Only small number have been given mirandas.

Klobuchar: Evidence you couldn’t share with us. Could you expand on that.

Holder: There is really, from my perspective, very compelling evidence that will not be revealed until trial setting or pre-trial setting. At some point, AUSA will reveal evidence that I’m talking about, compelling, not tainted, will prove to be decisive in this case.

Klobuchar: Unified in wanting to give tools to give your work. Morale in DOJ.

Holder; Make people believe in mission, some of things identified in IG reports, that’s not the way this department will be run. I served as line atty in DOJ under Republican and Democratic Ag, that’s what I tried to reassure them. Only expected to do job, No litmus test. Confirmation of remaining AAGs.

Dawn Johnsen!!!

Klobuchar: Done before thanksgiving?

Holder: Tomorrow;

Klobuchar: Six pending before this committee.

Sessions: 9/11 victims. When word of letter got out 3000 firefighters joined us to add their names.

Holder: A lot of people opposed. All I can do is look at the evidence, look at the law, and make best decision possible and I hope people understand that.

Klobuchar: Thank for respect from those in gallery, I know you don’t all agree with all decisions here, but thank you for the respect. Holder, we all hope you put best people on case, that they get penalties.

Share this entry

AG Holder Oversight Hearing

/27 Comments/in , /by

You can follow along on the Committee stream or CSPAN3.

Leahy: Using full range of authorities to fight extremists [must be an attack against Crazy Pete]. After nearly 8 years of delay, may finally be moving forward to bring to justice the perpetrators. Great faith in prosecutors, judges, juries, and American people. They committed murder and we will prosecute them. America’s response is not to cower in fear.[I wonder if he’s thinking of GoFuckYerSelf Cheney?] Those responsible for attack on USS Cole, MC, Nidal Hasan, military courtmartial. Written to John Brennan, asked him to provide internal investigation, both interim classified, Both Sessions and I should be informed. Have spoken with Mueller. Me and Feinstein were briefed on status of investigation. Try not to do in reckless fashion so as not to interfere with military prosecution.

[Note, that that clarifies who was in that briefing: Gang of Eight, plus the Judiciary Chairs. Presumably Crazy Pete was there and Holy Joe was not.]

Leahy: Financial Fraud Task Force.

Sessions: We don’t agree on KSM and 9/11. [Presumably in NYC, but he didn’t say it.] You asked for this job. David Beamer, FL, and Alice Hoagland from CA. Lost sons on Flight 93. Lisa Dolan lost her husband at the Pentagon. Debra Burlingame lost brother, pilot. Tim Brown from NYFD. A privilege to have each of you with us today. Blah blah blah blah blah. Policies taking place under new Admin, I fear that is not the case. Admin continuing to delay to provide clear leadership to men in Afghanistan, investigation of CIA officers, cut a deal on media shield legislation to protect indivs to leak classified info to mass media, concede to weakening of PATRIOT, decline to provide basic information about Ft. Hood, and now announced they will bring KSM back to Manhattan. These policies signal to our people and to inter-nat-shun-all community. Return to pre-9/11 mentality. Al Qaeda doesn’t agree. KSM in NY, departs from long-standing policy that these should be treated under the rules for law. He’s alleged not to be a common criminal. Correct way to try him is by military tribunal. MC and civilian courts have different functions. US Court system not designed to try unlawful enemy combatants. These are people we are at war with. We are dropping bombs on them every day, attacking they lairs. [anyone wonder whether Jefferson Beauregard Sessions III has a woody?] They are first a prisoner of war, once they’re captured. [oops–that’s got to be a mistake, all of a sudden admitting that KSM is POW] Ex Part-ay Qweer-in. Our enemies and friends must ask themselves whether they’re still serious about this effort.

Leahy: Delighted to hear someone from AL quote approvingly Ulysses S Grant and Abraham Lincoln. The world has come full circle.

Sessions: Well, and they were winners, too.

Read more →

Share this entry

Crazy Pete Hoekstra Writes a Letter (Again)

/22 Comments/in /by

Given the news that the National Security Council (aka John Brennan) had decided to brief only leaders (of both houses of Congress, plus “appropriate” committees) on the Nidal Hasan investigation, I decided to check to see how Crazy Pete responded.

Google News suggests he hasn’t–yet–run to the press bitching about the briefings. Instead, Crazy Pete and his fellow Republicans have sent Nancy Pelosi a letter demanding a quick investigation into Nidal Hasan.

Now, the letter is interesting on a number of accounts–starting with the fact that it’s not designed to accomplish anything aside from grand-standing. Think Congress needs to conduct an inquiry into Nidal Hasan? Fine, go to the relevant Chair–like, maybe, the Chair of the committee in question, Silvestre Reyes–and talk about who to accomplish an investigation. But you don’t just write the Speaker and ask her to have Congress (all of Congress? Really?) conduct an investigation–unless your sole goal is grand-standing.

But I’m also interested in the language Crazy Pete uses to grand-stand.

As Members of the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, we believe that even the limited information made available to date–both classified and unclassified–strongly indicates that the circumstances surrounding the shootings at Fort Hood require immediate and thorough investigation.

The records appears to establish significant intelligence and intelligence sharing failures that must be reviewed and addressed immediately to ensure that the American people receive the fullest protection against potential attacks. We strongly disagree with the suggestion that Congress should abdicate its Constitutional oversight and fact-finding responsibilities in this regard. Extensive precedent has established that oversight in no way interferes with concurrent criminal prosecution–particularly where, as here, prosecutors have no responsibility for the even more critical task of ensuring the effectiveness of our intelligence community. The future security of over 300 million Americans is far more pressing than after-the-fact investigation of one man.

Sure, there’s all that tedious Crazy Pete hallmarks, such as insinuating that Pelosi (or Reyes) made a suggestion–abdicating their Constitutional oversight role. There’s the way Crazy Pete ignores the obvious precedent of the Iran-Contra investigation, in which a Congressional investigation led partly by Richard Bruce Cheney ended up threatening the legal investigation into the matter.

And then there’s this sentence, which for the life of me I can’t understand at all.

The future security of over 300 million Americans is far more pressing than after-the-fact investigation of one man.

Is Crazy Pete saying that Congress, with almost no investigators, will somehow move more quickly than the Defense Department investigators? Is he suggesting that bringing Hasan to justice just isn’t that important? And how is investigating the very pressing issue of defending 300 million going to do any good, until they actual learn what happened with Hasan?

So, to answer my own question, Crazy Pete has gone in a matter of days from bitching about a delay in briefings to–at a time when briefings have actually been delayed–going silent on that point and instead demanding immediate investigations, not briefings.

Crazy Pete is weird.

Share this entry

Crazy Pete Hoekstra Is a Big Fat* Demogoging Liar

/37 Comments/in , /by

Since Crazy Pete is out demagoging the Fort Hood killings, I thought I would put together a list of his most notable lies to serve as a reminder to journalists that they ought to think twice before crediting anything Crazy Pete says. So here goes: six of Crazy Pete’s classic lies:

Nancy Pelosi lied when she said the CIA didn’t tell her they had waterboarded Abu Zubaydah

It was clear from the start that this was a lie, given that Porter Goss’ statements about the September 2002 briefing accorded perfectly with Pelosi’s assertions about that briefing. And when pressed, Goss refused to alter that statement even after Hoekstra’s attacks on Pelosi. But in a recent uncontroverted statement, the House Intelligence Committee confirmed that the CIA had lied to Pelosi (and Goss) in that first briefing.

Seven CIA Directors claimed Obama was hurting CIA morale with the investigation into torture

In an op-ed invoking the letter seven CIA Directors had sent, Crazy Pete (and John Shadegg) pretended to quote from the latter:

[The letter from the CIA Directors] noted the “distraction and devastating impact” that reopening an investigation into enhanced interrogation of al Qaeda suspects is having on “CIA morale, America’s counterterrorism efforts and our foreign intelligence partnerships.”

But they appear to have just made those quotes up out of thin air. In the grand scheme of Crazy Pete’s long catalog of lies, this partisan attack might not be that big–except that I’m stunned two sitting Congressmen would just make shit up and claim a bunch of retired Spooks-in-Chief had said them.

Eureka!!! WMD in Iraq!!!

Remember when Crazy Pete and Rick “Man on Dog” Santorum claimed that a few piles of canisters filled with now-inert chemical weapons were the WMDs we went to war to find?

Yeah.

I’d just leave it at that–but it bears mentioning that the pattern of the demagoging is the same as Crazy Pete is employing now: claiming that the intelligence community is not being forthcoming with secret information that Crazy Pete has been privy to, and if they only would reveal what they know, Crazy Pete would score political points. In other words, we’ve heard precisely the kinds of claims Crazy Pete is making now before–and in the past those claims proved to be bullshit.

CIA didn’t reveal those expired munitions because key CIA officials want to help Al Qaeda [update]

As Spencer notes below, shortly after Crazy Pete trumpeted his inert chemical find, he upped the ante, suggesting that certain people within the intelligence community want to help al Qaeda. Crazy Pete wouldn’t name those al Qaeda sympathizers, but thought it important to make the claim nevertheless, explaining it is simply naive to not make the claim, even if there is no evidence to substantiate it.

Al Qaeda will kill unemployed Michiganders if Gitmo prisoners move to Standish

In his efforts to scare the people of Standish, MI, out of hosting Gitmo’s prisoners, Crazy Pete claimed both that Al Qaeda would target the families of those working at Standish and that none of the jobs at Standish would go to locals–they would instead go to military personnel. Read more →

Share this entry

Is Crazy Pete Hoekstra Lying and Demagoging Again?

/75 Comments/in , /by

I know, I know, is Crazy Pete sending stern emails to intelligence agencies? Are his lips moving?

First, Crazy Pete rushed out to ABC to complain that the CIA and other intelligence agencies weren’t briefing the Intelligence Committees.

Rep. Peter Hoekstra (R-MI), the ranking Republican on the House Intelligence Committee, said that he requested the CIA and other intelligence agencies brief the committee on what was known, if anything, about Hasan by the U.S. intelligence community, only to be refused.

In response, Hoekstra issued a document preservation request to four intelligence agencies. The letter, dated November 7th, was sent to directors Dennis Blair (DNI), Robert Mueller (FBI), Lt. Gen Keith Alexander (NSA) and Leon Panetta (CIA).

Hoekstra said he is “absolutely furious” that the house intel committee has been refused an intelligence briefing by the DNI or CIA on Hasan’s attempt to reach out to al Qaeda, as first reported by ABC News.

“This is a law enforcement investigation, in which other agencies–not the CIA–have the lead,” CIA spokesman Paul Gimigliano said in a response to ABC News. ” Any suggestion that the CIA refused to brief Congress is incorrect.”

Then, Crazy Pete backed off that slightly–complaining that information he knew to be leaked to the press hadn’t been briefed to the full intelligence committees.

Hoekstra’s beef is not that the Obama Administration, including the CIA, haven’t released any information. Rather, he’s upset that only the Gang of Eight, not the full intelligence committees, have been briefed — and that the information released has been “limited.”

Read more →

Share this entry

Thomas Fingar on the Politics of NIE/NIAs

/19 Comments/in /by

Arms Control Wonk linked to this really fascinating Thomas Fingar speech at Stanford. Fingar, you’ll recall, was one of the people at State Department’s Bureau of Intelligence and Research who judged that Iraq wasn’t getting nukes. He went on to serve as Deputy Director of National Intelligence where, in 2007, he oversaw the Iran NIE that judged Iran had stopped its active nuclear weapons program in 2003.

It’s for Fingar’s comments about the latter that ACW links to his speech–to highlight Fingar’s revelation that the White House ordered declassification of that 2007 NIE.

This example is drawn from the highly contentious 2007 National Intelligence Estimate on Iran’s Nuclear Intentions and Capabilities. It became contentious, in part, because the White House instructed the Intelligence Community to release an unclassified version of the report’s key judgments but declined to take responsibility for ordering its release.

Remember, at the time Dick Cheney and Israel were both trying to force a military response to Iran’s nuclear program … but now we learn the White House ordered the NIE be released?

Was Bush (presumably with Condi’s help) playing Cheney’s games against him, releasing classified information without telling Cheney he ordered its release? As ACW notes, Fingar explains the logic behind the release–which was designed to show that there was time, but some urgency, to resolving the Iran situation diplomatically.

In other words, the message it was intended to send to policymakers was, “You do not have a lot of time but you appear to have a diplomatic or non-military option.” Prior to the publication of this Estimate, the judgment of the Intelligence Community—and of many pundits and policymakers—was that there was no chance of deterring Iran from pursuing a nuclear weapon and that the only use of force—military options—could prevent Tehran from acquiring the bomb. The estimate also judged, and stated clearly, that Iran at a minimum had retained the option to pursue a weapon and that whether to do so would be a political decision that could be made at any time.

The entire speech is worth reading. Fingar provides an explanation for the crappy 2002 Iraq NIE.

In my experience, most policymakers ask themselves, and often ask their intelligence support team, whether the reported or projected development requires immediate action on their part or can be deferred while they work on more pressing issues or more attractive parts of their policy agendas. That is a natural and rational approach. To compensate for this, intelligence has a built-in, and on some subjects, like terrorism, a recently reinforced propensity to underscore, overstate, or “hype” the findings in order to get people to pay attention, and to fireproof the IC against charges that it failed to provide adequate warning. I note in passing that this propensity was one of the reasons for the errors in the infamous 2002 Estimate on Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction.

While the explanation is not a surprise, there are several implications of it–not least that the former Number 2 in DNI is suggesting that estimates about terrorism are overstated, with the possible result that terrorism has remained a larger policy focus than other pressing issues. (Elsewhere, in his discussion about the Global Trends 2025 report, Fingar does note that the results of terrorism will be increasingly dangerous, largely due to bioterrorism.)

Read more →

Share this entry

Obama DOJ Continues To FlimFlam Judge Lamberth On State Secrets

/73 Comments/in , , , , , /by

The state secrets doctrine was born on the wings of fraud and lies by the US government in the case of US v. Reynolds in 1953. As Congress struggles to rein in the unbridled use of the doctrine to cover up illegality by the Executive Branch (see here, here and here), it is a good idea to keep focus on just how addicted the Executive Branch has become to this unitary ability to quash inquiry into their malfeasance.

It took over four decades for the outright lie in Reynolds to surface and be exposed. The government was well on their way to covering up their similar dishonesty in Horn v. Huddle for decades, if not eternity, when a relentless plaintiff was finally able to demonstrate to Judge Royce Lamberth the fraud being perpetrated upon the court, nearly a decade after the original state secrets assertion. After giving the government multiple opportunities to come clean, Judge Lamberth blistered the DOJ with an opinion literally finding their acts a fraud upon the court.

After being exposed on the record by Judge Lamberth, the government suddenly decided to settle with the plaintiff, with a non-disclosure and no admission of wrongdoing agreement of course, and then moved the court to vacate its rulings against them. The DOJ literally wants to erase the record of their fraud.

But not everybody is quite so excited about the thought of the DOJ wiping the record of their time worn proclivity to dishonesty in state secrets assertions. It important for there to be such a record, with written opinions of the court behind it, because the government is still out there seeking to shirk accountability for illegality and Constitutional malfeasance in critically important cases such as al-Haramain and Jeppesen.

In this regard, the attorney for al-Haramain, Jon Eisenberg, has just taken the extraordinary step of seeking leave to file an amicus brief to Judge Lamberth in the Horn v. Huddle case objecting to the government’s attempt to vacate the court’s opinions. The amicus filing by Eisenberg is brief, but a thing of beauty. And he nails the government for continuing dishonesty with the court by pointing out Read more →

Share this entry

Still in the Rendition Business?

/42 Comments/in /by

Observers in the UK have reported a liaison between a known rendition flight plane and British SAS helicopters.

A U.S. plane that featured in a European Parliament report into the ‘extraordinary rendition’ of terror suspects was met by two SAS helicopters in a secret operation at one of Britain’s biggest airports.

The Gulfstream jet landed at Birmingham International Airport on Friday, October 2, having flown in from an undisclosed location, and was seen by a member of staff being met minutes later by the Special Forces regiment aircraft.

Records show that the jet is owned by a subsidiary of L-3 Communications, a multi-billion-dollar defence corporation based in New York, whose clients include several American government departments, among them the Department of Homeland Security.

[snip]

The Birmingham airport employee who saw it land said helicopters that he recognised as belonging to the SAS’s support flight, 8 Flight Army Air Corps, based at Credenhill, near Hereford, arrived shortly afterwards.

The witness, who did not want to be named, added that he saw another plane, a Boeing 757 operated by COMCO, land at the airport on October 1, and that this was also met by two SAS helicopters. He said: ‘People were seen transferring between all the aircraft.’

The aircraft’s presence at Birmingham airport was also confirmed by Ron Kosys, a member of the Birmingham Aviation Enthusiasts Group, who has posted pictures on the group’s website.

The planes were parked in an area mostly used by private aircraft and situated away from the main runways.

[snip]

A Ministry of Defence source confirmed that SAS helicopters did meet the two aircraft at Birmingham airport but said their presence could be explained by an organised meeting to discuss ‘routine business between two allies’. He denied it had anything to do with rendition.

Though maybe it isn’t a rendition. As Tim Shorrock pointed out via Twitter this morning, L-3 Communications “also holds $2.4b contract for Spec Ops (assassination) Command.” So maybe we’re still in some other nasty business, along with the Brits.

Share this entry

Torture Tape Destruction Accountability: How It Is Done

/31 Comments/in , , , , /by

images5thumbnail1.thumbnail1When the government possesses videotape evidence of the torture of subjects under its dominion and control, there is only one reason to destroy the tapes. That reason is not because they possess no evidentiary value; in fact it is the direct opposite, it is because they are smoking guns. Videotapes are definitive for one of the two sides; they either prove the subject was tortured, or they prove that he was not.

Either way, videotapes of detainee treatment are of paramount evidentiary value where there are allegations of torture. It would be insane to argue that such tapes have “no possible evidentiary value”; yet that is exactly what the United States government has officially claimed as their rationale with respect to the infamous destruction of the “torture tapes” depicting the treatment of detainees Abu Zubaydah and Abd al-Rahim al-Nashiri. The tapes were wantonly destroyed by the CIA in 2005, news of the destruction became public via a December 6, 2007 article in the New York Times and the DOJ specially assigned a prosecutor, John Durham, at the end of December 2007.

In the nearly two years that have elapsed since the appointment of Durham, he and the crack US Department of Justice have apparently not been able to find anything wrong with the destruction of the torture tapes. But, once again, US Federal courts have demonstrated the dithering perfidy of the Executive Branch, whether it be that of George W. Bush or, in many key Constitutional respects, his clone, Barack Obama.

From the Kansas City Star:

A Missouri prison inmate claims he was restrained for 17 hours without breaks to get a drink of water or use the bathroom.

But videotape that could prove or disprove Darrin Scott Walker’s allegations of abuse cannot be found.

And a federal judge this week concluded that prison officials intentionally destroyed the tape “in a manner indicating a desire to suppress the truth.”

U.S. District Judge Richard Dorr made the ruling in a lawsuit Walker filed alleging that he was subjected to cruel and unusual punishment.

The case is Darrin Scott Walker v. Michael Bowersox, and is filed in the Western District of Missouri (WDMO) in Case No. 05-3001-CV-S-RED. Here is a copy of Judge Dorr’s Order.

First off, it should be noted that as bad as the alleged torture of Walker is, it is nowhere near the the sadistic and egregious conduct performed upon Zubayduh and al-Nashiri. Secondly, in Walker, the court was confronted with a tape that was “lost”, maybe taped over. In the cases of Zubayduh and al-Nashiri, the US government, with malice aforethought, wantonly and intentionally physically destroyed the evidence; light years worse conduct than that in Walker. Yet Judge Dorr blistered the state for its acts in destruction of evidence:

For all of the following reasons, this Court agrees with Walker that the videotape was intentionally destroyed in a manner indicating a desire to suppress the truth. The prison had adopted a policy that required episodes on the restraint bench be videotaped. The Defendants offered no explanation of what happened to the tape, other than the fact the tape could have been taped over, which indicates intentional destruction. The videotape was delivered to a responsible person for safekeeping by people who believed the videotape should have been kept in case of litigation. The Defendants were on notice to keep the videotape because prison officials knew Walker was considering a lawsuit the night of the incident. Lastly, the loss or taping over of the videotape was not a first time incident.

You have to wonder what Judge Dorr would think of the acts of Jose Rodriquez, the CIA and the highest levels of authority in the Executive Branch in destroying the “torture tapes” if this was his opinion in Walker. Dorr went on to hold that there should be a presumption that the destroyed tape was negative to the interests of the government in Walker and cited strong authority for said holding.

The Walker v, Bowersox case, and the strong foundation it is based on, just adds to the curiosity of the lack of ability of John Durham to find addressable conduct in the case of the torture tapes. Granted, one is a civil rights lawsuit, and one is a criminal investigation for obstruction, but the theory of culpability is the same.

Hey John Durham, where are you and what say you? Or are we just going to be peddled a bunch of Bull by Durham?

Share this entry

Metadata Goes Public

/5 Comments/in /by

I’m waiting for my flight back to MI right now, so this will be fairly brief. But a court in AZ has ruled that the metadata on public records counts as part of that public record for record requests. (h/t Rayne)

The Arizona state Supreme Court has ruled that the metadata attached to public records is itself public, and cannot be withheld in response to a public records request.

[snip]

In the Arizona case, a police officer had been demoted in 2006 after reporting “serious police misconduct” to his superiors. He suspected that the demotion was done in retaliation for his blowing the whistle on his fellow officers, so he requested and obtained copies of his performance reports from the department. Thinking that perhaps the negative performance reports had been created after the fact and then backdated, he then demanded access to the file metadata for those reports, in order to find out who had written them and when.

The department refused to grant him access to the metadata, and the matter went to court. After working its way through the court system in a series of rulings and appeals, this past January an Arizona appeals ruled that even though the reports themselves were public records, the metadata was not. It turned out that Arizona state law doesn’t actually define “public record” anywhere, so the appeals court relied on various common law definitions to determine that the metadata, as a mere byproduct of the act of producing a public record on a computer, was not a public record itself.

The case was then appealed to the Arizona state Supreme Court, which has now ruled that the metadata is, in fact, a public record just like the document that it’s attached to.

This is just one state, of course, so it’s only going to help bmaz and his fellow Zoners. But it’s an important precedent.

For one, I think it’s only fair. After all, the government is snooping in our metadata with its massive surveillance program. So it’s only fair we get access to its metadata, along with the content considered public records.

And, as Ars Tecnica notes, there have been a number of embarrassing disclosures of lobbyist influence on public documents. In our own community, recall that William Ockham used the metadata of the MaxTax health reform proposal to show that Liz Fowler, the former VP of Wellpoint, was the author of that bill. And it’s routine for lobbyists (as opposed to nominal staffers, as in Fowler’s case) to submit white papers that are adopted in their entirety (it’s something Jack Abramoff did with the Bush Department of Interior, for example). So if this standard were to become the federal standard, we’d be able to show those connections more easily.

But there’s another reason I’d love to see this become the federal standard. We’d also get to see blind carbon copies–the people secretly copied on key emails, both within and outside of government. Heck, we might even get to see what happened to a key email from the Plame leak if we had the metadata.

Too bad this only works for AZ.

Share this entry