Scott Shane’s Love Affair for Dick Cheney and Kit Bond

/31 Comments/in , , , /by

The NYT’s Scott Shane presents what pretends to be a comprehensive review of the options for some kind of investigation into Bush era crimes. He reviews four options–a criminal investigation akin to Lawrence Walsh’s Iran-Contra investigation, a congressional investigation akin to the Church Committee, a bipartisan investigation akin to the 9/11 Commission, and nothing aside from currently investigations like the OPR review of Yoo’s and Bradbury’s advocacy on torture.

But there are two very disturbing aspects to his story. 

First, in a review of options for holding what we all know to be Dick Cheney responsible for shredding the Constitution, why would you present such a selective picture of Dick’s own history with efforts to hold Presidents responsible for violating the law?

Many Republicans, however, say the lofty appeals to justice and history mask an unseemly and dangerous drive to pillory the Bush administration and hamstring the intelligence agencies.

That was precisely the view of an aide in Gerald Ford’s White House named Dick Cheney when a Senate committee led by Frank Church of Idaho looked into intelligence abuses in the mid-1970s. A quarter-century later, as vice president, Mr. Cheney would effectively wreak vengeance on that committee’s legacy, encouraging the National Security Agency to bypass the warrant requirement the committee had proposed and unleashing the Central Intelligence Agency he felt the committee had shackled.

[snip]

But some Republicans saw Mr. Church as a showboat and his committee as overreaching. To Mr. Cheney, the Church legacy was a regrettable pruning of the president’s powers to protect the country — powers he and Bush administration lawyers reasserted after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks.

Shane’s claims about Cheney’s views are odd. He bases his characterization on no quote from Cheney, though many are readily available. And his first description–the claim that Cheney’s "precise view" of the Church Committee was that it was really about an "unseemly and dangerous drive to pillory the [Nixon?] administration and hamstring the intelligence agencies"–seems to contradict his later more accurate claim that Cheney believed the Church committee improperly constrained Presidential powers. Which is it? A personalized attack against one administration and the targeting of intelligence professionals or an attack on Presidential power? Or is Shane suggesting that Cheney’s view of any investigation now would be an attempt to pillory the Bush/Cheney Administration, which is a different stance than his prior position regarding investigations of Presidents?

Read more →

Share this entry

Are Your Members of Congress Supporting an Investigation into Bush Crimes?

/59 Comments/in , , /by

As many of you have noted, at least 62% of Americans support some investigation into Bush Administration crimes (whether a criminal investigation or a truth commission). Do your members of Congress agree with the majority of Americans who refuse to ignore the past?

Here’s a list of those members of Congress who have voiced some support for an investigation. If your members of Congress aren’t on here, call them (1-877-851-6437, 1-800-828-0498, or 1-800-614-2803). Ask if they support one of the efforts to investigate the Bush Administration. If they’re not sure, urge them to do so. Please leave a comment so we can track what they say.

Senators

Barbara Boxer
Russ Feingold
Pat Leahy
Carl Levin
Jack Reed
Harry Reid (?)
Sheldon Whitehouse

Congressmen

(Unless otherwise noted, these are co-sponsors of John Conyers’ bill, HR.104, calling for an independent commission.)

Tammy Baldwin
Rick Boucher
Steve Cohen
John Conyers
Elijah Cummings
Peter DeFazio
William Delahunt
Keith Ellison
Bob Filner
Barney Frank
Raul Gijalva
Luis Gutierrez
Maruice Hinchey
Sheila Jackson-Lee
Hank Johnson
Walter Jones
Barbara Lee
Carolyn Maloney
Jerrold Nadler
Ed Pastor
Nancy Pelosi
Linda Sanchez
Jan Schakowsky
Bobby Scott
Debbie Wasserman Schultz
David Wu

Share this entry

“Very Harsh Conclusions” about Yoo and Bradbury

/80 Comments/in , /by

Remember that Office of Public Responsibility investigation that Congress requested, Bush squelched (by refusing the investigators clearance to do the investigation), but that, under Mukasey got reinstated?

Brad DeLong has word of what has happened to it:

[T]he OPR… came to "very harsh conclusions" about the professional competence of a number of the [Yoo and Bradbury] memos, making "recommendations for further action" with respect to both John Yoo and Stephen Bradbury. Attorney Genera Mukasey and Deputy AG Filip were reported to be apoplectic about the report and to have attempted to squelch it. Their concern is… for the defense of reliance on advice of counsel that Mukasey put forward in a series of speeches, and that the OPR reports will make, I understand, something of an absurdity…

There’s a lot to be said about this. But I’ll just start with the suggestion that–given that these "straws in the wind" have come to Berkeley Professor Brad DeLong–I can’t help but wonder whether Berkeley Professor John Yoo’s acceptance of a visiting position at Liberty University West Chapman University reflected some concern that Berkeley might see such "very harsh conclusions" to be the excuse they were looking for to get rid of the torture apologist.

Let’s hope this leak of Mukasey and Filip’s attempt to squelch this indicates that they have failed in doing so.

Share this entry

The State Secret Protection Act

/48 Comments/in /by

This will get dragged into court right away, even assuming Congressmen Conyers, Nadler, Delahunt, Petri and Congresswoman Lofgren can get it passed. Still, with Obama’s inexcusable support for Bush’s state secrets invocation the other day, there’s no time like the present to really push this bill, which would establish a CIPA-like process to allow the admission of evidence over which the executive has invoked State Secrets. (via email)

Congressmembers Jerrold Nadler (NY-08), Chair of the Judiciary Subcommittee on the Constitution, Civil Rights and Civil Liberties, Thomas Petri (WI-6), House Judiciary Chairman John Conyers, Jr. (MI-14), Bill Delahunt (MA-10) and Zoe Lofgren (CA-16) today reintroduced legislation that would ensure meaningful judicial determination of the state secrets privilege. The bi-partisan State Secret Protection Act of 2009 would curb abuse of the privilege while providing protection for valid state secrets.

"The Administration’s decision this week to adopt its predecessor’s argument that the state secret privilege requires the outright dismissal of a case challenging rendition to torture was a step in the wrong direction and a reminder that legislation is required to ensure meaningful review of the state secret privilege," said Rep. Nadler. "This important bill recognizes that protecting sensitive information is an important responsibility for any administration and requires that courts protect legitimate state secrets while preventing the premature and sweeping dismissal of entire cases. The right to have one’s day in court is fundamental to protecting basic civil liberties and it must not be sacrificed to overbroad claims of secrecy."

Rep. Petri commented, "Imagine the government locks you up but says you can’t see the evidence for reasons of national security. I’m sure there are cases where national security is truly at risk, and that information must be protected. But we shouldn’t have to simply take the executive branch’s word for it. Shouldn’t an independent, responsible party apart from the executive branch review the material to determine when and how national security really necessitates restricting the use of sensitive material? The answer is, quite obviously, yes. We have a procedure for criminal cases, and we need one for civil cases as well."

"National security and the search for justice are not mutually exclusive," said Rep. Zoe Lofgren. "By allowing a neutral arbiter to evaluate assertions of the state secret privilege with appropriate safeguards to protect national security information, the State Secret Protection Act strikes the appropriate balance between protecting our national security and protecting the rights of citizens."

Read more →

Share this entry

Leahy: Congress Will Do Truth Commission with or without POTUS

/65 Comments/in , /by

As you may have seen last night, one of the more challenging questions for Obama came from the HuffPo’s Sam Stein, who asked Obama if he supported a Truth Commission.

Sam’s still busy with this story, today reporting that Leahy says Congress will go forward even without the support of Obama.

Senate Judiciary Chairman Patrick Leahy and White House Chief Counsel Greg Craig discussed on Tuesday the Senator’s proposal to set up a truth and reconciliation commission to investigate potential crimes of the Bush administration.

"I went over some of the parameters of it and they were well aware at the White House of what I’m talking about," Leahy told the Huffington Post. "And we just agreed to talk further."

[snip]

Leahy did add an important ripple to the story in the interview with the Huffington Post: Congress will likely proceed with investigations regardless of whether Obama is on board.

"Oh yeah," Leahy said when asked if he would go forward without Obama’s endorsement. "I think the Senate and the Congress as whole has an oversight responsibility that has to be carried out here anyway. Now it is much easier with the cooperation of the administration. A lot of things with the subpoenas I issued the past few years, we got a lot of information but a lot of it was held back."

[snip]

"What I would much rather see is to see us working together," said Leahy. "We have a common interest, both the Congress and the administration to get this thing worked out … In this instance, this is so important that our common interest is to get the truth out."

And in related news, Russ Feingold has joined the 22 other Members of Congress who have voiced their support for such a Commission.

I applaud Senator Leahy’s leadership in proposing the establishment of a truth and reconciliation commission. Getting all the facts out about what happened over the last eight years is a crucial part of restoring the rule of law. As President Obama and Attorney General Holder have said, nobody is above the law. There needs to be accountability for wrongdoing by the Bush Administration, including the illegal warrantless wiretapping and interrogation programs. We cannot simply sweep these assaults on the rule of law under the rug. [my emphasis]

I’m guessing Russ will not only support this Commission, but he’ll be one of the first reminding AG Read more →

Share this entry

Pat Leahy Calls for Truth Commission

/111 Comments/in /by

I want prosecutions. But seeing as how it looks increasingly likely we won’t get that, I want some accounting for the crimes of the Bush Administration. Today, Pat Leahy joined his counter-part in the House, John Conyers, as well as the Chair of the Senate Armed Services Committee, Carl Levin, in calling for a committee to examine the wrong-doing of the Bush Administration. 

The President is right that we need to focus on fixing the problems that exist and improving the future for hardworking Americans. I wholeheartedly agree and expect the Judiciary Committee and the Senate to act accordingly. But that does not mean that we should abandon seeking ways to provide accountability for what has been a dangerous and disastrous diversion from American law and values. Many Americans feel we need to get to the bottom of what went wrong. We need to be able to read the page before we turn it.

We will work with the Obama administration to fix those parts of our government that went off course. The Office of Legal Counsel at the Justice Department is one of those institutions that was hijacked and must be restored. There must be review and revision of that office’s legal work of the last eight years, when so much of that work was kept secret.

We have succeeded over the last two years in revitalizing our Committee’s oversight capabilities. The periodic oversight hearings with the Attorney General, the FBI Director, the Secretary of Homeland Security, and others will continue. The past can be prologue unless we set things right.

As to the best course of action for bringing a reckoning for the actions of the past eight years, there has been heated disagreement. There are some who resist any effort to investigate the misdeeds of the recent past. Indeed, some Republican Senators tried to extract a devil’s bargain from the Attorney General nominee in exchange for their votes, a commitment that he would not prosecute for anything that happened on President Bush’s watch. That is a pledge no prosecutor should give, and Eric Holder did not, but because he did not, it accounts for many of the partisan votes against him.

There are others who say that, even if it takes all of the next eight years, divides this country, and distracts from the necessary priority Read more →

Share this entry

Fellatio for Cheney from the Politico

/56 Comments/in , /by

picture-80.thumbnail.pngI guess it’s no surprise that Dick Cheney chose Pool Boy and his two sidekicks, John Harris and Mike Allen, for his first propaganda piece after stepping down as Vice President. And it was a good choice for Cheney, as they apparently assiduously avoided any of the questions that Cheney ought to be asked.

For example, when Cheney asserted,

Protecting the country’s security is “a tough, mean, dirty, nasty business,” he said. “These are evil people. And we’re not going to win this fight by turning the other cheek.”

Real journalists might have asked, "then why the fuck didn’t we finish the job in Afghanistan rather than turning our attention to a war of choice in Iraq?"

Similarly, when Cheney said,

*The potential consequences of $1 trillion in deficit stimulus spending: “It’s huge, obviously – potentially huge. You worry about what ultimately happens to inflation. You worry about what’s going to happen to the ability of the government to borrow money. … I’m nervous.”

Real journalists might have asked why Cheney showed no concern when he was racking up $1 trillion (and counting) of deficit spending for the aforementioned war of choice in Iraq. For that matter, real journalists might even have asked what happened to Cheney’s claim that "Reagan proved deficits don’t matter," now that he’s out of office.

But I suppose it would take more than a real journalist–it would take a DFH blogger, most likely–to point out that, in fact, many people did foresee the colossal fuck-up the Bush Administration was making of the economy.

*Whether the Bush administration should have done more about the economy: "We did worry about it, to some extent. … I don’t think anybody actually foresaw something of this size and dimension occurring. It’s also global. We only control part of the world economy – a very important part."  

The article ends by quoting Liz Cheney teasing her dad that he doesn’t need a press aide–he can do it on his own. And I guess, given that he did such a good job of arranging a fluffer designed to attack Obama some more for reversing Dick’s failed policies–Liz Cheney has it about right. 

Share this entry

About those Missing OLC Opinions

/in , , /by

(Note: I’m scheduled to be on Mark Levine’s Inside Scoop today at 5PM ET. You can listen in here.)

Okay okay already. Here’s your damn missing OLC opinion post.

As a number of you have pointed out, ProPublica did a very cool database of all the OLC opinions on executive power, torture, and warrantless wiretapping that we know of. The database collects in one place, in sortable form, the opinions that track Bush’s abuse of power. 

I had done a timeline mapping the warrantless wiretap opinions to known events associated with Bush’s illegal program (though it’s not sortable like the ProPublica one). And don’t forget that John Conyers gave us a very detailed description of that opinion eliminating the 4th Amendment.

The memorandum, which was directed to White House Counsel Alberto Gonzales and Defense Department General Counsel William J. Haynes, addresses whether the president has constitutional or statutory authority to use military force inside the United States in terrorism-related situations and, if so, whether such domestic military operations would be barredby either the Fourth Amendment or the federal Posse Comitatus statute. Examples of the type of force considered for purposes of the analysis include, but are not limited to: (1) destroying civilian aircraft that are believed to have been hijacked; (2) deploying troops to control traffic in and out of a major American city; (3) seizing or attacking civilian property, such as apartment buildings, office complexes, or ships, believed to contain terrorism suspects; and, (4) using military-level eavesdropping and surveillance technology on domestic targets.

Mr. Yoo and Mr. Delahunty concluded that both Article II of the Constitution and the 9/11 use of force resolution would authorize these types of domestic military operations (even though Congress had expressly rejected language proposed by the Administration for the AUMF that would have authorized domestic military operations).292 The memorandum also contains extended discussion of a hypothetical example which posits that a domestic military commander has received information, not rising to the level of probable cause, suggesting that a terrorist has hidden inside an apartment building and may possess weapons of mass destruction. According to the memorandum, not only does the Constitution permit the commander to seize the building, detain everyone found inside, and then interrogate them – all without obtaining any sort of warrant – but information gathered by military commanders in this way could used for criminal prosecution purposes as long as the primary reason for the seizure was the military fight against terrorism and not law enforcement. Read more →

Share this entry

Jay Rockefeller Told Us What Russell Tice Just Confirmed, Years Ago

/in , /by

On KO the other night, Russell Tice expanded on the details of the warrantless wiretapping program, revealing that, the government has been data mining both our telecom communications and our credit card transactions.

As far as the wiretap information that made it to NSA, there was also data mining that was involved. At some point information from credit cards and financial transactions was married in with that information. So of the lucky US citizens, tens of thousands of whom, that are now on digital databases at NSA who have no idea of this also have that sort of information that has been included on those digital files that have been warehoused.

[snip]

This is garnered from algorithms that have been put together to try to just dream up scenarios that might be information that is associated with how a terrorist could operate. Like I mentioned last night, the one to two minute pizza delivery call, things of that nature, of which an innocent citizen could be easily tied into these things. And once that information gets to the NSA, and they start to put it through the filters there, where they have langauge interpreters and stuff and they start looking for word-recognition, if someone just talked about the daily news and mentioned, you know, something about the Middle East they could easily be brought to the forefront of having that little flag put by their name that says "potential terrorist" and of course this US citizen wouldn’t have a clue.

[snip]

I have a guess where it was developed. I think it was probably developed out of the Department of Defense; this is probably the remnants of the Total Information Awareness that came out of DARPA. That’s my guess.

Again, this should surprise no one who has followed our detailed discussions over the last four years about the kind of data mining they were probably doing.

In fact, we learned as much from someone briefed on the program in the days following the first revelations about the program in December 2005. That’s when Jello Jay Rockefeller released the letter he had sent to Cheney about the program. That letter described the program in precisely those terms–the old TIA program that Iran-Contra retread John Poindexter had developed.

As I reflected on the meeting today, and the future we face, John Poindexter’s TIA project sprung to mind, Read more →

Share this entry

al-Haramain: the Dead-Enders Misrepresent Their Appeal to Dismiss the Need to Wait for Obama

/in , /by

al-Haramain’s lawyer, like me, has some doubt whether or not the motion for appeal submitted on Monday and reaffirmed under Obama’s name on Thursday reflects the thinking of the Obama Administration.

Jon Eisenberg, the attorney for the two lawyers, suggested the litigation be put on hold to give the new Obama administration time to reconsider the legal posture it inherited from Bush.

"None of us knows whether or not they might take a different approach to this case," Eisenberg argued to Walker.

Neither [Anthony] Coppolino nor [Vaughn] Walker responded to that point.

And I’m guessing since Coppolino, who is purportedly speaking for the Obama Administration, didn’t immediately answer that question, he has some doubt, too. 

I suspect Walker has some doubt, too, as he has asked for more briefing, which will have the effect of delaying his response until such time as Eric Holder and Dawn Johnsen and David Kris have had time to fully review the documents behind the case and actually be read into this program.

On Friday, Walker instructed the government and Eisenberg to provide further written arguments within weeks about why he should or should not permit the government to appeal a case brought by two former lawyers for the Al-Haramain Islamic Foundation.

And well he should demand more briefing. Because the dead-enders make a claim in the only document with Obama’s name on it–the case management statement initially submitted with Bush’s name on it and then re-submitted with Obama’s name on it–that completely misrepresents the scope and nature of their appeal.

The Dead-Enders Argue They’re Not Making a Unitary Executive Argument

In its own case statement, al-Haramain cites Eric Holder’s call for "a reckoning" for Bush having illegally authorized warrantless wiretap, and then cites Dawn Johnsen arguing that the "unitary executive" theory threatens "balance of powers and individual rights." Then, al-Haramain argues that these statements suggest the Obama Administration will adopt a different course with this case.

It would be a remarkable turnabout for the new Department of Justice, under the guidance of Mr. Holder and Ms. Johnsen, to refuse any declassification here and continue the effort to resist a decision on plaintiff’s standing and this Court’s ajudication of the Bush administration’s "unitary executive" and Commander-in-Chief" theiries.

Read more →

Share this entry