More on InfraGard: Paul Joseph Watson

Celebration Of Americans Turning In Their Neighbors, Family Members Officials, media praise "wonderful," "creative" informants for making a living from reporting friends to the authorities By Paul Joseph Watson Southwest Florida Crime Stoppers and the New York Times are heartily celebrating the fact that an increasing number of Americans are becoming informants and turning in their neighbors and family members to the authorities in return for cash rewards. Citing gas prices, foreclosure rates and runaway food price inflation, The Times lauds the fact that citizens are reporting on each other, ensuring "a substantial increase in Crime Stopper-related arrests and recovered property, as callers turn in neighbors, grandchildren or former boyfriends in exchange for a little cash." The fact that people turning in their own neighbors and family members for payoffs is one of the hallmarks of a Stasi-like police state doesn't seem to register with reporters Shaila Dewan, Brenda Goodman, or Crime Stoppers U.S.A President Elaine Cloyd, who hails the snitches for getting "creative" to offset a rough economy. Forget Orwell's 1984, this purebred tyranny is about as sophisticated as the wacky dictatorship portrayed in Arnold Schwarzenegger's 1987 movie The Running Man, where citizens are reminded by huge TV screens that they can "earn a double bonus for reporting on a family member!" 10 minutes into the clip from 1987's The Running Man: "Don't forget - October is bonus recruitment month - earn a double bonus for reporting on a family member!" It's difficult to judge the most disturbing aspect of this story - the fact that people would slavishly turn in their grandchildren and neighbors for instant cash - or the horrible spectacle of having to endure the the New York Times celebrating it. "For tips that bring results, programs in most places pay $50 to $1,000, with some jurisdictions giving bonuses for help solving the most serious crimes, or an extra “gun bounty” if a weapon is recovered. In Sussex County, the average payment for a tip that results in an arrest is $400," according to the report. A poster from the First Coast Crime Stoppers program. “Crime doesn’t pay but we do,” say the mobile billboards cruising Jacksonville, Fla. A poster in Jackson, Tenn., draws a neat equation: “Ring Ring + Bling Bling = Cha-Ching.” The bling, in this case, is a pair of handcuffs." Enthusiastic spies are assured that they can earn as much as $700, $750 per week for information leading to two or three arrests, more money than a minimum wage job. The tattle-tales' identity is kept anonymous and they can even report people by text message. Crime Stoppers coordinator Trish Routte described the ability to make a living from reporting friends and family members to the authorities as "wonderful". Lest we forget that from this same wellspring of tyranny emerged Operation TIPS, which was supposedly nixed by Congress, a DOJ, FBI, DHS and FEMA coordinated program that would have recruited one in twenty-four Americans as domestic informants, a higher percentage than was used by the Stasi in East Germany. Government funding was cut after an outcry but private funding continues and the same program was introduced under a number of sub-divisions including AmeriCorps, SecureCorps and the Highway Watch program. More recently, ABC News reported that "The FBI is taking cues from the CIA to recruit thousands of covert informants in the United States as part of a sprawling effort.....to aid with criminal investigations." Since authorities now define mundane activities like buying baby formula, beer, wearing Levi jeans, carrying identifying documents like a drivers license and traveling with women or children or mentioning the U.S. constitution as the behavior of potential terrorists, the bounty for the American Stasi to turn in political dissidents is sure to be too tempting to resist. As any budding dictator will tell you, the creation of an informant society where individuals self-regulate their behavior in fear of being turned in by a citizen spy is one of the key stepping stones to tyranny. To have the media celebrate the fact that people are reporting on their neighbors and grandchildren puts the icing on the cake. Spread the word Digg it! - reddit Latest Articles in: Commentary - The Last Roundup - Ralph Waldo Emerson - Courage - World Evolutionary Humanism, Eugenics and UNESCO - Rumsfeld On Tape: Terror Attack Could Restore Neo-Con Agenda - Torturing Iron Man: The Strange Reversals of a Pentagon Blockbuster See: My article on InfraGard is on your left. I know that Prisonplanet "drops by" this blog. (So do a few others who plagarize and then tell people NOT to come to this blog as it is slow loading .. Hey! This blog is SO worth it. I remain a FEMINIST, and I shall OVERCOME anyway. Chris Floyd! Beware! One day I will again have friends .. ) Too bad they don't have the courtesy or morality to pay me for the articles of mine that they post - and stealing my material. If you guys "drop by" - how 'bout paying me for running my InfraGard article where it MIGHT DO SOME GOOD !! Veeger (living in exile and tired of being ripped off !)

The Gatehring Storm at Jusitce; Scott Horton

The Gathering Storm at Justice

Scott Horton

I don’t in the ordinary course review and recommend law review articles, but I’ve just come across one that is close to indispensable for public affairs junkies. On December 7, 2006—the anniversary of the attack on Pearl Harbor—at least eight U.S. attorneys received phone calls from Michael Battle, the executive director of the Office of U.S. Attorneys at the Justice Department. Each was essentially ordered to submit his or her resignation.

The Administration attempted to sell the event as a routine personnel turn-over. But Congress and the public weren’t buying. After a series of hearings at which senior members of the Administration committed acts of perjury, there was a public uproar. In its wake the entire senior echelon of political appointees at the Justice Department were forced to leave office under a cloud and subject to an investigation into potentially criminal misconduct, as were a number of senior White House figures, most prominently including Bush’s senior political advisor, Karl Rove.

The storm has died down a bit now as the Justice Department completes its own internal investigation of what happened. This has been led by Inspector General Glenn Fine and by the Office of Professional Responsibility. I understand that this investigation is approaching its conclusion now, and that a report is likely in the course of the spring. The report will almost certainly be explosive.

Of George W. Bush’s cohort of U.S. Attorneys, one of the most highly regarded—perhaps even the most highly regarded—was John McKay, who headed the office in Seattle. He was included in the December 7 massacre. McKay has now authored a law review article that examines the history of the scandal, reviews the legal issues that it raises, and provides some observations on the trajectory the matter is likely to take going forward. It’s called “Train Wreck at the Justice Department,” and it was published in volume 31 of Seattle University Law Review. Here are some key elements of the article, which really merits being read in its entirety.

A Torrent of Lies Under Oath

The falsehoods presented, under oath, to Congressional committees were sweeping. They included varying and at points inconsistent accounts of the reasons for the dismissals—which internal documents from Justice reflect were often fabricated on the eve of hearings, sometimes after attempts to synch a false story with the White House. This was largely part of an effort to disguise the obvious fact that the dismissals were the implementation of a political plan which had been formulated in the White House, largely under the guidance of Karl Rove. They were also designed to disguise the fact that an elaborate scheme had been concocted to circumvent the process through which candidates are reviewed and confirmed by the Senate using a secret amendment to the USA PATRIOT Act.

Participants in the conspiracy to misdirect Congress included Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, Deputy Attorney General Paul J. McNulty, Associate Attorney General Will Moschella—the top three figures at the Justice Department—and a stream of staffers led by Michael Elston, Kyle Sampson and Monica Goodling.

After a flurry of phone calls among the U.S. Attorneys who had been ordered to resign, many of those former U.S. Attorneys concluded that the Attorney General was lying to the Senate about the intent of the Justice Department to seek Senate confirmation of their prospective replacements. In Seattle, for example, no known efforts had been underway by either the White House or the Justice Department to recruit or interview candidates for my replacement. In spite of my frequent requests for guidance, Justice officials had not revealed their plans, and no internal candidates had been contacted by the Justice Department or the White House. With only a few days remaining before our departures, it was clear the Justice Department planned to name their own interim U.S. Attorneys under the new powers granted them in the amendments to the USA PATRIOT Act. Other fired U.S. Attorneys confirmed similar patterns in San Francisco and San Diego, and we also knew that an interim U.S. Attorney had been serving in Kansas City for many months.

The article documents a series of further conscious falsehoods from Gonzales and other senior figures of the Justice Department related to similar issues.

The White House in Charge
Perhaps the hallmark of the administration of justice in the Bush era is its complete politicization. No aspect of the process of law enforcement seems beyond the reach of political meddling. This was dramatically demonstrated when Senator Sheldon Whitehouse disclosed early in the hearing process that virtually every political staffer in the White House had been authorized to meddle with criminal investigations and prosecutions. But the reach of Karl Rove was most apparent, and his fingerprints are all about the December 7 scandal. Moreover, when senior figures of the New Mexico G.O.P. decided they wanted to fire their U.S. attorney because he had refused to prostitute his office for electoral political purposes, they went straight to the man who could obviously make it happen: Karl Rove.

McKay reviews the politically motivated dismissal of Iglesias in some detail, and shows the focal role of Rove and the involvement of a number of further political operatives.

During 2006 in New Mexico, then-U.S. Attorney David Iglesias led an investigation which eventually resulted in the indictment and conviction of the Treasurer of the State of New Mexico, an elected Democrat. Iglesias has testified that he received phone calls from Senator Pete Domenici and U.S. Representative Heather Wilson (R-N.M.), in which he was allegedly pressured to accelerate the indictment in order for it to occur before the November re-election campaign of Representative Wilson. Iglesias responded to questions before the Senate on March 6, 2007:

SENATOR SCHUMER: Please describe for the committee now, as best you can, your entire recollection of that communication. Please tell us what Senator Domenici said and what you said.

DAVID IGLESIAS: Thank you, Sir. I was at home. This was the only time I’d ever received a call from any member of Congress while at home during my tenure as United States attorney for New Mexico. Mr. Bell called me. I was in my bedroom. My wife was nearby. And he indicated that the senator wanted to speak with me. He indicated that there were some complaints by some citizens, so I said, “OK.” And he said, “Here’s the Senator.” So he handed the phone over, and I recognized the voice as being Senator Pete Domenici. And he wanted to ask me about the matters of the corruption cases that had been widely reported in the local media. I said, “All right.” And he said, “Are these going to be filed before November?” And I said I didn’t think so, to which he replied, “I’m very sorry to hear that.” And then the line went dead.

SENATOR SCHUMER: So in other words, he hung up on you?

MR. IGLEGIAS: That’s how I took that. Yes, Sir.

The public record shows that Domenici, Heather Wilson and other figures of the New Mexico G.O.P. lobbied for Iglesias’s dismissal because he refused their demands that a high-profile Democrat be indicted on a schedule calculated to influence the 2006 elections. The demands made were arguably a felony: an attempt to corruptly influence a criminal investigation. They were ultimately implemented through Iglesias’s dismissal.

McKay calls this a process of obstruction of justice.

The elements of a prima facia case of obstruction of justice are (1) the existence of the judicial proceeding; (2) knowledge of or notice of the judicial proceeding; (3) acting “corruptly” with intent to influence, obstruct, or impede the proceeding in the due administration of justice; and (4) a nexus (although not necessarily one which is material) between the judicial proceeding sought to be corruptly influenced and the defendant’s efforts. The omnibus clause of Section 1503(a) is a “catchall” provision, which is broadly construed to include a wide variety of corrupt methods.

Facts surrounding the dismissal of Carol Lam in the Southern District of California, and the equally suspicious but more graceful edging out of the U.S. attorney in Los Angeles also point to obstruction of justice—in those cases for purposes of freezing or stopping in its tracks a series of criminal investigations involving Republican political officeholders and senior figures at the CIA.

This conduct probably runs afoul of several other statutes. One is the Hatch Act, which “limits the political activities of federal employees in the interests of promoting efficient, merit-based advancement, avoiding the appearance of politically-driven justice. . .”

The Next Steps
At this point on the basis of the public record alone, no report by the Inspector General could credibly dismiss the serious charges which have been leveled against senior former Justice Department and White House figures connected to the December 7 events. Moreover, an examination of other cases points to rampant, likely criminal manipulation of prosecutions in a number of other cases involving U.S. attorneys in Birmingham, Jackson, Montgomery, Pittsburgh, Philadelphia and Milwaukee. The recent exposé by CBS News 60 Minutes links Karl Rove directly to the fabricated charges brought against former Alabama Governor Don Siegelman. And notwithstanding the exposure of the fraud through which he was prosecuted, Siegelman remains in prison in Louisiana today, cleaning latrines.

There are two clear steps which must follow the release of the Inspector General’s report:

• Appointment of a special prosecutor with full authority to investigate and prosecute those involved in criminal conduct associated with this affair.
• Commencement of hearings in the House Judiciary Committee to fully explore the role played by the White House in the misconduct identified in the Inspector General’s report.

The issues surrounding the appointment of a special prosecutor will be numerous. It will be a critical test for the independence and objectivity of Attorney General Mukasey. There are already grounds to suspect that he gave some form of assurance that he would not appoint a special prosecutor in the course of political meetings leading up to his nomination. That is disturbing and a disappointment. If Mukasey were to fail to act under circumstances as compelling as this, it would provide cause for his removal from office.

Any special prosecutor appointed must be a person of unquestioned integrity and professional acumen and not be a person who is or has been involved in partisan politics of any flavor. Moreover, the special prosecutor must be given authority to fully pursue charges relating to the politicization of the U.S. attorney’s office and his remit should not be limited to the U.S. attorney’s dismissed on December 7, 2006. (Note that among other things, Gonzales, McNulty and others continue to maintain their silence in the face of questioning under oath as to the actual number of U.S. attorneys dismissed in this political process).

Further, the special prosecutor must be in fact independent in his pursuit of these matters. Mukasey, his deputy and other senior figures in the Department of Justice are hopelessly politically conflicted and cannot credibly purport to exercise any authority over the process. The manner in which Deputy Attorney General James Comey authorized the investigation and work of Patrick Fitzgerald on the Plamegate matter continues to furnish an example of how this process can and should be handled.

But we should also keep in mind that the jurisdictional basis for the Inspector General’s review is formally limited to the Justice Department and its employees. Therefore the Judiciary Committee in the House of Representatives should convene its own hearings to follow up on the trail to the extent it goes into the White House. In particular the involvement of Karl Rove and Harriet Miers must be fully tested, using the subpoena power, and invoking the power of impeachment if necessary. No claims of Executive Privilege may be lawfully raised to obstruct these hearings, and they should proceed as a matter of urgency and priority.

---

---

March 18th 2008 ..Posted in.... Criminality, Crooks and Liars, World Dominance, WingNut Agenda, Bush Crime Family, Lies, The Ugly, The Bad, The Stupid, Wackos, Crooks On The Hill, Corruption, End of Democracy, Sickos, crime, AssHoles, Truely Obscene, Pure Evil

Pam Martens on the five key reasons we have the financial mess

Too Big to Bail

The Fed's Wall Street Dilemma

By PAM MARTENS

Counterpunch

St. Patrick's Day Edition
March 17, 2008

Americans learned two new truths last week from the Bush Administration's version of Life's Little Instruction Book: if you're a Wall Street miscreant you're thrown a lifeline; if you're a Wall Street crime fighter you're thrown a land mine.

In the first effort, the Feds effectively handed a Federal Reserve ATM card to JPMorgan to funnel your tax dollars to the teetering Bear Stearns brokerage firm to address counterparty risks that have been building for at least 4 years as the Feds snoozed. Counterparty risk is the trillions of dollars of insurance contracts (credit default swaps and other derivatives) taken out by Wall Street firms on each others (counterparty) bonds, bundled mortgage and commercial debt (collateralized debt obligations). The firms have used unregulated over-the-counter contracts to perform this risk transfer alchemy and funded their own company, Markit Group Ltd., to take the place of a regulated exchange for price discovery.

In the second effort, the Feds tapped the Department of Justice, Internal Revenue Service, U.S. Attorney's office in New York, FBI, five federal judges and a busy federal court to root out that Code Red threat to our national security: consensual sex. The sex involved a prostitution ring and Democratic New York State Governor, Eliot Spitzer, who was savaged and forced to step down by an avenging media mob abundantly fed with well placed leaks from a suspiciously homogenous group called

"anonymous law enforcement officials."

Governor Spitzer, in his former role as New York State Attorney General, had taken the lead in rooting out Wall Street crimes against small investors because the Federal Reserve was preoccupied with lobbying to remove regulations on Wall Street's crime factory.

As usual, the Feds handed the bill to the governed with no thought to the will of the governed.

While mainstream media called the Bear Stearns bailout the first brokerage bailout since the Great Depression, in truth it was the second in seven months.

The first brokerage bailout came without all the media fanfare because it arrived not on the wings of a public announcement but in five pages of indecipherable Fed jargon addressed to the General Counsel of Citigroup.

Here is the effective message sent by the Federal Reserve to Citigroup in its letter of August 20, 2007: now that we have allowed you to become both too big to fail and too big to bail by repealing the depression era investor-protection law known as the Glass-Steagall Act at your mere beckoning, we have to bend more rules to keep you afloat. So, for example, the rule that says the Federal Reserve is not allowed to lend to brokerages, just banks, from its discount window can be tweaked for you by lending up to $25 billion to you and then we'll let you lend it to your brokerage arm. The Federal Reserve Act rule that says a bank can't loan more than 10% of its capital stock and surplus to its brokerage affiliate, we'll let you go as high as about 30% and say it's in the public interest.

By giving Citigroup an exemption from Rule 23A of the Federal Reserve Act, by allowing it to funnel up to $25 Billion from the Fed's discount window to its brokerage clients who were getting hit with margin calls, the Federal Reserve and Chairman Ben Bernanke telegraphed an incredibly dangerous message to global markets: we're just as unaccountable as Wall Street. The Federal Reserve as enabler under Alan Greenspan created today's problem and today's Crony Fed under Ben Bernanke is killing off what's left of U.S. financial credibility. (I had barely finished typing these words on Monday, March 17, 2008, when a news alert came across my screen advising that the Federal Reserve was taking the breathtaking step of making direct loans to all brokerage firms which are primary dealers for Treasury securities.)

The Federal Reserve is stumbling around in the dark and regularly bumping into the next bailout because it stopped being an independent monetary force and started taking its marching orders from Wall Street quite some time ago.

Here's what Nancy Millar, President at the time of the National Organization for Women in New York City, presciently testified in writing to the Securities and Exchange Commission in August 2001. (Ms. Millar edited and signed this testimony while I and other Wall Street activists provided input. This testimony is available in full on the SEC's web site.)

We thank the Securities and Exchange Commission for extending the comment period to September 4, 2001 in the critical area of bank oversight now that the lines between banks and brokerage firms have been blurred with the repeal of the Glass-Steagall Act.

We believe that the comments made in the letter dated June 29, 2001 from the Federal Reserve, the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) and the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency should be disregarded in their totality. The banks of America have enough lobbyists and trade associations to argue their case before the SEC. It is not the charter or mandate of these three regulatory bodies to lobby on behalf of banks.

The body of evidence that should dictate how the SEC must now proceed since Congress saw fit to eliminate the critical protections afforded the investing public in the Glass-Steagall Act, resides in the tens of thousands of pages of transcripts of the Pujo Committee hearings held in 1913 and the Pecora Committee hearings of 1933 and 1934. Fancy promises from regulators that banks functioning in the dual role as brokerage firms can and will be self-policing is not what the SEC or Congress should rely on. The well-developed history of egregious abuses bestowed on the investing public prior to the enactment of Glass-Steagall, and since its recent repeal, is what the SEC and Congress must look to. To believe that the dynamics of power and greed have been materially altered in nine decades is to engage in naiveté at the public's peril.

Our Nation's prosperity, democracy and the productivity of its citizens demand a level playing field to acquire and safeguard financial assets. Society crumbles when assets achieved through years of honest hard work can be fleeced by brokerage firms masquerading as insured-deposit banks. It is the role of federal regulators to maintain a level playing field through stringent regulation.

We ask that the SEC immediately impose the same regulations that govern outside broker-dealers to securities' operations within banks. And, we herewith ask Congress to reconsider the repeal of the Glass-Steagall Act or be held accountable for the peril that unfolds from this unwise and inadequately deliberated decision.

If ever there was evidence that America is now facing that peril, it was the most recent news that the Bush administration's much touted "free and efficient market" had priced Bear Stearns at $30 a share at the close of trading on Friday, March 14, 2008 but on further examination of its books over the weekend, it was valued at $2 a share and absorbed by JPMorgan at that price.

Equally troubling is the growing awareness among Wall Street veterans that neither the Federal Reserve nor the U.S. Treasury comprehend was has happened here, much less how to contain it. Here's what we heard from Hank Paulson, the Treasury Secretary, last week:

"regulation needs to catch up with innovation and help restore investor confidence but not go so far as to create new problems, make our markets less efficient or cut off credit to those who need it."

Innovation? Less efficient? Is there anything at all that looks innovative or efficient about Wall Street today? It is a seized up house of cards built on a toxic formula of hubris, corruption and free market madness.

Before there is a complete breakdown, Congress must quickly address the five key reasons we have today's mess on our hands:

(1) Incentive: from mortgage brokers paid higher fees to sell subprime loans rather than prime loans, to stockbrokers paid dramatically higher fees to sell mortgage-backed securities rather than U.S. Treasury securities, to investment bankers paid dramatically higher fees to package Collateralized Debt Obligations rather than issue plain vanilla corporate bonds, Wall Street has been incentivized to greed rather than honest service to investors.

(2) Artificial Demand: The above outsized incentive produced a glut of unwanted and unneeded product that had to be eventually hidden off Wall Street's balance sheet in Structured Investment Vehicles (SIVs) or dressed up to look like Commercial Paper and buried in mom and pop money market funds. It is this glut and the lack of transparency as to where else this toxic paper is hiding that is creating the fear and panic on Wall Street.

(3) Counterparty Risk: The regulators allowed Wall Street firms/banks to balloon their asset base and pretend they were meeting capital adequacy tests by buying "insurance" in the form of derivative contracts. There was only one problem with these "hedging" techniques; the counterparty in many cases was just another Wall Street firm or an inadequately capitalized municipal bond insurer. Instead of spreading risk, the risk was concentrated among the same players.

(4) Glass-Steagall Act: Congress was incentivized through Wall Street campaign financing to throw reason and judgment out the window and repeal the only law that stood between the country and another 1929. Glass-Steagall must be restored; and public financing of federal campaigns is the only means of restoring the will of the governed to Washington.

Pam Martens worked on Wall Street for 21 years; she has no securities position, long or short, in any company mentioned in this article. She writes on public interest issues from New Hampshire. She can be reached at pamk741@aol.com

IMPEACHMENT TOOLKIT: update 1/30/2007 Does NUREMBERG apply??

TPM MUCKRACKER COVERAGE

http://www.tpmmuckraker.com/archives/005180.php

Anonymous wrote on January 30, 2008 7:05 PM:

I find the DoJ AG response troubling for several reasons. One of them TPMM cited: The Nuremberg defense.

Second, the AG appers to have a conflict: As a Judge, he appears to have had a requirement to have reviewed whether the FISA-captured information was used as a pretext for this abuse.

Third, the AG appears focused, as does Congress on the irrelevant issue of "torture": Geneva prohibits _abuse_: whether waterboarding is or is't "torture" is the wrong track. Self-evidently, waterboarding is abuse. AG's insistentce that this was "authorized" amounts to a slap against Geneva; and the absurd notion the President -- or someone else -- "authorized" war crimes. That isn't a defense, but _evidence_. AG needs to disclosed, as a witness, _who_ authorized the war crimes. AG needs to recuse himself.

Fourth, going back to Nuremberg, civilian policy makers were prosecuted for war crimes, and judges were indicted at the Justice Trial. AG's responses today suggest that a war crimes investigaiton needs to be opened.

Fifth, the purpose of having prosecutors is to enforce the law under the Exeuctive Branch. When the Executive Branch will not enforce the law, the Framers intended the legilsature -- through impeachment -- to have a tool to remove agents the President refused to remove. Taking impeachment "off the table" and the decision to "not impeach" leaves us back where the Nuremberg Justice Trial was: A country that refuses to either impeach or prosecute war crimes is not civilized. AG's assertions about the rule of law, investigations, and duty are meaningless when the basice premise of Nuremberg is thrown out the window.

I would prefer Congress open an investigation into the AG's response. Given the Congress' lack of interest in enforcing the law, and the DOJ AG's assertion that he will not enforce the law on this narrow issue as well -- through investigations -- I would ask that the State Attorney GEnerals be immediately contacted for purposes of drafting indictments gaainst the AG and Members of Congress for their joint decision to not enforce Geneva. If the State AGs are not going to do this, then we need to broaden the list of prosecutions/indictments to include the State AGs over alleged breaches of their oath of office, and their decision to "not protect" the Constitution against domestic enemies.

Either these people in the DOJ, Congress, and the State level enforce the law; or they are subject to prosecution for refusing to fully assert their oath. Either or. Time to stop the legislative hearings, and get on with the war crimes indictments: Either investigate to defend the Constitution and Geneva obligations as the SUpreme Law; or those who refuse, but have a duty to act, could become targets for that prosecution effort. Let's stop pretending there are legitimate excuses for inaction on these issues of Geneva: If the US refuses to enforce the law, other nations may take similarly situated persons and treat them the same: Waterboard them without trial, access to evidence, or ability to have access to legal counsel. If that's what the US goernment officials want, then that is evidence of a mental reservation, not a legitimate defense for malfeasance or inaction.

Please contact your State AG's and share with them the above. Time for the States and local citizens to do what the US Congress and AG refuse to do: Fully defend the US Constitution.
Anonymous wrote on January 30, 2008 7:37 PM:

This is non-sense: "All of that depends on whether certification was given, whether permission was given and whether it was permissibly relied on."

AG is acting as if this is speculative: Whether "certification" was or wasn't given; whether "permission" was or wasn't given; and whether "permissibly relied on" did or didn't occur. If this is "uncertain" why is there no AG plan to find out the answers? He appears to be using the "lack of infofmration" about these issues to assert, in my view incorrectly, that "no investigation" is needed.

That's, in my personal opinion, idiotic: It acts that we not _start_ an investigation until those things are known; yet, wet have the _certain_ outcome: A tape of alleged illegal abuse.

Whether certification, permission, or reliance existed is _not_ to be decided as a _preliminary_ matter _before_ starting the investigatin; but the _conclusions_ for the _court_ to make on whether to adjudicate guilt or innocense.

I would respectuflly ask the Congress to reconsider the AG's responses and ask if he's fully removed his Judicial hat; and ask that he reconsider his role: His role, is to accept that there was a a tape; there were interrogations; and the _questions that need to be investigated_ include before presenting the facts to the Court:

A. Was there evidence on the tape;
B. Was the tape destroyed to hide that evidence from the court;
C. Who provided "permission" to conduct prisoner abuse
D. Who relied on "permissions" to implement the abuse
E. Who raised the issue of "certification" -- was this _before_ or _after_ the alleged abuse was imposed on the prisoner;
F. The question of "permissibly relied upon" isn't the question, but whether the _defendant_ as a _defense_ can say that _they_ reasonably relied upon.

I'm concerned that the AG is acting as a defense counsel in re F. abuse, as it is the obligation of the _defense_ to prove that the orders were reasonable; that they defendant _did_ reasonably rely on orders; and that there was _no_ hint that the direction, orders, and guidance was illegal. This is a burden the defendant needs to provide at trial as a defense, and not an issue for the AG to consider as to whether to _investigate_.

It cannot be seriously argued by _defense_ counsel that permission, certificaction, or legality of orders existed when Geneva bars _all abuse_. It appears the AG is pretending, out of convenience as are the alleged defendants, that there is "confusion" about whether waterboarding is or isn't torture as a _preliminary_ issue, as a bar to all investigations. Non-sense. The reverse is true: Geneva, in barring all abuse, would put the burden on the defendant to prove at trial the orders were reasonable. Yet, tape destruction is evidence that is contrary to intersts: The tape was destroyed _after_ the court ordered it be retained; adverse inferences in cases of spoliation are relevant: The tape was destroyed to hide relevant evidence to answer the questions of certification, permissions, and defenses -- the act itself is evidence the certification was not lawful; the permissions were contrary to Geneva; and the reliance was not reasonable.

*snip*

Anonymous wrote on January 30, 2008 7:41 PM:

The fundamental qustion is: Has the President or anyone "authorized" the CIA to commit Geneva violations?

If they're waterboarding, yes.

Anonymous wrote on January 30, 2008 8:00 PM:

I'm surprised to hear of the uncertainty, given the Geneva issues: " But as Mukasey made clear, that may or may not happen." How can it be _unclear_ whether they need to _investigate_ to determine whether the _conduct on the tape_ was or wasn't illegal? If there's lack of clarity, then an investigation needs to occur to _determine_ that answer. Or what method does the AG's staff divine to arrive at a clear answer outside an investigation?

Anonymous wrote on January 30, 2008 8:10 PM:

LarryB wrote on January 30, 2008 7:37 PM

"The CIA was explicitly authorized to torture "Al Queda" detanees by their chain of command. No one is suggesting that they were operating as rogue agents."

This starts with a false permise: That the basis for the analysis is "torture". Incorrect, the issue under _Geneva_ is whether there was or wasn't _abuse_. How can anyone say that the CIA was _lawfully_ "authorized" to commit war crimes, and impose abuse? That's absurd.

The way the CIA operates overseas: They violte the law all the time. But the issues of war crimes, when not resolved, has a boomerang effect: Each time the US government agent commits a war crime, but the US refuses to prosecute, other nations may through the principle of reciprocity and retalation commit _like_ abuses against similarly situated prisoners.

The problem: The US, by detaining and abusing non-combatant civilians, held them without access to lawyers, and on accusation alone without evidence, is that other nations' fighters may do the same to US persons accused, without getting access to lawyers or evidence of being illegal combatants. Any American could be charged as being an illegal combatant, and abused.

People who "authorize the CIA to commit Geneva violations" are issuing illegal orders; it's the burden of the CIA agent _at trial_ to show that the order was reasonable; that they rasonably relied on that order; and that the order was lawful. Yet, when tapes are destroyed, it suggests the opposite: That they knew the orders were "authorizing" illegal abuse; that they could not reasonably rely on the defense of "legality" and "reasonableness" to justify following direction to violate Geneva; and that they knew, or should have known, the expectation that the evidence of that abuse would be hidden/destroyed was not reasonable as "clearance" to proceed with the abuse.

It appears the CIA agents believed that they thought the tape would never see the light of day; that someone working with the tapes made some sort of certification that they would not disclose the content of the tapes; and that the CIA agents believed that they could rely on this certification of non-disclosure as a shield to further discovery. Once we're moving outside the narrow lane of covert operations, but expanding to the broader umbrella of war crimes, simple agreements bewteen CIA agents and other contractors are not arguably enforceable.

If the AG will not investigate the tape's destruction or the contents of the tape, then he needs to answer the opposite issue: Whether he will investigate the _disclosure_ of the tape, and the fact that the tape was destroyed. If there was "no crime" in destroying the tape, and the tapes' contents were "not a problem," then the issue turns on its head: Who has allegedly "disclosed" the exitence of the tape? That question won't get answered as the disclosure of alleged war crimes evidence is not, in theory, actionable. The opposite is true: There is likely a statute the DoD-DoJ-CIA personnel were relying on to justify disclosing the existence of the tape.

*snip*

Anonymous wrote on January 31, 2008 12:54 AM:

I hope the public can see the absurdity of this: "Whitehouse to Mukasey: Why Not Investigate Torture?": This, from a Congress that refuses to investigate the President. Public to Congress, "Why, before asking the AG to investigate, are you not investigating?"

There is nothing stopping the Senators asking these questions of the AG from communicating to the House: "We would like for you to investigate the President." Inter-branch communications are not binding; but they are possible. The Senate needs to go on the record: They've asked the AG why he's not investigating; they need to do the same with the House: "Why is there no investigation of this President's impeachable offenses?" Indeed, the Senate committees do have the power to, independent of the House, to review the illegal activity. But rather than conduct fact finding, they're pleading with a separate branch of government. That is not a check, that is assent and subservience by the Senate to the AG. Enough!

Indeed, when Congress refuses to investigate the President's impeachable offenses, why should the AG bother responding to questions about why the AG is or isn't investigating. This Congress, rightly or wrongly, has said with its words and actions: "We are not going to investigate; but we are going to waste time asking why the AG isn't investigating what we refuse to independently investigate." Hypocrisy!

The Congress is a separate and co-equal branch of government: It does not report to the AG's timelines. Yet, this appears lost on these Members of Congress despite their oath to enforce the Constitution against domestic enemies.

The public is not well served by a Congress that, with the promise of elections, does not deliver. There is no need for the Congress to "discuss with the AG whether or not to investigate": There are standing committees in Congress that can independently investigate, but refuse.

The pattern of abuses aren't telling us new information: It's from the same criminal element recklessly running this nation's governance into the ground. How dare the Senate lazily inquire as to whether the AG is or isn't doing something, _while_ the Congress continues to vote for war funding to export a system of governance that even the US Congress doesn't take seriously.

The Congress well knows the importance of investigations, but refuses. Inaction, on top of an oath compelling a defense of the Constitution and Geneva Conventions, is not a defense but evidence of alleged malfeasance in re war crimes.

Some may believe the public is stuck with this charade of governance. We're not. There are ways to punish lawfully the Members of Congress: Grand Jury indictments can be issued against Members of Congress for their alleged malfeasance. Time for the public to move lawfully outside Congress, the Executive Branch, and courts, and work directly with the grand juries to organize evidence related to Member of Congress alleged complicity with these war crimes.

Nuremberg established that new laws can codify retroactively things that people should know are illegal. Before Nuremberg there were no explicit laws binding Geneva as a legal obligation to the specific jurists. Similarly, in the wake of this disaster, other laws can be retroactively codified that will fully promulgate the legal responsibilities of the legislature: Things that they should have known to do, but refused.

Arguably, any agreement to not investigate is not one that the courts or Congress or the President will dare to examine seriously: They view inaction as a higher calling. This charade needs to end: Inaction is evidence of not fully meeting one's 5 USC 3331 oath of office obligations. The public needs to openly discuss gathering evidence of Member of Congress alleged 5 USC 3331 violations; prepare indictments; and remind the Members of Congress: Either you do what you are expecting of the AG -- to lead an investigation; or you're facing the prospect of jail time where you can think about what you should have done, but refused.

We could go on and on about how the Secret Service daily protects the Magna Carta; how the sworn officers faithfully defend the Constitution each night as it descends into the bowels of the capitol. The sworn officers of the Capitol Police, Secret Service, and other uniformed officers need to examine their oath: Are they fully defending the Constitution and the Supreme Law against all domestic enemies in all the branches? The case can be made that they know full well there's a problem; and are not -- as they could -- securing search warrants to prosecute the President, Members of Congress, and lawyers for their alleged complicity for these war crimes.

The law isn't something people take into their own hands. It is something that should daily be asserted as a starting point; not as a questionable, debatable, possibility. This Congress and AG appear to have it backwards: The oath binds them to certainty; and this late in the game -- 2008, seven years after this non-sense started -- it's not credible that the Senate and AG are still debating whether or not there should be an investigation. This late in the game, the reasonable grand jury would conclude: The prosecutions of Members of Congress and this second AG are long overdue.

Then let's have that. Let's see some leadership by the unformed officers of the Secret Service; and let's see some real discussion within the Senate and House Sergeant at Arms office: How much longer are you going to let this arrogance, reckless disregard for law compel you to remain silent, not take action, and refuse to serve search warrants upon all three branches of government? Daily, American citizens -- on accusation alone -- are forced to assent to this abusive intrusion _without warrants_. Surely, the law enforcement professionals policing the nation's capital could discuss and secure warrants to defend this Constitution against the domestic enemies wandering, confused in the District of Columbia.

It is time to stop shirking, and not fear whether we are offending anyone. This leadership has offended its oath, the rule of law, and its good name: As a Republic. But we the People are above this. As _the_ sovereign, We the People can work with the grand juries, guide them, and well communicate that we fully support grand jury indictments against the Members of Congress who know enough to challenge the AG on investigations, but feign confusion over whether investigations should or shouldn't occur against the President. We don't have to wait for the 2008 election, because this process isn't linked with the voters: It's linked with We the People and oversight. If it takes one week, or four years is irrelevant: It needs to start now. Not maybe, not perhaps, not "when we feel like it", but now.

Anonymous wrote on January 31, 2008 1:06 AM:

I have trouble with this assertion: "Please don't be led astray by the red herring of worrying about the agents. In spite of their Nuremberg defense for their actions, I can't see how it benefits anyone to prosecute them, when the real criminals are those who gave the orders."

There's nothing before us -- as a public, outside the investigation -- to know whether the agents are or are not red herrings; or that they should be given preference to go after "bigger fish." That asks that we ignore the current decisions to not go after the big fish.

The above approach would ask that we ignore the agents as "red herrings"; but pretend that the real trail is somewhere else. Indeed, Congress and the AG refuse to follow the real trail. Getting them to awaken using a red herring appears to be a good start. If they're going in the wrong direction, they might adjust; but if they're still asleep, their idea of adjusting is to roll over.

Anonymous wrote on January 31, 2008 1:33 AM:

The Senate debate on telecom immunity fails to consider the alternative: That, without immunity, there must be an investigation into criminal activity. Time for the telecom immunity-debate to discuss also the AG's refusal to investigate all alleged illegal activity in re the contents of the CIA tape.

These are not separate incidents, but part of the same pattern of abuses which warrant an impeachment investigation.

Radsan: Breaking the Code: A Call for Candor at the CIA

[sidebar: Mukasey did not ask for a special prosecutor, Congress now has as of yesterday!! I am enamored of the conclusion of the piece below. Way to go!!]

A month before the news broke about the destruction of CIA tapes, I was back in Washington to speak on a panel. After the event, one of my former colleagues came over to discuss something in hushed tones. (“Jay”, let’s call him, used to be the top lawyer at the CIA’s Counterterrorist Center.) He made it clear to me that he disapproved of those who broke the Company’s code of silence. “Be careful,” was his message.

As justification, I told Jay that former officials should enlighten the public about intelligence issues. Then, as a jibe, I said that current officials should do more than say “no comment” about every story. Jay nodded in a way I wishfully interpreted as an acknowledgement. But since then, perhaps because he was involved in the tapes, Jay keeps the code. Undeterred, I offer some tidbits — “unclassified”—that Jay doesn’t want you to know.

The CIA was already under investigation.

Attorney General Michael Mukasey, on January 2, announced a full criminal investigation into the tapes. Before his announcement, the Justice Department (DOJ) and the CIA’s Inspector General (IG) had reviewed the matter for close to a month in a “preliminary inquiry.” But that was not the first time DOJ and the IG had joined forces. According to the press, DOJ/IG have been investigating many other CIA programs.

An investigation that spanned the 9/11 divide was “Peru shootdown.” In April 2001, missionaries traveling in a float plane in Peru were mistaken for drug traffickers and shot from the sky. Two people died. Although Peruvian officers operated the plane that fired the shots, they acted on information from another plane, staffed by CIA contractors.

The joint DOJ/IG investigation into the Peru incident took several years while they determined whether the drug interdiction program had deviated from President Clinton’s original plan. Plus, DOJ/IG investigated whether American officials had made any false statements about the April 2001 shootdown. One irony from Peru is that the investigation was most intense at the same time the White House was assuring the CIA it had nothing to fear from being aggressive after 9/11.

Two years ago, DOJ announced that it had closed the criminal case into Peru. But the IG investigation probably continues. Although our government paid millions to settle with the Peru survivors, many CIA officers still worry about the IG’s final report. They hope this report, due out soon, will not be as tough as the IG’s findings about 9/11, released a few months ago.

In any event, the CIA’s Inspector General, John Helgerson, perhaps learning from the complications on Peru, will not assist DOJ on the criminal investigation of the tapes. This time DOJ will try to do things without him. And time will tell whether a career prosecutor from Connecticut completes the investigation or whether Mukasey succumbs to those who want a special prosecutor.

There once was a lawyer named Muller.

DOJ, of course, is interested in John Rizzo, the CIA’s top lawyer. Rizzo is set to testify before the House Intelligence Committee on January 16. A major question is whether he participated in, or was aware of, the tapes’ destruction in 2005. So far, however, less attention has been paid to Scott Muller, the CIA’s General Counsel from 2002-2004.

Muller, having litigated at Davis Polk before he joined the Agency, viewed his job through the lens of a criminal defense lawyer. Rather than always serve the Agency’s best interests, Muller incorporated the personal agendas of senior officers. For instance, some complained at DOJ — and within the IG — that Muller improperly applied pressure to shut down the Peru investigation. Thus, Muller’s aggressiveness on Peru parallels reports of his aggressiveness, far earlier than 2005, in seeking to destroy the tapes. In all, DOJ should not forget what Muller has done.

Rizzo adds so much irony.

Even though Rizzo was not central in approving the CIA’s interrogation program, he paid the political price. During his confirmation hearing in the summer of 2007, the Senate intelligence committee was dissatisfied that he did not disavow the Justice Department’s 2002 “torture memorandum.” Rizzo, realizing the votes were not there for him, withdrew his nomination.

Now, less than a year after the confirmation debacle, Rizzo is trusted as “Acting” General Counsel to clean up the mess concerning the tapes with DOJ, the IG — and with the oversight committees. For all, Rizzo is both intermediary and a subject of investigation.

At the CIA, so much depends on the nuances. One person’s hypocrisy is another person’s irony. And Jay’s code has become this man’s call for a bit of candor.


John Radsan, associate professor at William Mitchell College of Law, is a former federal prosecutor and a former assistant general counsel at the CIA from 2002-2004

January 15, 2008