Showing posts with label John Ashcroft. Show all posts
Showing posts with label John Ashcroft. Show all posts

July 25, 2008

Previously secret torture memo released

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- The Bush administration told the CIA in 2002 that its interrogators working abroad would not violate U.S. prohibitions against torture unless they "have the specific intent to inflict severe pain or suffering," according to a previously secret Justice Department memo released Thursday.

Former U.S. Attorney General John Ashcroft testifies before Congress July 17 about waterboarding.

Former U.S. Attorney General John Ashcroft testifies before Congress July 17 about waterboarding.

The interrogator's "good faith" and "honest belief" that the interrogation will not cause such suffering protects the interrogator, the memo adds.

"Because specific intent is an element of the offense, the absence of specific intent negates the charge of torture," Jay Bybee, then the assistant attorney general, wrote in the memo.

The 18-page memo is heavily redacted, with 10 of its 18 pages completely blacked out and only a few paragraphs legible on the others.

Another memo released Thursday advises that "the waterboard," or simulated drowning, does "not violate the Torture Statute."

It also cites a number of warnings against torture, including statements by President Bush and a then-new Supreme Court ruling "which raises possible concerns about future U.S. judicial review of the [interrogation] Program."

A third memo instructs interrogators to keep records of sessions in which "enhanced interrogation techniques" are used. The memo is signed by then-CIA director George Tenet and dated January 28, 2003.

The memos were made public by the American Civil Liberties Union, which obtained the three CIA-related documents under Freedom of Information Act requests.

"These documents supply further evidence, if any were needed, that the Justice Department authorized the CIA to torture prisoners in its custody," said Jameel Jaffer, director of the ACLU National Security Project.

The Bush administration has consistently denied that the United States tortures detainees.

Reports say the CIA waterboarded three "high-value detainees," including Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, although former Justice Department official Daniel Levin suggested in congressional testimony in June that there had been more than three instances of the practice, which critics call torture.

The third document released Thursday was blacked out except for a line saying "Unless otherwise approved by Headquarters, CIA officers (redacted) may use only Permissible Interrogation Techniques. Permissible Interrogation Techniques consist of both (a) Standard Techniques and (b) Enhanced Techniques," plus the instruction for interrogators to keep records of sessions in which enhanced interrogation techniques are used.

June 19, 2008

WAR CRIMES DOSSIER: repost of 2004 torture article in Commondreams

U.N. Report Slams Use of Torture to Beat Terror
by Thalif Deen

UNITED NATIONS - No country can justify torture, the humiliation of prisoners or violation of international conventions in the guise of fighting terrorism, says a U.N. report released here.

The 19-page study, which is likely to go before the current session of the U.N. General Assembly in December, does not identify the United States by name but catalogues the widely publicized torture and humiliation of prisoners and detainees in Iraq and Afghanistan by U.S. troops waging the so-called ”war on terrorism.”


Bush is thumbing his nose at the international community and all those who respect human rights by nominating Gonzales. You cannot simply up and bolt from the Geneva Conventions and the Anti-Torture Convention. Gonzales is Ashcroft without the edges and the delirium and the baritone. But the policy will remain the same.

Matt Rothschild, editor of 'The Progressive' magazine
The hard line taken by the United Nations comes amidst the controversial appointment of a new U.S. attorney general, who has implicitly defended the use of torture against ''terrorists'' and ''terror suspects''.

On Wednesday, U.S. President George W Bush named White House legal counsel Alberto Gonzales as attorney general to succeed John Ashcroft, who announced his resignation last week.

In a now-infamous memo to the White House in January 2002, Gonzales argued that captured members of the former ruling Taliban regime in Afghanistan were not protected under the Geneva Conventions, which stipulate the treatment of prisoners of war (POWs). The United States has signed the Geneva Conventions.

The same policy was applied to prisoners in Abu Ghraib prison in Baghdad who were tortured and humiliated by U.S. troops following the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq in March 2003, raising outrage among human rights activists and other people worldwide.

The U.S. Army Criminal Investigation Command is now prosecuting several U.S. soldiers on criminal charges, including involuntary manslaughter, for their treatment of prisoners.

Gonzales has also described international conventions governing prisoners of war, including the Geneva Conventions, as ''obsolete.''

According to the author of the 19-page U.N. report, 'Torture, and other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment', ''The condoning of torture is, per se, a violation of the prohibition of torture.”

The study, by U.N. Special Rapporteur on Human Rights Theo van Boven, points out that ''legal argument of necessity and self-defense, invoking domestic law, have recently been put forward, aimed at providing a justification to exempt officials suspected of having committed or instigated acts of torture against suspected terrorists from criminal liability.''

But, Van Boven says, ''the absolute nature of the prohibition of torture and other forms of ill-treatment means that no exceptional circumstances whatsoever, whether a state of war or a threat of war, internal political instability or any other public emergency, may be invoked as justification for torture.''

Von Boven said he has received information ''on certain methods that have been condoned and used to secure information from suspected terrorists.''

He says these include, ''holding detainees in painful and-or stressful positions, depriving them of sleep and light for prolonged periods, exposing them to extremes of heat, cold, noise and light, hooding, depriving them of clothing, stripping detainees naked and threatening them with dogs.''

''The jurisprudence of both international and regional human rights mechanisms is unanimous in stating that such methods violate the prohibition of torture and ill-treatment,'' Von Boven adds.

In the aftermath of the Sep. 11, 2001 terrorist attacks on the United States, he says, ''thousands of persons suspected of terrorism, including children, have been detained, denied the opportunity to have legal status determined and prevented from having access to lawyers.''

Some of them, he adds, are said to be still held in solitary confinement, ''which in itself may constitute a violation of the right to be free from torture.''

Asked if he supports a call by Amnesty International for an independent commission to probe U.S. detention policies in Iraq and Afghanistan, Van Boven told reporters in October that such a probe is imperative.

''Whenever there are serious allegations of torture, investigations are absolutely necessary. And the results of these investigations should be made public because it's absolutely a public affair,'' said the special rapporteur.

In view of the U.N. position, the appointment of Gonzales as the new U.S. attorney general is a slap in the face of the international community, says Matt Rothschild, editor of 'The Progressive' magazine.

''Bush is thumbing his nose at the international community and all those who respect human rights by nominating Gonzales,'' Rothschild told IPS.

''You cannot simply up and bolt from the Geneva Conventions and the Anti-Torture Convention. Gonzales is Ashcroft without the edges and the delirium and the baritone. But the policy will remain the same,'' he added.

''It was Gonzales, along with Ashcroft and (Defense Secretary Donald) Rumsfeld and (Vice President Dick) Cheney, who signed off on tougher interrogation methods and on the hiding of prisoners from the International Red Cross,'' said Rothschild.

According to Francis A Boyle, who teaches international law at the University of Illinois, ''As White House counsel, Alberto Gonzales originated, authorized, approved and aided and abetted grave breaches of the Third and Fourth Geneva Conventions of 1949, which are serious war crimes.”

''In other words, Gonzales is a prima facie war criminal. He must be prosecuted under the Geneva Conventions and the U.S. War Crimes Act,'' Boyle told IPS.

In any event, the U.S. Senate must reject his nomination, because, as a presumptive war criminal, Gonzales is not fit to be attorney general of the United States, he continued.

''Should Gonzales travel around the world in that capacity, human rights lawyers such as myself will attempt to get him prosecuted along the lines of what happened to (former Chilean dictator) General (Pinochet,''
said Boyle, author of 'Destroying World Order'.

Jordan J Paust, law foundation professor at the University of Houston, agrees with Boyle's thesis.

'The denial of protections under the Geneva Conventions is a violation of the Geneva Conventions, and every violation of the laws of war is a war crime. Complicity in connection with war crimes (such as aiding and abetting the denial of protections) is also criminally sanctionable,''
Paust told IPS.

Thus, it appears Gonzales is reasonably accused of international criminal activity, he added, although he has the human right to be presumed innocent until proven guilty in a court of law that provides basic human rights to due process protections, ”that he chose to deny others with respect to the military commissions at Guantanamo Bay” (where Washington detains terror suspects).

''Whether or not Gonzales is guilty, the taint in this instance is surely enough to require that he not be confirmed in any U.S. governmental position, especially since the Bush administration has stated that it is still the policy of the United States to have a government under law and to promote the rule of law and human rights -- rights that are reflected also in the Geneva Conventions,'' Paust added.

''Making Alberto Gonzales the attorney general of the United States would be a travesty,'' says Michael Ratner, president of the Center for Constitutional Rights.

''It would mean taking one of the legal architects of an illegal and immoral policy and installing him as the official who is charged with protecting our constitutional rights. The Gonzales memo paved the way for Abu Ghraib,''
Ratner said in a statement issued Thursday.

###

March 27, 2008

Briana Waters: More DoJ skullduggery

Or .. how to take a person and turn them into an excuse to get more dollars for crooked people in goverment.

John Ashcroft and Robert Mueller are real architects of CRIME in the GWOT pyramid ...

See any corporate executives being prosecuted for environmental damage as TERRORISTS or held accountable for CRIMES AGAINST HUMANITY?

Expect Michael Mukasey to draw a line at this kinds of kangaroo court proceedings that are being held?

From Salon.com ...

V

Is Briana Waters a terrorist? In an alarming case, U.S. attorneys exploited post-9/11 counterterrorism laws to pursue and prosecute an environmental activist.
By Tracy Tullis
Is Briana Waters a terrorist?

In an alarming case, U.S. attorneys exploited post-9/11 counterterrorism laws to pursue and prosecute an environmental activist.

By Tracy Tullis

March 27, 2008 | In the early morning hours of May 21, 2001, a group of five men and women dressed in dark clothing and carrying backpacks crept close to the Center of Urban Horticulture on the University of Washington campus in Seattle. One of the intruders cut open a window of a ground-floor office; another climbed through it and placed a digital alarm clock wired to a 9-volt battery and a model-rocket igniter in the drawer of a filing cabinet. Next to the cabinet, he filled plastic tubs with gasoline. He set the timer and climbed back out the window.

Not long after, at about 3 a.m., a university security officer driving on his rounds saw "billowing smoke and flames" rising from the building. The building's cedar latticework had acted as kindling and the fire raced to the roof. From a city park a few miles away, the arsonists listened to the firefighters on an emergency scanner.

It took firefighters two hours to put out the flames. By that time the office where the fire had started had burned down to the studs, and the central hall and several botany labs were damaged. Damages were estimated at $2.5 million. The morning after the fire, agents from the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms sifted through the ash but found no fingerprints. Any hairs that might have yielded a DNA signature had been incinerated.

Ten days later, the Earth Liberation Front, a loose group of underground activists who had burned a horse-slaughtering plant, logging company headquarters, SUV dealerships and a luxurious Vail ski lodge built on mountain lynx habitat, claimed responsibility for the fire. The group explained that it had targeted the office of Toby Bradshaw, a plant geneticist who they believed was genetically engineering trees for the benefit of the timber industry. They said his research would "unleash mutant genes into the environment" and "cause irreversible harm to forest ecosystems."

Federal and local authorities launched an exhaustive investigation, code-named Operation Backfire. For nearly two years, the FBI had no real leads in the Washington case or 16 other ELF arsons. The Earth Liberation Front is a secretive, amorphous group, with no structure or leaders or formal membership. It is more of a movement than an organization; anyone with a rage against ecological destruction and a match can act in the name of the ELF. The FBI didn't know where to go looking for them.

In spring 2003, FBI agents finally got their first break. They closed in on Jacob Ferguson, a heroin-addicted drifter who played in a metal band called Eat Shit Fuckface, and who had insinuated himself into the radical environmental movement -- no doubt finding a convenient outlet for the pyromaniacal tendencies he'd exhibited since the age of 8.

Ferguson quickly turned informant. He admitted to setting the first fire attributed to the ELF in the United States, in 1996, and to 12 additional arsons, mostly in Oregon. Although many ELF "elves" knew only two or three others, Ferguson knew pretty much everyone. Prosecutors dispatched him across the country -- from Arizona to Massachusetts -- to meet with his former compatriots and record their conversations with a hidden wire. Soon the FBI was knocking on doors across the country.

Most of the suspected arsonists, if convicted, would face at least 30 years in prison. Lured with promises of reduced sentences, friends turned in friends, boyfriends offered up the names of girlfriends. Recriminations flew. Those who named names "have dishonored themselves ... by becoming vicious traitors and tools of the state," wrote two non-cooperators in the Earth First! journal. In 2006, the trail of accusations led the FBI to the door of a quiet 32-year-old violin teacher in Berkeley, Calif., named Briana Waters.

Earlier this month, on March 6, a federal jury in Tacoma, Wash., found Waters guilty of two counts of arson for serving as a lookout at the University of Washington fire. According to two women who testified against her in return for dramatically reduced sentences, Waters hid in a shrub near the Center for Urban Horticulture with a walkie-talkie, ready to alert the others if the campus police strolled by. Waters testified she wasn't even in Seattle that night.

Although Waters was on trial for only the University of Washington arson, Assistant U.S. Attorney Andrew Friedman charged that she was part of a conspiracy -- a member of a "prolific cell" of the Earth Liberation Front, responsible for 17 fires set in four states over five years. Ten conspirators have pleaded guilty and been sentenced; four have fled the country; three are awaiting sentencing. Waters, the only one of the accused to have pleaded innocent and therefore the only one to have stood trial, now faces 20 years in prison.

The group's alleged ringleader, William Rodgers, avoided a trial in his own way. From his jail cell in Flagstaff, Ariz., two weeks after his arrest in December 2005, he wrote, "I chose to fight on the side of the bears, mountain lions, skunks, bats, saguaros, cliff roses and all things wild. But tonight ... I am returning home, to the Earth, the place of my origins." He placed a plastic bag over his head and suffocated himself. According to medical records, Rodgers was found with his right arm raised, his hand held tight in a fist -- the Earth First! symbol of resistance.

Prosecutors celebrated the guilty verdict against Waters as a signal victory in the campaign against "eco-terror," a mission that the U.S. Department of Justice has made the centerpiece of its domestic counterterrorism program. "This cell of eco-terrorists thought they had a 'right' to sit in judgment and destroy the hard work of dedicated researchers at the UW and elsewhere," U.S. Attorney Jeffrey Sullivan declared in announcing Waters' conviction. "Today's verdict shows that no one is above the law."

Civil libertarians draw a different moral from the verdict. For them it is evidence of how the Justice Department has exaggerated the threat of eco-sabotage; they see Waters' story as a disturbing example of the misuse of federal authority and the excessive reach of the American counterterrorism program in the wake of 9/11. As Lauren Regan, director of the Civil Liberties Defense Center in Eugene, Ore., remarks: "There's a question of whether burning property is really the equivalent of flying a plane into a building and killing humans."

Briana Waters wouldn't seem to fit the profile of a dangerous terrorist. The daughter of an engineer and a stay-at-home mother, Waters was raised in suburban Philadelphia and migrated west to attend Evergreen State College in Olympia, Wash., a magnet for left political activists. She has long, straw-colored hair and blue-gray eyes, and always seems to hold her shoulders forward, like a girl who is shy about being tallest in her sixth-grade class. At Evergreen, she became head of the campus animal rights organization and led nature hikes through the nearby woods, teaching people how to identify native plants.

In her senior year, she participated in a prolonged campaign to prevent logging in the old-growth forest on Watch Mountain, part of the Cascade Mountain range. Her senior project was a documentary film about the protest, an elegy to the cooperation between Earth First! members and the residents of a small town, who together climbed into the canopy and refused to come down for five months, until Congress promised the public lands would not be handed over to the timber company. The protest saved 28,000 acres of wilderness.

Kim Marks, an Evergreen graduate who joined the tree-sit, remembers Waters playing her violin as she perched in the treetops. "It was the most amazing thing to be 120 feet up in the canopy and hear this beautiful fiddle music floating through the forest," Marks says.

Waters certainly brushed up against the radical environmentalist milieu, even if she was not one of the "elves." Her boyfriend at the time, fellow Evergreen student Justin Solonz, has been indicted for building the device that sparked the Center for Urban Horticulture fire, and she was friendly with others in the ELF underground.

But Waters has insisted she had nothing to do with underground activities. She testified at her trial that in May 2001, the month of the arson, she was busy promoting her film, showing it to college audiences on the West Coast. She has no specific recollection of where she was on the 21st; most likely, she said, she was sleeping at home in Olympia. She told the jury that the Watch Mountain protest, especially her experience building bridges between students and locals, and even logging families, impressed her as a model of sound activism, and confirmed her belief that more extreme measures, like arson, were "alienating" and counterproductive.

As it turned out, the University of Washington Horticulture building was a poor target for arson. Among the items destroyed were hundreds of photographs documenting plant regeneration on Mount St. Helens after the volcanic eruption, research on wetlands and prairie restoration, and a collection of rare showy stickseed plants that were being raised to replenish dwindling wild stocks in the Cascade Mountains. Bradshaw, the targeted professor, has said that although he had considered doing genetic engineering, he was not at the time of the fire. Rather he was conducting basic research on hybrid poplars, a fast-growing species that could reduce the pressure for logging in natural forests.

About a year after the fire, in 2002, Waters left her college town and moved to Berkeley, where she made her living teaching children violin and playing in Balkan and Irish folk music groups. She met her partner, John Landgraf, a carpenter, at a summer music retreat, and had a baby girl, Kalliope. She had little contact with the radicals she'd met in Olympia, and was only marginally involved in environmental causes.

But while Waters had moved away from the old radical environmental circles, the hunt for "eco-terrorists" was intensifying. During the 1990s, the FBI's domestic terrorism division focused on militias, white supremacists and cults like the Branch Davidians. But after 9/11, the agency began shifting its priorities.

Then-Attorney General John Ashcroft and FBI director Robert Mueller decided "they were going to restructure the FBI as a terrorism prevention organization rather than just a crime-fighting organization," explains Ben Rosenfeld, a civil rights attorney in San Francisco. The FBI vastly expanded its domestic and international terrorism capabilities, adding whole new categories of crime to its terrorism portfolio. Acts once considered property crimes -- like the arson at the University of Washington -- were now assigned not to the bureau's criminal division but to the terrorism division.

In testimony before a Senate committee in February 2002, James Jarboe, the FBI's domestic terrorism chief, alerted the public to this new mission, warning that the ELF and its sister organization, the Animal Liberation Front, had become a "serious terrorist threat." By May 2005, agents in 35 FBI offices would be investigating 104 separate incidents of "animal rights/eco-terrorist activities," including the fires set by the ELF in the Pacific Northwest.

In the wake of 9/11, federal prosecutors had some new legal tools at their disposal. Historically, the crime of terrorism has required civilian deaths. In fact, the State Department defined terrorism as "premeditated politically motivated violence perpetrated against non-combatants." But the USA Patriot Act created a new category of domestic terrorism, which is defined as an offense "calculated to influence or affect the conduct of government" or "to intimidate or coerce a civilian population." Under this broad definition, eco-saboteurs become terrorists if their crime seeks to change government policy or action.

Several Republican members of Congress didn't want to stop there. In a letter sent to eight mainstream environmental groups such as the Sierra Club, Colorado Rep. Scott McInnis and six other congressmen demanded that respectable environmental organizations "publicly disavow the actions of eco-terrorist organizations." In 2006, Congress passed the Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act, which imposes severe punishments on anyone who "intentionally damages or causes the loss of any real or personal property used by an animal enterprise."

During her trial at the Union Station Courthouse in Tacoma, Waters sat straight in an oversize leather chair, her hair pulled back in a rubber band. She wore gold wire-rimmed glasses and sometimes bit her nails as she listened to the proceedings.

In his opening statement before the jury, Assistant U.S. Attorney Friedman described how Rodgers, the unofficial leader of the University of Washington arsons, organized a series of instructional and strategizing meetings, which took place in five different cities. The group shared information on lock picking, reconnaissance, and the construction of devices that could ignite a fire. They also used the meetings to select targets and gather recruits for their "actions." They called their gatherings Book Club meetings because they communicated with coded messages, using passages from a book as the key. (At one meeting it was Ursula Le Guin's portentous novel "The Dispossessed"; at another, "The Only World We've Got," by environmental philosopher Paul Shepard.)

Waters and the other members of the group took "extraordinary measures," Friedman told the jury, to conceal their identities and their movements: adopting aliases, meeting in public places not associated with any of them, building their incendiary devices in a "clean room" to eliminate DNA evidence. The ELF activists were "organized in cells so if some are discovered the others can continue," Friedman explained. "It's a classic structure for a terrorist or a guerrilla organization."

On the witness stand, Waters declared that she never had an alias, never attended the clandestine Book Club meetings, and never saw any fire-starting device being built anywhere near her house. The prosecution argued that Waters had met with the arsonists at 8 p.m. in Seattle on the night of the crime. Defense lawyers presented a bank card receipt that shows Waters made a purchase at 7:12 p.m. in Olympia, 60 miles away, which would have made it difficult for her to have been in Seattle at 8 p.m.

The government's case against Waters rested heavily on the testimony of two informants, a radical journalist named Lacey Phillabaum and a yacht-racing aficionado with a master's degree in astrophysics named Jennifer Kolar. Both testified Waters was the lookout on campus that night.

Yet as Waters' defense attorneys pointed out, their initial statements to the FBI about the University of Washington fire contradicted one another. Kolar, who worked in high-tech jobs in Seattle and used her expertise to teach encryption at the Book Club meetings, apparently did not identify Waters as a co-conspirator the first time she was interviewed by the FBI in December 2005; instead, she named four others, giving their aliases. Neither did she identify Waters the next four or five times she spoke with the authorities.

During the trial, FBI special agent Anthony Torres acknowledged that nearly two months before Kolar named Waters as a participant in the arson, she'd been shown a photo of Waters and had identified her by name. But she did not say then that Waters had been involved. It was only several weeks after Kolar's first FBI interview, during the time she was seeking to trade information for an advantageous plea deal, that she told her lawyer that she suddenly "remembered" Waters had been at the Center for Urban Horticulture that night. A third cooperating defendant, Stanislas Meyerhoff, who had earlier implicated Phillabaum, his own fiancée, in the fire, told investigators that he was "familiar" with Waters but that she was "not involved" in the arson.

During the tense three-week trial, Waters' lawyers accused the prosecution of misconduct, including falsification of FBI reports to conceal evidence favorable to her defense. Documents produced in court reveal that FBI agents taking notes during their first conversation with Kolar dutifully recorded that she specifically named four collaborators. None of the four was Waters. A typed version of that interview, admitted into evidence in the trial, says only that Kolar identified "Avalon" (the code name of Rodgers) and "some others."

The jury was unconvinced that these inconsistencies constituted reasonable doubt. Although the jurors could not reach a unanimous decision on several counts -- including a "destructive device" charge -- they convicted Waters on two counts of arson, each of which carries a minimum sentence of five years (running concurrently) and a maximum of 20. She could spend as much as two decades behind bars for allegedly holding a walkie-talkie.

"Obviously we were thrilled by the verdict," says First Assistant U.S. Attorney Mark Bartlett. "There is a price for people to pay for not showing any remorse, for not accepting responsibility. It will be up to the judge to determine how big a price that is."

Waters' lawyer, Robert Bloom, remains outraged. Prosecutors "used scare-mongering to get the jury to convict an innocent person," he says. "This is really a study in American prosecution. It was an absurdly slanted American prosecution."

If Waters encounters the full force of the government's anti-terror zeal, it will be when she is sentenced on May 30. Prosecutors have not yet decided whether to seek a "terrorism enhancement" -- a sentencing rule that was written into the federal sentencing guidelines in 1995, after the bombings in Oklahoma City and at the World Trade Center, and would allow the judge to add up to 20 years to her prison term if her crime can be construed as a terrorist act.

Prosecutors sought the enhancement for six of the 10 Operation Backfire arsonists, who have been sentenced already, a significant departure from legal convention. (Meyerhoff, despite his cooperation, received a 13-year sentence.) "Never before has the terrorism enhancement been applied where there were no deaths," says Lauren Regan of the Civil Liberties Defense Center.

If Waters spends more than the minimum of five years in prison, her sentence would be disproportionate to punishments received by other arsonists. "That would be a far harsher standard than fits the crime in a lot of arsons," says Heidi Boghosian, executive director of the National Lawyers Guild. James King, for example, a seasonal firefighter, set two fires in California's Cleveland National Park in the summer of 2001 in order to score some extra paydays. More than 50 acres of pristine wilderness were razed. King received a jail term of 30 months and a fine; he was also ordered to retire from the firefighting profession.

Today, as Waters sits in the Federal Detention Center in Seattle, awaiting sentencing, environmentalists and civil libertarians worry that her conviction may beat a path to more convictions, including of nonviolent protesters. In recent years, a number of states have passed laws aimed at eco-sabotage that could implicate law-abiding groups along with the lawbreakers. The American Legislative Exchange Council, a right-leaning, corporate-backed association of state legislators, has written legislation that defines any act of destruction aimed at protecting animal rights or punishing ecological despoilers as terrorism. At least 14 states have introduced bills since 2001 based on this model, and they have passed in Arizona, Ohio and Pennsylvania. The problem with such laws, says David Willett of the Sierra Club, is they can be used "to crack down on environmental groups engaged in legitimate activities as well."

Nonviolent protesters have already felt the heat. Documents obtained in 2005 by the ACLU reveal that the FBI has been surveying animal rights and environmental groups like People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals and Greenpeace, sending undercover agents to activist conferences and cultivating inside informants. Some of the documents suggest that the bureau was also attempting to link those groups with the ELF and ALF. The National Lawyers Guild reports that it receives calls regularly from environmental and animal-rights activists all over the country who had been contacted by the FBI after attending political events. "It has a chilling effect on free speech," says Guild director Boghosian, "and that's where the real damage to the Constitution is happening."

On March 3, while jurors in the Waters trial were deliberating, three luxury houses for sale in a suburban Seattle cul-de-sac called "Street of Dreams" -- a plot of land surrounded by wetlands -- were destroyed by fire. A banner at the scene pointed to the culprit: the Earth Liberation Front. The FBI immediately announced that the fire "is being investigated as a domestic terrorism act."

March 13, 2008

Torturegate: Centre for American Progress, Tortured LOGIC

Think Again: Catch-22 Revisited: The Bush Administration and the Public’s “Right to Know”

By Eric Alterman, George Zornick

March 13, 2008

While most of the media remains (understandably) obsessed with the hard-fought primary campaigns and a gubernatorial sex scandal torn from the pages of “Payton Place,” the Bush administration’s defense of torture—reminiscent of the dizzying Joseph Heller masterpiece,

Catch-22

—is not getting the attention it deserves.

President Bush has vetoed a bill that would have essentially prevented the CIA from engaging in torture, and the move was just upheld by Republicans in Congress. The legislative avenue for reversing the administration’s torture policy has been closed, for now, and all that’s left is the judiciary.

The Supreme Court, of course, has long since agreed with the Bush administration’s Catch-22 argument about its alleged right to torture. To sue the administration, you need to come to us with knowledge. But hey, you can’t have the knowledge because the government is not required to reveal interrogation methods due to national security concerns.

“That’s some catch, there, that Catch-22,”
observes the novel’s anti-hero, Yossarian.
“The best there is,”
comes the reply. Works every time…

Withholding information on the CIA’s interrogation methods is a stunning assertion of executive secrecy seen time after time with the current federal government. The Bush administration has used secrecy to inoculate itself against accountability for a series of potentially unconstitutional or even criminal actions. Until the dark veil of secrecy is pulled back, we can’t possibly ensure that the government is acting in accordance with the Constitution.

In the case of Khaled al-Masri, who claims he was abducted in Afghanistan and tortured by the United States, the U.S. government sought dismissal of his case under the “state secrets privilege,” contending that if they revealed any details about al-Masri’s treatment, it would compromise national security. Circuit courts agreed and tossed the case, and the Supreme Court refused al-Masri’s appeals.

Of course, al-Masri’s lawyers, along with the ACLU, argue that the use of state secrets privilege in this case twists its original meaning—the privilege is meant to shield specific evidence in an ongoing trial, not to throw an entire case out the window before it even starts.

The Supreme Court established the state secrets privilege in 1953 in a case brought by the families of three civilians who died in a military plane crash. The families wanted the accident report entered into evidence, but the government refused because the plane was part of a secret mission and had secret equipment on board. The accident report was kept hidden, but the case proceeded. Now, with al-Masri’s case dismissed on state secrets grounds alone, the law is being twisted so as to essentially immunize the federal government in any matter where national security secrets are involved, according to the ACLU.

The protection given to national security secrets has been frequently invoked by the current administration in cases where they wish to remain free from legal challenges. A number of National Security Agency employees told the Wall Street Journal that they are concerned the agency may be “overstepping its authority by veering into domestic surveillance,” but the administration has never been satisfactorily above board about who the agency is monitoring and how, which makes a fair assessment of the program impossible.

The administration dragged its feet on telling Congress anything about the NSA’s spying activities, earning an angry rebuke from Senators Patrick Leahy (D-VT) and Arlen Specter (R-PA) last year when they were debating legislative action on domestic surveillance. The senators’ letter stated, “You have rebuffed all requests for documents and your answers to our questions have been wholly inadequate and, at times, misleading.”

When Bush officials were faced with legislation that would hold telecommunication companies accountable for breaking the law on behalf of the administration, they kept the details of the program secret even while promoting its necessity.

“The telephone companies that were alleged to have helped their country after 9/11 did so because they are patriotic and they certainly helped us and they helped us save lives,”
White House spokeswoman Dana Perino told the press on February 12. This odd logical knot—they were “alleged” to have helped, but “did so” because they are patriotic—gets at the heart of the administration’s secrecy: it refuses to recognize official recognition of any program whose existence might lead to legal challenges.

As in the al-Masri case, if there is no official knowledge of a program, it cannot be challenged in court. That’s why the administration won’t acknowledge the existence of certain programs or methods even when it implies that they are necessary. The administration actually heralds the idea of warrantless wiretapping, but almost always adds that, by the way, we may not actually be doing any. It heralds the necessity of keeping all options open when it comes to interrogation, but also, we don’t torture. This secretive subterfuge prevents any actual legal or legislative examination of what the government is actually doing.

The Bush administration’s secrecy isn’t just wielded via claims of national security secrets. In more straightforward ways, the administration is trying to keep prying eyes away from its conduct. For example, several White House staffers are refusing to cooperate with a congressional investigation into the U.S. Attorney firings, despite subpoenas demanding their presence.

Most glaringly, as we wrote about here in January, the Bush administration attempted to essentially de-fund the Office of Government Information Services, which handles Freedom of Information Act requests. These routine requests, which allow journalists and the public access to many records and information on the doings of the federal government, were under attack as soon as President Bush took office.

Attorney General John Ashcroft lowered the government’s burden for denying FOIA requests, and the Justice Department began charging exorbitant “administrative” fees for releasing documents under FOIA. There is no conclusion other than that the current government would prefer citizens have as little information about its doings as possible.

While there hasn’t been much in the way of discussion or debate about these tactics in the mainstream media of late, efforts to shine a light on them are more than welcome. Next week, the American Society of Newspaper Editors is holding Sunshine Week, a national initiative aimed at elevating discussion of issues of transparency and the public’s right to know what its government is doing in its name.

To be honest, I haven’t read Catch-22 in some decades, but I remember this: it ends badly.

Eric Alterman is a Senior Fellow at the Center for American Progress and a Distinguished Professor of English at Brooklyn College, and a professor of journalism at the CUNY Graduate School of Journalism. His blog, "Altercation," appears at

http://www.mediamatters.org/altercation.

His seventh book, Why We’re Liberals: A Political Handbook for Post-Bush America, has just been released by Viking.

George Zornick is a New York based writer.



March 12, 2008

When does the military boondoggle stop? Ashcroft is now the MAN.


Ashcroft defends lucrative contract
POST-DISPATCH WASHINGTON BUREAU CHIEF
03/12/2008
John Ashcroft testifies
MARCH 11, 2008-- Former U.S. Attorney General John Ashcroft testifies.

WASHINGTON — Even for a former attorney general, John Ashcroft's recent bill for monitoring an Indiana company accused of wrongdoing raised eyebrows: a $750,000 monthly fee plus what one member of Congress said amounted to $895 an hour, adding up to more than $7.5 million over five months.

An invoice with those charges submitted by Ashcroft's company sparked debate in a House Judiciary subcommittee Tuesday on how the Justice Department awards such contracts and whether Ashcroft's selection by a U.S. attorney who once worked for him was a conflict of interest.

Ashcroft defended the contract to monitor Zimmer Holdings Inc., one of several manufacturers of orthopedic devices charged last year with violating anti-kickback laws. Under a deferred prosecution agreement with the Justice Department, Zimmer is scheduled to pay Ashcroft's company between $27 million and $52 million over 18 months.

No government money is involved. But Rep. Linda Sanchez, D-Calif., chairwoman of the panel, said she worried that Ashcroft, a former Missouri senator, had received "what appeared to be a backroom, sweetheart deal" when chosen by U.S. Attorney Christopher Christie of New Jersey, who was under Ashcroft when Ashcroft was attorney general.

"I also was concerned … that Mr. Ashcroft was selected with no public notice and no bidding, and that he had to use considerable time to prepare for the assignment and learn more about the business that he was contracted to monitor," Sanchez said.

Those assertions did not sit well with Ashcroft.

"This hearing cost far more in tax dollars than my monitorship will cost because it did not cost taxpayers one thin dime," Ashcroft said. "There is not a conflict. There is not an appearance of a conflict."

Ashcroft said his firm did not charge an hourly fee, which was cited by Rep. Hank Johnson, D-Ga., but defended the fees as appropriate, given the complexity of the contract. He said his Washington-based consulting firm, The Ashcroft Group LLC, had assembled a team of 30 professionals for the contract, including former government lawyers, ex-FBI agents and accountants.

He deflected questions about what led to his selection but acknowledged that it had occurred with Zimmer's approval. If Ashcroft certifies after 18 months that Zimmer complied with settlement terms, a criminal complaint against the company would be dismissed. The complaint grew out of allegations the company used fake consulting agreements to persuade surgeons to use its products.

Ashcroft had initially declined to testify but changed his mind after the Judiciary Committee scheduled a vote last month to subpoena him. Citing terms under which he agreed to appear, Ashcroft left the panel hearing before noon, saying he needed to catch a plane to make a speaking engagement in Florida.

On Monday, the Justice Department announced that it was changing policies for deferred-prosecution agreements, in which companies agree to monitoring as an alternative to criminal prosecution.

Instead of permitting a single U.S. attorney from outside Washington to appoint a monitor, the Justice Department said that in the future, monitors would be picked by committees in the department with the approval of the deputy attorney general.

Rep. Bill Delahunt, D-Mass., a former prosecutor, told Ashcroft he was
"shocked that the company was consulted as to whether you were acceptable. There ought to be something better than receiving the imprimatur of a company that, I suspect, was involved in wrongdoing. That is disturbing to me."


Republicans on the committee accused Democrats of taking Ashcroft to task unfairly. "There is probably not a lawyer in America who has the credentials Mr. Ashcroft has," said Rep. Chris Cannon, R-Utah.

October 20, 2007

FRONTLINE tells the story of what's formed the views Dick Cheney -- the man behind what some view as the most ambitious project to reshape the power of the president in American history.

Introduction

vice president cheney and president george w. bush

Vice President Dick Cheney and President George W. Bush.

For three decades Vice President Dick Cheney conducted a secretive, behind-closed-doors campaign to give the president virtually unlimited wartime power. Finally, in the aftermath of 9/11, the Justice Department and the White House made a number of controversial legal decisions. Orchestrated by Cheney and his lawyer David Addington, the department interpreted executive power in an expansive and extraordinary way, granting President George W. Bush the power to detain, interrogate, torture, wiretap and spy -- without congressional approval or judicial review.

Now, as the White House appears ready to ignore subpoenas in the investigations over wiretapping and U.S. attorney firings, FRONTLINE examines the battle over the power of the presidency and Cheney's way of looking at the Constitution.

"The vice president believes that Congress has very few powers to actually constrain the president and the executive branch," former Justice Department attorney Marty Lederman tells FRONTLINE. "He believes the president should have the final word -- indeed the only word -- on all matters within the executive branch."

After Sept. 11, Cheney and Addington were determined to implement their vision -- in secret. The vice president and his counsel found an ally in John Yoo, a lawyer at the Justice Department's extraordinarily powerful Office of Legal Counsel (OLC). In concert with Addington, Yoo wrote memoranda authorizing the president to act with unparalleled authority.

"Through interviews with key administration figures, Cheney's Law documents the bruising bureaucratic battles between a group of conservative Justice Department lawyers and the Office of the Vice President over the legal foundation for the most closely guarded programs in the war on terror," says FRONTLINE producer Michael Kirk. This is Kirk's 10th documentary about the Bush administration's policies since 9/11.

In his most extensive television interview since leaving the Justice Department, former Assistant Attorney General Jack L. Goldsmith describes his initial days at the OLC in the fall of 2003 as he learned about the government's most secret and controversial covert operations. Goldsmith was shocked by the administration's secret assertion of unlimited power.

"There were extravagant and unnecessary claims of presidential power that were wildly overbroad to the tasks at hand," Goldsmith says. "I had a whole flurry of emotions. My first one was disbelief that programs of this importance could be supported by legal opinions that were this flawed. My second was the realization that I would have a very, very hard time standing by these opinions if pressed. My third was the sinking feeling, what was I going to do if I was pressed about reaffirming these opinions?"

As Goldsmith began to question his colleagues' claims that the administration could ignore domestic laws and international treaties, he began to clash with Cheney's office. According to Goldsmith, Addington warned him, "If you rule that way, the blood of the 100,000 people who die in the next attack will be on your hands."

Goldsmith's battles with Cheney culminated in a now-famous hospital-room confrontation at Attorney General John Ashcroft's bedside. Goldsmith watched as White House Counsel Alberto Gonzales and Chief of Staff Andy Card pleaded with Ashcroft to overrule the department's finding that a domestic surveillance program was illegal. Ashcroft rebuffed the White House, and as many as 30 department lawyers threatened to resign. The president relented.

But Goldsmith's victory was temporary, and Cheney's Law continues the story after the hospital-room standoff. At the Justice Department, White House Counsel Gonzales was named attorney general and tasked with reasserting White House control. On Capitol Hill, Cheney lobbied Congress for broad authorizations for the eavesdropping program and for approval of the administration's system for trying suspected terrorists by military tribunals.

As the White House and Congress continue to face off over executive privilege, the terrorist surveillance program, and the firing of U.S. attorneys, FRONTLINE tells the story of what's formed the views of the man behind what some view as the most ambitious project to reshape the power of the president in American history.

home . introduction . watch online

Cheney's Law

A teacher's guide for Cheney's Law will be available in early November. For more information on FRONTLINE teacher resources, sign up here for the FRONTLINE Planner, an e-mail newsletter specifically for teachers.

ShareThis