WAR CRIMES DOSSIER: US government data show President ordered FBI agents to contact Wecht Jury

Subj: US government data show President ordered FBI agents to contact Wecht Jury

The Department of Justice Inspector General's office
shows the FBI has engaged in
illegal jury tampering.

The DOJ IG report and DOD data show the President ordered the FBI to question Wecht Jury members. The classified White House, DoJ, and DoD emails disclose names and establish the link between the President, the IT security industry, and information warfare against the jury members.

The DOJ IG report establishes a higher nexus outside DOJ including the President and White House. There is a striking contrast between FBI conduct in re FBI war crimes investigation (in action, appeal to standards) and the FBI contact with Wecht Jury members (meddling, defiance of standard).

The classified DoD emails establish the link between the President, DoD, DOJ and information warfare against civilians, largely contradicting DoD guidance.

Breach of FOIA Requirements For Unlawful Purposes

The redactions do not protect privacy, but (unsuccessfully) thwart oversight and examination of DoD connection through contractors to offensive and defensive coordination with NSA on information warfare against civilians.

No Right To See War Crimes Evidence

The President and legal counsel are denied the right to review how the classified DoD emails were reviewed; or what evidence on those classified emails show the link between the President and illegal information warfare against jury members. Legal counsel may request copies of this war crimes evidence through the war crimes prosecutor.

Inconsistent Story On FBI Involvement

The President cannot explain the contrast between the FBI actions in re POW and Wecht. The President cannot explain why the FBI agents did not object to the home interviews, but they did object to Geneva.

On the POW issues, the DOJ IG would have us believe the FBI was not following Geneva because the guidance was unclear. However, the DoD JAG comments show the opposite: The decision to not investigate had nothing to do with vague guidance or anything that would block the FBI.

The DoD JAG memos sows FBI agents were concerned about procedures. Something or someone higher than DOJ blocked investigations. No DOJ guidance blocked any investigation. The US Attorney was not, as they should have been, involved in war crimes investigations in violation of Geneva. The US Attorney cannot explain why they reversed themselves and were involved with FBI interviews of jury members.

The DOJ IG report shows efforts to discredit the FBI do not reconcile with the DOD JAG reports. DoD IG fails to discuss POW abuse, and misdirects to the "uncertainty" over torture. Geneva expressly prohibits all abuse. Nuremberg establishes the precedent for enforcing the laws of war. DOJ IG cannot explain this many years after Nuremberg, why the FBI agents were absurdly actively thwarted with "vague" guidance; but there was no FBI investigation of things they were concerned about.

US Attorney Failure To Enforce Nuremberg Precedents

The US attorney did not adequately involve themselves on US prosecutions of war crimes. Inexplicably, we're asked to believe the opposite in re Wecht: The US Attorney was involved.

The President cannot explain why the US Attorneys refused to act on Geneva; but did involve themselves in Wecht.

The President cannot explain why the US Attorney that had "no role" in blocking the FBI, did have a role in guiding the FBI in re Wecht.

Discredited DOJ IG Report

We question the DOJ IG conclusions. The DoD IG report on FBI conduct is misdirection from the failure to enforce Geneva. Nothing in DOJ blocked the FBI. DoJ IG admits it did not review all DoD guidance related to investigations. The report does not adequately discuss which guidance FBI agents relied to not investigate.

Classified DoD Emails Establish Link Between President and Illegal Information Warfare

DoD emails establish a US government connection with information security, data mining, digital forensics, and security management. The classified versions of the DOD redacted emails show the key information to establish a link between the President, contractors, and NSA on domestic information warfare.

The President will have to explain why he is using government connected contractors to wage information warfare against US targets; and when Congress was told about these exercises to fine tune information warfare capabilities against China and Russia.

Information Warfare: Illegal US Civilian Intimidation

The DOD emails show there were specific, by-name US military personnel in Iraq conducting information warfare against American civilians, US government personnel, and American media.

The US government data shows the President ordered FBI to contact the Wecht Jury.

Digital Security Nexus Linked with FISA and Geneva Violations

The DOD emails show the nexus of information warfare, digital data forensics, and security management was a secondary role of the Public affairs personnel linked with US military advisers. DoD public affairs office and security contractors have an offensive and defensive information warfare role.

The US Attorney was connected with the data forensics conference in 2007 discussing digital data forensics. By name White House and DOJ officials are linked with these discussion, substantially mirroring the classified versions of the DoD emails.

Wecht judge cancels 2nd date for trial
Pittsburgh Tribune-Review, PA - 19 May 2008
... into the pool for future jury duty. Wecht, 77, of Squirrel Hill is accused of using his public office while Allegheny County coroner for personal gain. ...

Appeals court: Hold up on that Wecht retrial Pittsburgh Tribune-Review, PA - 9 May 2008 By The Tribune-Review An appeals court agreed to delay the start of Dr. Cyril H. Wecht's second federal public corruption trial. Jury selection was set to ... Wecht Retrial Delayed By Federal Appeals Court WPXI.com Court puts indefinite stay on Wecht trial Pittsburgh Post Gazette Appeals court stays pathologist Wecht's retrial Philadelphia Inquirer Anchorage Daily News (subscription) - The Oregonian - OregonLive.com all 18 news articles »

Oral arguments scheduled in Cyril Wecht appeal
Pittsburgh Post Gazette, PA - 15 May 2008
The 11-person jury was unable to reach a unanimous verdict, however, and US District Judge Arthur J. Schwab declared a mistrial on April 8. Dr. Wecht's ...

See also:

President Left Calling Card in Wecht Jury Home Visits: Mary Buchanan's FBI Problem

From TPM Muckraker

The US Attorney in re the Wecht Case knew or should have known the FBI had a credibility problem.

The government would ask that we believe Buchanan supposedly knew something about the FBI, enough to supposedly order them to do something.

FBI agents "interviewed" Wecht Jury Members at their home, prompting Congressman Conyers to seek information from the Attorney General. AG Mukasey has not responded.

What Buchanan failed to mention in re the FBI home visits of Wecht Jury members was the small problem with Special Agent Bradley W. Orsini. Orsini at one time was a steller, sterling FBI agent, highly trained, weapon ceritified. With enough talent to be the FBI director, potential Senate nominee to lead the Department of Justice.

The Wecht Jury members raised concerns they were contacted at home by the FBI agents.

Buchanan has yet to explain why she alone directed the FBI to do anything given the cloud already hanging over the FBI. It defies reason for the US Attorney, on their own, to ignore the FBI discipline problem and send them to the homes of Wecht Jurors.

Special Agent Bradley W. Orsini discipline problem was so bad, Buchanan claimed the access to Orsini's personal data would be an invasion of privacy. Buchanan's "concern" and stellar legal arguments were not lost on the court, promptly ordering Orsini's records unsealed. And the White House is surprised the prosecutors didn't convince the jury?

This wasn't a minor problem with the FBI. This agent alone had four (4) DOJ OPR investigations into that agent between 1997 and 2000. Who does Buchanan, on her own, supposedly think is the "best" group to contact the Jury members?

We're asked to believe the first agency the US Attorney thought of when getting information from jurors were agents whose peers' idea of a "professional interaction" include:

Singing other agents' names to investigation reports because, "It was a convenience and a shortcut" -- Send these people to take notes about why Jury members were doing things?

Falsifying a chain of custody forms Prohibited sexual relations -- Send these people to jury members homes?

Threats against a subordinate -- Send these people in groups before jury members at home?

Damage government propery with fists by punching holes in office walls -- Send these people to jurors' homes?

Made unprofessional and insensitive remarks -- Send these people to talk to jury members?


Buchanan knew or should have know the above conduct was linked direct to one of the FBI agents involved with the case. It defies reason to suggest she didn't know. Buchanan said of the FBI agent:

The release of his personal information "would constitute an invasion of Agent Orsini's personal privacy".

Buchana's response? Rather than respecting the court order or the privacy of the jury members, she sends the tainted FBI back into the nexus, as if to dare the public: "Watch us." Did she get, 'em?

It defies reason to believe a US Attorney who knew there were problems with the FBI, and who hoped to keep that agents' records sealed, to then inexplicably reverse herself, cast aside caution, send the FBI in, and do the opposite with the juror names that she did with the FBI agent's case file. How many reversals has the President made on the Constitution, Iraq WMD, and "mission accomplished". His head has spun so many times, we need not question whether its still connected.

It defies reason to believe the US Attorney hoping to preserve the privacy of an FBI agent over discipline problems would reverse herself, unleash the FBI, and violate a court order. Buchanan most likely attempted to block the order to interact with the Wetch Jurors, and knew there would be a very bad public relations problem.

We've seen this president ignore discipline problems and DOJ OPR findings before. He blocked the DOJ OPR from reviewing the FBI. This President's idea of a loyal FBI agent is one who lies, abuses people, and misleads the FISA court.

It gets better. Who are the people who abused the NSLs and conducted warrantless searches? That's right, the FBI. The same FBI that were

"infected with deliberate and reckless falseshoolds"

Nobody should be surprised why the DoJ can't give a straight story on the FBI interviews of Wecht Jury members. They've gagged the DOJ OPR that might find the truth. Nobody but the President could be stupid enough to believe anyone could get away with using the same FBI agents -- who violated the Constitution and engaged in multiple disciplinary problems the DOJ OPR documented -- to conduct home visits of jury members.

This is the President's calling card he's leaving with Iraqi civilians. Send in the reckless to abuse people, and find someone else to blame. War crimes in Iraq. Jury tampering in America.

Same peas. Same stench of criminal activity. Only the President could issue such a stupid, reckless order to ignore common sense and DOJ OPR findings. His answer to bad news in the wake of his reckless decisions: Send in the people you would think would be the least helpful.

This is the same story as with the Iraq WMD, Iraq, and Guantanamo. This President creates a mess, and people are too shocked to believe this President might be involved. Prisoner abuse, torture, war crimes, illegal invasion: We've got those DOJ OLC memos.

But the President directing the FBI to conduct non-permitted jury contact. Child's play. There are holes in the wall to prove it. The chairs were destroyed. There were no WMD's under the President's carpet in his office.

"Never happened."

Memo to Federal Employees: When Is It Ethical to Break the Law? by Stephen Pizzo

Posted on March 8, 2008 by dandelionsalad

Dandelion Salad

by Stephen Pizzo
The Smirking Chimp
March 6, 2008

When is it ethical to fight illegality with illegality? Tough question. Dangerous question.

Nevertheless history is full of now celebrated events that, when boiled down to their essence, amounted to illegal acts that changed nations, changed the world. Revolutions are, for example, the mother of all illegal acts against a state. Yet they are more often than not, celebrated — at least by the victors.

This is dangerous territory, to be sure. Breaking the law to achieve higher ends can be a calculation of monumental subjectivity. Nearly every tyrant in history has had their own list of justifications and claimed lofty goals to justify their lawless actions — including the current occupant of the White House.

But history also tells many a tale of oppressed, abused and exploited populations, forced by the illegal actions of their rulers, to break the law in order to break free themselves of lawless rulers.

Sadly, we live in such times, and in such a country. Over the past seven years the Bush administration and it’s Neo-con supporters have broken nearly every law of State that matters. They have waged an illegal war, kidnapped people, held people without trial and without representation. They have usurped the constitution’s central tenants mandating the separation of powers. They have lied to Congress, lied to the courts, lied to their own people and lied to the world community.

Oh hell, you know the list. There’s more. Lots more. Likely more than we now know.

And, at least so far, they’ve gotten away with it. How? Simple as pie. All they’ve had to do is withhold or destroy the documentary evidence of their crimes.

When the GOP controlled Congress the administration had hundreds of accomplices in this crime. When Democrats regained control of Congress the administration was on its own and resorted to lying under oath, hiding documents and, when that failed, destroyed them.. as they did with the over 5-million White House emails.

When we found out they were spying on us, with the help of the nations phone companies, they demanded Congress give the telecoms immunity from prosecution. Not because the give damn about the telecom’s getting sued, but because they know the telecoms, to save their asses, will spill the beans — the administration’s beans. So the administration has dug its heels in, demanding Congress immunize the telecoms — not to keep them on their side, but to keep them quiet.

(Out here in the real world that’s called “obstruction of justice and witness tampering.” )

Okay, but you know all this already. So what am I getting to.

Recently many of us learned about a web site with only one purpose in life: allowing whistleblowers to post documentation that the government and/or corporations don’t want us to see — ever. Those that objected tried to get it shut down and, for a couple of weeks nearly succeeded.

Wikileaks judge realizes you can’t enjoin the net
by Richard Koman March 3, 2008 @ 7:00 PM

So, the Wikileaks.org site is back online, after Federal Judge Jeffrey White dissolved his previous order, ordering the site’s U.S. registrar to pull it off the net. In reversing those orders, the judge focused on the First Amendment implications of taking the site down. But even more to the point, the judge noted with regret that his injunctions were just plain useless. (Full Story)

WikiLeaks is back and what I am about to suggest I do not suggest lightly. I am about to suggest that people break the law … which is itself… is breaking the law. (One of society’s little Catch-22’s.)

Since the Bush administration is now running out the clock on its two-terms of unpunished lawlessness, time is short. I know from my years of covering Washington that that town is chuck full of good people, employees working at the agency level. They are career government employees — Republicans, Democrats and Independents. And they’ve had a front row seat to what’s come down during the past seven years. And I am certain that many of them — maybe most of them — are as disgusted and outraged as you are.

* * *

(An aside: The Bush administration has used leaks to accomplish its own goals. For example, they thought leaking the identity Ambassador Joe Wilson’s CIA wife, Valerie Plame, was just the right way bolster their case for war against Iraq. So, in a strange, perverted way, the administration has shown the way for others in government who have stuff they believe could be “helpful” if released, legally or otherwise.)

* * *

Those career employees represent possibly our final hope of catching these guys red-handed. Because it is in their offices, in their files where the evidence lays .. the documents, them minutes of meetings, the executive orders, all the stuff this administration is determined never sees the light of day — or a court of law.

Let me be perfectly clear. I’m not talking about releasing truly sensitive classified intelligence. I’m talking about the kind of documents which, under any other administration would have been fully accessible to the Congress and the public through the Freedom of Information Act. I am talking about the regular business of government, the work-a-day documents of agencies like the FDA, FEMA, Treasury, HHS, and the DOJ. It is those documents which are being withheld because they prove this administration politicized those agencies violating laws in more ways than we can now even imagine.

I am quite certain that in some file in some employee’s Executive Office Building cubicle is the list of just who was on Dick Cheney’s Energy Task Force. In another office are the Executive Orders President Bush signed authorizing torture. In another office are documents showing how the religious right perverted federally-funded family planning operations. Some DOJ secretary is sitting on the evidence that would prove the White House tried to use the Dept. of Justice to suppress minority voting during the past two election cycles and tried to purge US Attorney’s around the country that refuse to bring politically motivated charges against Democratic candidates and office holders.

All that evidence, and mountains more, are destined for oblivion within the next nine months.

Until now federal employees in possession of evidence of a crime had no reasonably safe way of getting that evidence into the public’s hands.

WikiLeaks now offers a way — and in just the nick of time.

Of course breaking the law — even for laudable reasons — is inherently risky business and I can’t in good conscience encourage anyone to disregard the consequences by advising them to simply break the law. M means and ends must be thought through. The ethics of withholding or releasing such materials weighed and re-weighed and the possible consequences clearly understood.

Daniel Ellsberg understood the means, the justification, the ends he wished to achieve and accepted the risks. He broke the law and so doing, changed history.

* * *

(Another Aside: When I was covering banking agencies in Washington during the S&L crisis, federal regulators, unable to get their superiors to act against politically-connected rogues like Charles Keating, would slip me restricted documents. I would write a story and suddenly the agency heads would be forced to act. Finally one day two Treasury agents (with guns even) showed up at my office. They demanded to know who was leaking documents to me. I pointed to my filing cabinet and said,

“Listen you two, it’s all in those files — everything you want to know. I dare you to subpoena’s those files. Then you two better go looking for a new line of work. Because some of the names in those files are your own superiors.”

They left and I never heard a word about it after that. Had it not been for those leaks, to me and other reporters, the looting of the S&Ls would have gone on much longer, and cost taxpayers much more. Those leakers were — are — heroes, of a sort.)

* * *

So, if you’re one of those government workers, and you’re in the mood to blow the whistle on a crime, the URL is http://www.wikileaks.org/wiki/Wikileaks.

Time is short. The perps are already moving in the shredding machines. They are already making lists of the documents that will be sequestered in the yet-to-be-built Bush “Library” in Texas. By this November it will be too late. They will have succeeded. They will have escaped. The evidence of their crimes will be either destroyed or placed beyond reach.

The best disinfectant is, and always has been, the light of day.
_______
newsforreal.com

Stephen Pizzo is the author of numerous books, including “Inside Job: The Looting of America’s Savings and Loans,” which was nominated for a Pulitzer. His web site is News For Real.

FAIR USE NOTICE: This blog may contain copyrighted material. Such material is made available for educational purposes, to advance understanding of human rights, democracy, scientific, moral, ethical, and social justice issues, etc. This constitutes a ‘fair use’ of any such copyrighted material as provided for in Title 17 U.S.C. section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond ‘fair use’, you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.

see

US Court shuts down leaked doc emporium by Nick Juliano

Filed under: Bush-George W, CIA Leak Case, Cheney-Dick, Dandelion Salad News or Politics, Ellsberg-Daniel, Pizzo-Stephen P., Politics

« The meaning of Gaza’s ‘shoah’: Israel plots another Palestinian exodus by Jonathan Cook Is the Revolution Over or Just Beginning? by Rand Paul »

1. Shaine B. Parker, on March 8th, 2008 at 6:10 pm Said:

   This is great news. Indeed, “The best disinfectant is the light of day.”

2. Virginia Simson, on March 8th, 2008 at 8:34 pm Said:

   IT is the time of the Great Purification. computer linguistic runs say that 2008 is the year of “secrets revealed” and “eyes wide open” .. which I totallly believe.

   We have never seen SO much whistleblowing in the history of the planet.

   Cool by me!!

Post state of the union message ..

Whitehouse IS TAKING CALLS NOW.


1-202-456-1111

National Security Archive on WH tape erasures

National Security Archive Update, January 16, 2008

White House Admits No Back-Up Tapes for E-mail Before
October 2003

Responds to Court's Questions; Claims Not to Know Whether Critical
E-mails Were Erased

Despite Previously Acknowledging That as Many as 5 Million
E-mails are Missing, 

White House Now Tells a Different Story

Washington DC, January 16, 2008 - In response to a federal court order issued last week, the White House late last

night refused to acknowledge any missing e-mails, instead stating that it "has

undertaken an independent effort to determine whether there may be anomalies in

Exchange e-mail counts" during the 2003-2005 period. A sworn statement by the

Chief Information Officer of the White House Office of Administration filed with

U.S. federal court just before midnight admitted the White House had recycled its

e-mail back-up tapes before October 2003 and only began retaining the back-ups

starting at that point.

"It strikes me as odd that they recognized a problem and changed their practice

in 2003 to start saving the backups, but four-and-a-half years later they still

have not yet figured out whether or what e-mails were deleted," commented Meredith

Fuchs, the Archive's General Counsel. "It also is troubling that the problem may

have started before October 2003, and they acknowledge that back-ups prior to

that period were recycled and are gone."

"Two years after a special prosecutor concluded that key e-mails were missing from

the White House system administered by the Office of Administration, the White House

astonishingly now admits it has no back-up tapes from before October 2003 and doesn't

know if any e-mails are missing," said Tom Blanton, director of the National

Security Archive.

The loss of White House e-mails first surfaced on January 23, 2006, when prosecutors

in the Scooter Libby matter informed Mr. Libby's defense counsel that they were

unable to provide copies of e-mail records "because not all email records from the

Office of the Vice President and the Executive Office of President for certain time

periods in 2003 was preserved through the normal archiving process on the White House

computer system." The full scope of the problem was not appreciated until April 2007,

when Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW) issued a report

stating that over 5 million e-mails were missing throughout the Executive Office

of the President. At that time, White House spokesperson Dana Perino acknowledged

the lost e-mails.

Sheila L. Shadmand, counsel for the Archive, commented: "It is a victory to finally

get the White House to respond to the Archive�s claims, but somehow I suspect we

will have many battles ahead of us to preserve the documentary history of the

government for the American public."

"This declaration may mean that records about policy and decisions in the Executive

Office of the President are not entirely lost, but in many respects it raises more

questions. We still do not know what was lost, why it was lost, and what steps we

have to take to recover it--assuming it is still recoverable," explained Ms. Fuchs.

On January 8, Magistrate Judge Facciola of the U.S. District Court for the District

of Columbia ordered the White House to answer a series of questions about the missing

e-mails, asserting that the information was "time-sensitive" because any back-ups

of the missing e-mails "are increasingly likely to be deleted or overridden with the

passage of time." Judge Kennedy had previously ordered the preservation of e-mail

back-up tapes held by the Executive Office of the President (EOP) in the consolidated

lawsuits filed by the National Security Archive and Citizens for Responsibility

and Ethics in Washington (CREW).

National Security Archive Update, January 8, 2008

White House Must Answer Questions About
Missing White House E-mails, Magistrate Judge Rules

http://www.nsarchive.org 

Washington DC, January 8, 2008 - In an Order issued today, Magistrate Judge
Facciola of the United States District Court for the District of Columbia
ordered the White House to answer questions about over 5 million missing
e-mails generated between 2003-2005. Noting that the need for information
the missing e-mails is "time-sensitive" because of the risk that stored
copied of the e-mails "are increasingly likely to be deleted or overridden
with the passage of time," the Court demanded answers in a sworn declaration
by January 13, 2008 about the location of the missing e-mails.

"To date, the White House has evaded answering questions about whether it
permanently destroyed over 5 million e-mails about issues such as Hurricane
Katrina, the firing of United States Attorneys, and the exposure of Valerie Plame's
identity as a CIA agent," commented Meredith Fuchs, the Archive's General Counsel.
"This Order will force the Executive Office of the President to tell the public
whether it really erased key records of the nation's history or whether it has
ade any effort to preserve the information."

The order issued today come in National Security Archive v. Executive Office
of the President (EOP), et al. Previously, Judge Kennedy ordered the preservation
of EOP backup tapes and the consolidation of this case (filed September 5, 2007)
with Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW) v. Executive Office
of the President, et al. (filed September 25, 2007).

To date, the White House has had the following to say about the missing e-mails:

"I wouldn't rule out that there were a potential 5 million emails lost"
- Press Gaggle by Dana Perino (April 13, 2007)

"[W]e are aware that there could have been some emails that were not
automatically archived because of a technical issue."
- Press Briefing by Dana Perino (April 16, 2007)

"CREW has yet to provide any basis for their assertions -- be it their original
assertion, or their new claim. We are aware that some e-mails may not have been
automatically archived in the past, but they may be available on backup tapes.
Unlike what the liberal group CREW has asserted, we've never been without a backup
system. The Office of Administration at the White House has been maintaining and
preserving backup tapes for the official email system."
- Scott Stanzel, White House Spokesman

Were White House E-Mail Actions Illegal?:Salon

The White House is facing two lawsuits related to handling of e-mails. If the White House destroyed e-mails, it may have violated federal law. Legal analyst Dahlia Lithwick, of the online magazine Slate, talks to Madeleine Brand about a federal judge's order to preserve all White House e-mails.

13 November 2007 // Source: Dahlia Lithwick // NPR's Day to Day

Download 111307 - NPR - White House TRO.mp3

Worth a listen!!

White House gone mad!! "Crime has been commited when evidence is spoilated" LEGAL ASSUMPTION

Things to think about in the the White House email tape "recycling"

- Think about these things; discuss amongst yourselves. -

No, they did NOT "go green" - they've clearly broken the law

and that's what the law tells us to presume

For background see http://www.citizensforethics.org/node/30775

From the AP:

The White House has acknowledged recycling its backup computer tapes of e-mail before October 2003, raising the possibility that many electronic messages — including those pertaining to the CIA leak case — have been taped over and are gone forever.

The disclosure came minutes before midnight Tuesday under a court-ordered deadline that forced the White House to reveal information it has previously refused to provide.

Among the e-mails that could be lost are messages swapped by any White House officials involved in discussions about leaking a CIA officer's identity to reporters.

Before October 2003, the White House recycled its backup tapes "consistent with industry best practices," according to a sworn statement by a White House aide.

Backup tapes are the last line of defense for saving electronic records.

The White House (leader of the FREE world!! Champion for the victim's of the world's despots and terrorists!! (right) has made the announcement that under usual industry practice, (yeah, like the governnment is an industry!!) they've deleted all sorts of lovely emails that an serious investigation into crime and corruption needs to see.

FLASH!: The United States government's property belongs to the people, not to Bush and his advisors or staff.

The White House documentation of its activities is mandated by the US Constitution.

Heeeeeeeeeeel loooooooooo! Can't anyone remember that? Not Congress? Aren't they supposed to provide a little program called checks and balances? Some serious accusations are "on the table" and being investigated!! Do they know nothing about contemporary data storage and can't see the evidence right under their noses??

Pardon me! I was not aware that anything had changed, but apparently it has, as Pelosi&Co aren't screaming in outrage at the announcement. They've just been HAD.

Instead of cooing at their public (and in the confines of the rooms with their groomers), the Congress should get serious and use their voices to scream loud and long about this most recent obstruction of justice and wrench the media's blinders off so The People can see for themselves this latest affront. Congress does get paid to perform that duty for us. Nice large sums, too, compared to what we make.

People have known since Fitzgerald's review of Rove's computer that there was problems with the White House archiving.

Perhaps now would be the time review what problems were known; which software specifications were discussed; and which software products were identified that would meet the problems identified during the Fitzgerald investigation of the Plame-Name Outing. Never before has a US Intel agent been publically outted; and in light of the fact that it seriously endangered the investigation of nuclear proliferation (the Dr. AQ Khan case), surely this warrants some serious investigation.

THE WORLD IS WAITING. If the American people are not aware that things are rotted to the core at the White House, the world surely knows. What's it gonna take to get a proper investigation?

What's happened since Plamegate

What needs to be looked at now

Quite obviously the commutation of Scooter Libby's sentence is not the final chapter in the ongoing saga of investigation. Every story has a beginning, a middle and an end, and we, with Congressional help, are no further in finding out The Answers than we were many months ago; a good, solid middle of the story, I'd say.

What problems with White House procedures are still to be looked at??

Can we please take a look at which US government personnel knew of the problems with the software in the White house - but did not ensure the "new contract" included technical solutions to address the "archiving problems" the Grand Jury discovered.

[Ah, pardon me, but it is a streeeeeeeeeeeetch to believe that this was never taken up on behalf of the American people without someone colluding about it! Who purchases these contracts? Who reviews the purchases? What do they know about data collection - what do they know about archival responsibilities in government? Even if we hold them to their standard of conduct, why are things SO screwed up??]

Why is this problem with White House e-mail archiving, regardless the software issues, not getting addressed using some sort of "backup to the failed backup";

In light of the serious charges that come to light in JUST the outting of an intel community -- not taking into account other criminal irregularities --- why would some one responsible NOT look into a more permanent system of backup? An indestructable, fail safe system? With the cozy relationship between the White House and the Telecoms, surely someone from an ISP could have given them some "industry standard" advice as to what the companies to ensure that nothing gets lost? Okay, follow that logic!! Can you see my point?? But I guess that simple idea got lost on the White House staffers. Call Ma Bell, ask for a remedy to your backup problems!! SIMPLE, neat, easy -- but beyond the capabilities of the morons and criminals operating the White House computers? Even someone from a business college course could figure out that one. Ah, guess so. Any morons in any industry who couldn't figure this out, ask the experts or the name brand would be swiftly "downsized" and given a few weeks unemployment benefit. But the White House sure knows how to pick 'em!! The common variety of employee who would just "ask Bell" doesn't seem to be available to our CEO decider-in-chief. Try it yourself, put a query into google about it; you'll get DOZENS of answers. The destruction of perhaps as many as 10 million emails is rather a lot; something worth taking a bit of time to find out how to store at least SOME of them. Industry standards must be met - not just your idea of industry standards, eh Mr. President??

What was the plan Office of Personnel Management used to hire contractors and IT experts to transition the "bad" WH archiving system to a "better" one that did meet the legal requirements that were foreseeable, given the JAG-identified concerns in 2001 going forward that the International Criminal Court (ICC) could adjudicate alleged war crimes;

Or was its more convenient and less revealing to not have a plan? Again, war crimes complicity is implied in White House actions since the issue arose so long before the email g-- and other unknown data -- got "recycled". Now, if I was criminal and I wanted to ensure that I could continue doing my crimes, the one thing I would do is to ensure I left no traces. So, when anyone gets up to ignoring obvious calls to be accountable, I get more than just a bit suspicious. Why, did White House do this when indeed legal experts were raising this issue so early in the Bush administration, was nothing done to ensure that nothing would disappear from security archives?? And where is the mandated official scepticism on one would assume that Congress would have after the Judge Advocate Generals had already expressed their concerns? Congress kept funding the war, didn't it care if things were legal??

What summary can WH provide showing, after Fitzgerald's findings:

[a] there was an understanding of the problems;

[b] there was a review of the existing technical solutions;

[c] there was a program manager assigned to identify a solution and implement a solution that met the legal requirements; and

[d] there was a planned review to ensure the proposed plan, and implemented solution did address the foreseeable risks identified by Fitzgerald, and met the foreseeable legal interest of the ICC which the JAGs identified to DOJ OLC in 2001;

Thinking of the corporate standards that the White House says it has, where are the documents showing that they had an ACTION PLAN?? In the offices where I have worked when problems cropped up we put down the action steps, met as circumstacnces presented themselves, set target targets for resolutions of difficulties and expected people to meet imposed deadlines. Of course various strategies for resolutions would be proposed. Regular reviews of progress were expected. Any legal problems were expected to be addressed. And we didn't have legal eagles standing over our shoulders either. This is standard corporate/business procedures (SOP). Yet the White House doesn't seem to hold themselves accountable for even good business practices, let alone serving as a competent federal agency on what had been shown to be a potential legal problem!! What does the Chief of Staff not know about this usual procedure in any office that functions in today's world?? In light of the severity of the potential problems that were identified by JAGs -- WAR CRIMES -- surely this is not an accidental policy, and under the law (which they more than know, they contend) then wouldn't it be wise to ensure that the American people's interests were protected by good practices rather than letting them get tossed to the winds? There is also a transparency of government issue here, and a question of "historical record" that might have been addressed in such a plan. This is beyond gross incompetent as their discussion of "events" suggests. Pretty shabby "biz" practices, I'd say.

Was here no consideration for the JAG-related concerns at the POW working group meetings to _modernize_ the archiving system in the WH to meet the foreseeable risk ICC or other international tribunals would want information about the "foreseeable torture" (court words, civil case, former Guantanamo Prisoners of War) at the hands of US personnel;

Hey, Bush&Co - get with the program! This is modern times! Businesses keep up! But you seem to assert you can be lousier than a failing mom and pop store. Everyone keeps records in business! We pay taxes, we save receipts. We pay lightening bills, we buy gifts for customers. We save records of our correspondence. We are more computer savvy than ever before. Yet, you - inimitable as always see to think that when you have been told that the international criminal court and further misbehaviour -- which included TORTURE - might come breathing down your necks don't have look at potential risks of disposing of evidence! Give me a break! You've already seen the court decisions!! You know that there are further risks being taken, and yet cannot do the simplest of business activities? Oh, really .. this is mother speaking .. you're really awful! You hear no one, you don't care that the "business" you are actually in is a PEOPLE BUSINESS!! You break the international misconduct barrier AND you expect people to believe that you cannot hear expert advice which warned you? These computer records were important and you were told that. Yet even the standard you claim you've met is nowhere near being fulfilled when dealing with crimes against HUMANITY. Sigh. One MUST obviously assume the worst.

Many people in federal government have brought up these issues during the "CEO of government's" "regime". Since the US is a signatory to Geneva (like it or no), it must have "heard" the concerns of the Judge Advocate Generals at some point during the past six years, particularly when meetings were held to foresee the problems that are apparent today. I smell obstruction! I can only assume the worst and that's the way the law sees it.

What program reviews included, or should have included, the JAG Memoranda to Department of Justice's Office of Legal Counsel outlining the foreseeable risk that the International Criminal Court and other international tribunals could prosecute US persons for alleged war crimes;

Can you show me those program reviews? Can you show me what they included? Here is a "for instance: Your kid is now on probation and he takes a part time job .. you just ASSUME that conditions of his time, the legal conditions, are taken into account. You ask him as time goes along - "have you met your probation conditions? I need to know before I sign on to you doing more part time work." But spoiled brats that they, are the White House couldn't be bothered to look at the conditions of their probation when it came to review their "conditions" - which were to comply with international LAW. When it came time for someone to sit down and look at the progress, they shrug and say, "What probation conditions?" They just never included them. Bad business practice, bad relations with the citizens, bad submitting to good and proper legal advice. They think they are 'above' the law, but there are not - legal considerations given to them by federal officers should have been followed at each performance review.

Why was there funding set aside with the Military Commissions Act to _defend_ US persons before international tribunals for war crimes; but there was allegedly no technical system in place to [a] meet that foreseeable risk the JAG identified; [b] fully preserve documents that legal counsel knew or should have known would substantially be likely subject to subpoena; and [c] there was no backup system to protect that "valuable" information needed to _defend_ those the MCA foresaw as being subject to war crimes prosecutions;

The JAG's performed their duties. The War Crimes act was rewritten. Express and grave reservations about documenting decisions taken by the Unitary Executive were expressed. The likehood of US personnel being subjected to TORTURE equal to the treatment that the US hands out to others was a very huge risk. Yet, by failing to keep records it became VERY HARD indeed to show just how the US does comply with international covenants and to protect its citizens serving in the military or in intelligence agencies. Not too bright!! You'dda thunk that the White House would seriously attempt to comply with the JAG's recommendations as they consistently pointed how one thing could lead to another and DRASTIC consequences for AMERICAN citizens ensue. With the alteration of the Military Commissions Act George Bush, CEO deluxe, must still publish his royal interpretations of the law in the Federal Register. Assuming that the president takes this obligation seriously – and issues detailed interpretations – this will provide much-needed transparency regarding how the U.S. interprets and plans to implement its international treaty obligations. This provides a "cushion" for Americans as to whether they want to take the risk of signing up to take on military "obligations" Is signing up to be waterboarded or tortured in other ways or is one not?? The possibility is always there that the very worse could happen.

But with the destruction of the White House emails and other data now "recycled" - we are left to conclude that White House legal counsel's interpretations of the US Government/business responsibilities and has been interpreted to mean - he decides all things, wants to cover up all things -- and we can assume that crimes have indeed been committed.

and

Was it the intent of the DoJ OLC and other legal counsel who wrote the MCA language granting funds for defendants before the international tribunals to have _no evidence_ and _no records_ from the White House; and how does this "foreseeable outcome" -- that of having a requirement to defend, but not evidence to defend -- reflect on the legal counsel who had a foreseeable duty to provide a full defense to their clients and ensure the "needed evidence to provide a full defense" was available?

Where DOES the buck stop? The War Crimes Act was very specific. CONgress must take every step it possibly can to ensure that American lives are protected from torture and other conditions involving “cruel and inhuman treatment,” which is defined as conduct that causes serious or physical mental pain or suffering. Obviously the JAGS had that in mind - but does the Department of Justice, both under Alberto Gonzales and now under Michael Mukasey (who's expressed no legal opinion on waterboarding! and Congress let him get away with it!!) have any grave concerns as to where all this will lead - just exactly what does it see the consequences of NOT keeping records as being? What does this SAY about the Office of Legal Counsel itself?

Who is going to ensure that Americans are protected? Is Congress going to "step up to the plate" and make good its oaths to uphold the Constitution that says citizens have a right to expect legal compliance from its agencies?

The destruction of the emails "problem" has not been solved by George Bush's "company.". It has (excuse the coming snark) lousy attorneys, its auditors (the Congress) are derelict in their duties and we "the shareholders" are worried that the "workers" are going to waterboarded. We do not know if our security system (intel agencies) will be "turned off" when the President has a bad hair day. They -- BuZh administrators, the "Executive OFFICE" -- were warned caution was required. They don't give reports on the truth at the Shareholder's meeting. They don't seem able to put together an adequate IT team in 2007 and didn't even admit that until people got heavy with them. In fact, they don't even keep enough documentation to file an annual report! And now they expect us to buy their crapola excuses for Poor Management. This is criminal, we can only push for their prosecution as we cannot sell our "Stock" which is our citizenship. Instead, an investigation will have to be made, legal culpability determined, and indictments pursued. And with the destruction of evidence, all we can do is say .. with spoilation you must be assumed to be GUILTY -- and the Company taken away from you all and penalties for "Bad Business" pursued.

We're not seeing caution at all!! No company that relies solely on profit and kills off or torturers its workers is going to stay in business very long.

There is no statute of limitations on war crimes. The American public has been cruelly "hoaxed" this assertion of power in the Military Commissions Act - and now it faces further abuse by those violating the Geneva Conventions who destroy the evidence. A new low.

We're not seeing caution at all!! No company that relies solely on profit and kills off or torturers its workers is going to stay in business very long.

What happens NEXT???

Stayed tuned .. as the next installment in Bush Dynasty plays out on primetime .. As always, after the shock wears off, the inevitable finger pointing will start, the projections and rationalizes will fly, people will run from their sworn duty to uphold the Constitution as they have for so many years . and yet .. somehow we can all work to ensure that JUSTICE prevails and let the Bush Adminstration and its ridiculous "office boys" know .. we are watching you!! We see what you're up to!! and we know that every legal remedy to your "mismanagement" will be undertaken by those who KNOW ..

YOU MUST ASSUME CRIME HAS BEEN COMMITTED when the evidence is spoilated.

You didn't fool us at all. The White House security office is responsible for the tapes and that is
Director of the White House Security Office, James Knodell.

As CREW says:

It is perfectly clear why the White House has used every strategic maneuver it can think of to avoid answering any questions about the missing email: its answers are likely to raise more questions than they answer. That, years after the problem was discovered, the White House is still questioning whether or not there is even a problem is deeply disturbing.

Your pal,
Rosemary Woods

Legal Community Condemns Destruction of CIA Tapes

Questions:

1. Where is the ACLU?

2. Where is Turley calling for impeachment?

Legal Community Condemns Destruction of CIA Tapes

Thu Dec 27, 2007 3:11 pm (PST)

by William Fisher

NEW YORK - A former U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) ethics adviser has joined leading members of the U.S. legal community in calling on Congress to investigate the destruction of tape recordings of interrogations carried out by the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA).

<http://www.commondr eams.org/ archive/wp- content/photos/ 1227_04.jpg>

JesselynRadack — who came to prominence as a whistleblower after she objected tothe government’s treatment of John Walker Lindh, the ‘American Taliban’captured during the 2001 invasion of Afghanistan — told a newsteleconference last week that the destroyed tapes are “part of a pattern.” She said,

“There are some five million missing White House e-mails. No one knows where the hit lists are from the U.S. Attorneymassacre. And now the CIA interrogation videotapes have been erased.

This is criminal.”

“Remember when the Justice Department prosecuted Enron and Arthur
Anderson for destruction of evidence and obstruction of justice? Now the
Justice Department is trying to block congressional oversight and legal
proceedings involving this latest scandal,”

Radack added.

Radack’s comments came during the launch of a new campaign,
“American Lawyers Defending the Constitution.”

The effort is backed by a statement signed by more than 1,300 lawyers and law students around the country, including former New York governor Mario Cuomo, former Reagan administration official Bruce Fein, leaders of legal organisations and more than 100 law professors in the U.S. Their statement calls on House Judiciary Chairman John Conyers and
Senate Judiciary Chairman Patrick Leahy to hold wide-ranging hearings to investigate

“unconstitutional and potentially criminal activity
by the Bush Administration.”

The ‘TapeGate’ furor erupted after the New York Times revealed in early December that the CIA in 2005 had destroyed at least two videotapes documenting the interrogation of two al Qaeda operatives in the agency’s custody, “a step it took in the midst of Congressional and legal
scrutiny about its secret detention programme, according to current and former government officials.” The CIA subsequently announced the programme. The videotapes showed agency operatives subjecting terrorism suspects — including Abu Zubaydah, the first detainee in CIA custody — to severe interrogation techniques in 2002. In a message to his staff, CIA Director General Michael V. Hayden reportedly said the tapes were destroyed in part because officers were concerned that the video showing harsh interrogation methods could expose agency officials to legal risks. He also said the tapes no longer had intelligence value.

The destruction of the tapes has raised questions about whether CIA officials withheld information from Congress, the courts and the Sep. 11 commission about aspects of the programme.

The CIA programme that included the detention and interrogation of terrorism suspects began after the capture of Zubaydah in March 2002.

The CIA has said that the DOJ and the executive branch reviewed and approved of the use of a set of harsh techniques before they were used on any prisoners, and that the DOJ issued a classified legal opinion in August 2002 that provided explicit authorisation for their use.

Other participants on the telephone press conference included Michael Ratner, president of the Centre for Constitutional Rights <http://www.ccrjusti ce.org/>, a legal advocacy group, and Marjorie Cohn, president of the 6,000-member National Lawyers Guild <http://www.nlg. org/>.

Ratner, whose organisation has played a major role in providing defence lawyers for detainees in Guantanamo Bay and elsewhere, underscored the importance of congressional action.

“For far too long Congress has been the handmaiden of the Bush administration’ s undermining and subversion of basic constitutional rights. The right to be free from torture; warrant-less wiretapping; jailing without habeas corpus; and disappearances into secret sites. Principles going back to the Magna Carta are at stake,”

he said.

Ratner called on Congress to

“do its job: defend the Constitution from its enemies.” “Its enemies are the Bush administration,”

he stressed.

“Just announcing that investigations will be held and subpoenas will be issued is terribly insufficient unless Congress is willing to enforce the subpoenas by issuing contempt citations,”

Ratner said, emphasising that,

“Congress has a constitutional duty to oversee the activities of the executive branch, and our entire system of government is threatened when Congress simply folds before an obstinate executive.”

Cohn, author of the recently published book, “Cowboy Republic: Six Ways the Bush Gang Has Defied the Law”, told IPS,

“From the illegal war in Iraq, to the illegal torture of prisoners in U.S. custody, to the illegal destruction of evidence by the CIA, the Bush administration has become an institution of lawbreakers. Congress must hold hearings to investigate this lawbreaking, and should authorise the appointment of an independent prosecutor since Michael Mukasey cannot be counted on to conduct an impartial investigation.”

Radack rose to prominence as a major whistleblower in the Lindh case. In the course of Lindh’s criminal prosecution, the court ordered all documents associated with his interrogation to be turned over. After some documents were turned over, Radack was asked about the existence of
more documents. At that time, she looked through the files and discovered that the bulk of her work was missing and had not been turned over. Radack was able to reconstruct much of her work, and informed her supervisor that her department had not complied with the court order.
She was forced to resign before the documents were turned over. A criminal investigation into Radack’s actions was eventually closed with no charges, but her case was referred to the state bar of Maryland, which eventually cleared her of all wrongdoing. She has never been called to testify before Congress.

The Department of Justice (DOJ) said it had no knowledge that Lindh was represented by a lawyer prior to his interrogation, but this position appears to be contradicted by material in Radack’s files.

Radack told the news conference,

“My e-mails documented my advice against interrogating Lindh without a lawyer, and concluded that the FBI committed an ethics violation when it did so anyway. Both the CIA videotapes and my e-mails were destroyed, in part, because officials
were concerned that they documented controversial interrogation methods that could put agency officials in legal jeopardy.”

In a related development, one of America’s leading constitutional scholars said White House involvement in the CIA’s decision to destroy videotapes documenting severe interrogation techniques of suspected terrorists could constitute as many as six crimes.

Jonathan Turley, a professor at George Washington University law school in Washington, appeared on CNN to discuss a report by the New York Times that four White House attorneys — including then-White House counsels Alberto Gonzales and Harriet Miers — participated in discussions with the CIA about whether or not the tapes should be destroyed.

Turley said,

“There are at least six identifiable crimes here, from obstruction of justice to obstruction of Congress, perjury, conspiracy, false statements, and what is often forgotten: the crime of torturing suspects.”

“If that crime was committed it was a crime that would conceivably be ordered by the president himself, only the president can order those types of special treatments or interrogation techniques,”

he added.

© 2007 Inter Press Service