Those secret memos

By Mustang Bobby

The more I hear about those secret memos put out by the Bush administration's Department of Justice, the more creeped out I get:

The opinions reflected a broad interpretation of presidential authority, asserting as well that the president could unilaterally abrogate foreign treaties, ignore any guidance from Congress in dealing with detainees suspected of terrorism, and conduct a program of domestic eavesdropping without warrants.

Some of the positions had previously become known from statements of Bush administration officials in response to court challenges and Congressional inquiries. But taken together, the opinions disclosed Monday were the clearest illustration to date of the broad definition of presidential power approved by government lawyers in the months after the Sept. 11 attacks.

[...]

The opinion authorizing the military to operate domestically was dated Oct. 23, 2001, and written by John C. Yoo, at the time a deputy assistant attorney general in the Office of Legal Counsel, and Robert J. Delahunty, a special counsel in the office. It was directed to Alberto R. Gonzales, then the White House counsel, who had asked whether Mr. Bush could use the military to combat terrorist activities inside the United States.

The use of the military envisioned in the Yoo-Delahunty reply appears to transcend by far the stationing of troops to keep watch at streets and airports, a familiar sight in the wake of the Sept. 11 attacks. The memorandum discussed the use of military forces to carry out “raids on terrorist cells” and even seize property.

“The law has recognized that force (including deadly force) may be legitimately used in self-defense,” Mr. Yoo and Mr. Delahunty wrote to Mr. Gonzales. Therefore any objections based on the Fourth Amendment’s ban on unreasonable searches are swept away, they said, since any possible privacy offense resulting from such a search is a lesser matter than any injury from deadly force.

The Oct. 23 memorandum also said that “First Amendment speech and press rights may also be subordinated to the overriding need to wage war successfully.” It added that “the current campaign against terrorism may require even broader exercises of federal power domestically.”

I realize that these memos were considered to be just the neo-con musings of people like Mr. Yoo and that every administration has drawn up contingency plans for every circumstance from the tragic -- such as nuclear attacks on Washington, D.C. -- to the farcical -- such as invading Canada. But given the behavior and the cavalier attitude the Bush administration demonstrated against civil rights and freedoms all in the name of fighting "terrorism" -- as if a tactic was the enemy -- makes me feel that there were certain members of the Bush White House who would not object to warrantless arrests and military occupation, and those people weren't just lawyers jerking off to pictures of Jack Bauer on 24; I'm sure Karl Rove and Dick Cheney could defend them without breaking a sweat.

Apparently they had some second thoughts about these paeans to tyranny because a week before the Bush administration left office, one of the lawyers made an attempt to say "never mind" and repudiate them:

In a memorandum dated this Jan. 15, five days before President George W. Bush left office, a top Justice Department official wrote that those opinions had not been relied on since 2003. But the official, Steven G. Bradbury, who headed the Office of Legal Counsel, said it was important to acknowledge in writing “the doubtful nature of these propositions,” and he used the memo to repudiate them formally.

Mr. Bradbury said in his memo that the earlier ones had been a product of lawyers’ confronting “novel and complex questions in a time of great danger and under extraordinary time pressure.”

Somehow that doesn't make me feel any better, and if there is any justice, somebody -- or some body, like the United States Congress -- should look into them.

The neo-cons will say that in the face of nameless, faceless terrorists who hate freedom and want to destroy our way of life, all bets are off. Really? Look in the mirror.

(Cross-posted from Bark Bark Woof Woof.)

The culture of victimhood

By Mustang Bobby

One of my favorite episodes from the late and lamented comic strip Calvin and Hobbes shows Calvin, the six-year-old Everyman, exclaiming, "Nothing that happens is my fault! My family is dysfunctional and my parents won't empower me! Consequently, I'm not self-actualized! My behavior is addictive functioning in a disease process of toxic codependency! I need holistic healing and wellness before I'll accept any responsibility for my actions!"

Hobbes replies, "One of us needs to stick his head in a bucket of ice water."

Calvin marches on, proclaiming, "I love the culture of victimhood."

This seems to have been the mantra of the conservative movement and the Republican party in particular in 2008, and it will likely continue on as the Bush administration whimpers to an end. Everything bad that happened on their watch wasn't their fault. No one could have predicted that Osama bin Laden would fly planes into skyscrapers. No one could have predicted that a major hurricane would strike the Gulf Coast and break the levees. No one foresaw that there would be a terrible backlash of terrorism and hatred against Americans unilaterally attacking and invading a sovereign country ruled by a braggart dictator, and that invading said country would need a lot more than just a few thousand troops. No one could have predicted that the housing bubble and the E-Z credit market would burst because of lax regulation and insider connections on Wall Street and bring down major brokerage houses and threaten the existence of the last major manufacturing companies in the United States. And no one could have predicted that putting politics ahead of competency would give us a government of loyalists who couldn't run a business on their own but voted the right way in 2000.

Except, in every case, a lot of people did predict that all of those things would happen, and some of them lost their jobs for having the temerity to point it out.

This is not altogether a surprise from the party that calls on everyone else to show personal responsibility -- wags their finger and shakes their jowls at everyone else for their moral and political failings -- yet populates the prisons with their own senators on the take. It's not that the Democrats or anyone else doesn't have these failings, too, but at least they don't go around raising money on someone else's hypocrisy. And for a party that calls itself the bastions of more freedom and limited government, they certainly seem to have a list of exceptions that include women controlling their uterus, same-sex couples wishing to get married or adopt children, or failing banks that need a hand-out so they can still have their big Christmas party blow-out and year-end bonuses.

And yet when they're held to account for it, they're the victims here. Alberto Gonzales says he is just as much a victim of terrorism as everyone else and honestly can't understand what he did to earn him so much scorn. Vice President Dick Cheney has no idea why his poll numbers are so low, but then, he says he doesn't care about things like that. White House Chief of Staff Josh Bolten and National Security Adviser Stephen Hadley can't understand why America couldn't see what a likable and compassionate person George W. Bush really is.

Since nothing that happens is their fault, it has to be someone else's, right? Blame the media for not seeing the wonderfulness of George W. Bush. Blame them for not seeing the mavericky goodness of John McCain. Blame them for not following up on the truth behind Barack Obama's birth certificate or that the Rev. Jeremiah Wright's outbursts were just a clever cover-up for Mr. Obama's true Muslim beliefs. Blame the media and the moon and the stars for causing the financial markets to melt down just as John McCain was pulling ahead in the polls in September, and blame David Letterman for making him look like a panic-striken ditherer. Blame the voters for being too stupid to see through the charade of celebrity, and that all that "no-drama Obama" was really a clever plot by the hysterical lefty blogosphere to make him appear that he's calm and in control. But he smokes! That's a sure sign he's weak!

The Religious Right deserves their own pew for wailing about being the victims. They spew hatred and bigotry about gays and lesbians, equate same-sex marriage with criminal acts, pour millions of dollars into a campaign of misinformation and demagoguery to revoke a right granted by the Supreme Court of California, and then get all weepy and whiny when -- too late -- the provoked gay community fights back. The intolerant have the chutzpah to claim they're the victims of religious bigotry. My, my.

People who are capable of adult behavior and mature thought processes would take the lessons that were taught them and learn from them. But apparently that's not the way it works for the conservative mind. No, the way to really get back into the good graces of the American people is to proclaim that what we really need is more finger-pointing, more demonizing, more race-baiting -- "Barack the Magic Negro" is just the curtain-raiser. We need more of Sarah Palin, more of Joe the Plumber, more union-busting, more poor people going to the emergency rooms for their health care, and more smiting down of the queers by the hand of God to really teach this country a lesson.

In one respect, I hope they cling to this mantra of victimhood because it really does make it easy to mock them and dismiss them as the infantile alibiers that they have become. As Paul Krugman notes,

Will the Republicans eventually stage a comeback? Yes, of course. But barring some huge missteps by Mr. Obama, that will not happen until they stop whining and look at what really went wrong. And when they do, they will discover that they need to get in touch with the real “real America,” a country that is more diverse, more tolerant, and more demanding of effective government than is dreamt of in their political philosophy.

Maybe what they need is Calvin's holistic healing and self empowerment...but the bucket of ice water solution sounds good, too.

(Cross-posted from Bark Bark Woof Woof.)

The legacy tour continues

By Creature

As if hearing from George, Dick, Condi, and Laura weren't enough, here's Alberto Gonzales playing the victim as he tries to shit-shine his forever tarnished image:

"What is it that I did that is so fundamentally wrong, that deserves this kind of response to my service? ... "[F]or some reason, I am portrayed as the one who is evil in formulating policies that people disagree with. I consider myself a casualty, one of the many casualties of the war on terror."

Alberto, leaving aside your disrespect for the actual casualties of the war on terror, you are not portrayed as evil because you implemented "policies people disagree with." You are portrayed as evil because you helped shape and implement policies people consider illegal. You're lucky we have a feckless and almost equally guilty Congress, otherwise you'd be in jail. If the United States ever finds its footing and becomes a country of laws again, I hope to heck one day you, and your buddy Dick, will be swapping war stories behind the same set of iron bars.

Think Progress has more.

(Cross-posted at State of the Day.)

"Cheney, Gonzales indicted for alleged prisoner abuse"

By Michael J.W. Stickings

I highly doubt anything will come of it, but, still, it's a nice headline.

(No, it has nothing to do with Abu Ghraib or Gitmo. It concerns abuse in federal detention centers. Which is no doubt extremely serious, but it would be better to have them indicted for war crimes, human rights abuses, and, more generally, abuse of power, including sanctioning torture.)

Gee, here's a surprise!

By Carl

Political patronage in the Justice Department? Who'da thunk?

WASHINGTON - Scores of highly credentialed young lawyers and law students were denied interviews for coveted positions at the Justice Department because of an illegal screening process that took political and ideological views and affiliations into account rather than merit, Justice Department investigators concluded in a report released Tuesday.

In 2006, some applicants for sought-after jobs in the department's honors program and summer intern program were rejected because they were members of the American Constitution Society or Planned Parenthood or because they expressed concern about gender discrimination in the military, the report found.

Other students or graduates who were brushed aside included a University of Alabama law graduate, ranked sixth in the class, who had written a paper on the detention of aliens under the USA Patriot Act, a Yale Law School graduate who was fluent in Arabic and a Georgetown law student who had worked for Sen. John Kerry's presidential campaign.

In another case, a Harvard Law student was passed over after criticizing the nomination of Samuel Alito to the Supreme Court.

Believe it or not, this does not overly concern me. In an administration as overtly partisan and hostile to Democrats and moderates (they call them "liberals" to boot!) as the Bush administration, there are bigger fish to fry than whether a few summer interns were passed over for less qualified candidates because Daddy gave to the wrong party.

What we SHOULD be focusing on is that party ideology became so blatant as to create an atmosphere that forced even Republicans already working for the DoJ to deny their own sense of equity and equanimity and tow a biased and unfair politicized agenda.

It's one thing to seek out an agenda-driven department, Presidents do that all the time, even with "nonpartisan" panels, it is another thing entirely to treat a department of professionals like it was just another commando unit in a far greater army of oppression and injustice.

When your own partisans, in other words, think something is a bad idea, rather than dispose of them, it might make sense to keep even their timid and modest objections in mind when fomenting policies and executing same. Just a thought, altho this administration is long on tales of people forced out, Colin Powell and John O'Neill being the marquee names, for moderation in anything.

You get bad apples in all administration and the truth is, Alberto Gonzalez was an unabashed failure as Attorney General of the United States. This is just another example of his fraudulent oversight of the department.

But keep in mind, as Joe Conason points out, that Gonzalez used the tool made available to him by someone who ought to know better, Arlen Specter:

But that wholesome safeguard was breached in December 2005, when the Senate renewed the Patriot Act. At the behest of the Justice Department, an aide to Sen. Arlen Specter slipped a provision into the bill that permitted the White House to place its own appointees in vacant U.S. attorney positions permanently and without Senate confirmation. So silently was this sleight of hand performed that Specter himself now claims, many months later, to have been completely unaware of the amendment's passage. (Of course, it would be nice if the senators actually read the legislation before they voted, particularly when they claim to be the authors.)

The staffer who reportedly performed this bit of dirty work is Michael O'Neill, a law professor at George Mason University and former clerk for Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas. As the Washington Times explained when O'Neill was appointed as the Senate Judiciary Committee's chief counsel, many observers believed that Specter had hired him to reassure conservatives of his loyalty to the Bush White House. Right-wing distrust had almost ousted the Pennsylvania moderate from the Judiciary chairmanship, and appointing O'Neill was apparently the price for keeping that post.

Evidently O'Neill rewarded Specter by sneaking through legislation to deprive him and his fellow senators of one of their most important powers, at the behest of an attorney general intent on aggrandizing executive power. The results of this backstage betrayal -- now playing out in a wave of politicized dismissals and hirings -- were perfectly predictable and utterly poisonous.

Specter, by dint of his politically moderate (in Republican perspective, dangerously liberal) positions, was forced to accept a situation whereby he had to genuflect to the more adamantine hearts of his oberfuhren.

(Cross-posted to Simply Left Behind.)

Tortured Thinking, Part II -- the Witnesses

By Carol Gee


The House Judiciary Subcommittee on the Constitution, Civil Rights and Civil Liberties, held a hearing on the subject of torture this week. This eye-opening session was spotlighted in my May 8 post, "Tortured Thinking, Part I -- the Players." It was a summary of what House Members are seeking regarding what happened with the issue of detainee interrogations. Since the beginning of the administration, the subject of how to interrogate has been a problem. A number of legal memos have emerged, as well as the identities of the key players, top to bottom. Committee Democrats, chaired by Rep. Jerrold Nadler D-NY, and supported by the overall Committee Chairman, John Conyers D-MI, questioned a panel of legal experts, upon whom today's post focuses.

Chairman Nadler swore in a panel of witnesses who gave a more in-depth picture than we have previously known of our nation's recent history of "severe interrogation," what some see as torture. Witnesses included British law Professor Phillipe Sands and Georgetown Professor David Luban. Other witnesses were former administration Counsel's Office lawyer David B. Rivkin and Professor Marjorie Cohn, President of the National Lawyers Guild. Links to their prepared statements are included. Their statements are not covered here but summaries of the main points made by each, follow the Committee's questions:

• Witness prepared statement: Philippe Sands, QC
  Professor of Law
  University College London
  Barrister
  Matrix Chambers.
  
  Professor Sands recently researched the history of Bush administration actions around the torture issue ; it is chronicled in his illuminating article, "The Green Light."
  Chairman Conyers asked Professor Sands about what else to do. The professor said, "The country is at an important moment, and it is best to eventually unite amongst ourselves and move on from 2002. We need to find out what actually happened, however, crucial facts about the military involvement must be found out and the CIA stuff remains, Sands said. He added that David Addington's testimony is pivotal due to his "deep involvement. He was the leader of the pack, driving the policy, assisted by DOJ Counsel Haynes." Sands recounted the trip that Addington and a group of high administration officials took to visit Guantanamo "to see the place and the detainee causing all the difficulty, Mohamed al-Khatani, whom they thought was the 20th hijacker."
  Rep Mike Pence R-Indiana asked about the British experience of 15 years of bombs and the IRA. Sands said having so many lives on the line is the "heart of the matter" in every country that deals with terrorism. Sands said that the British military eventually came to consensus that coercion of detainees does not work, just as did the U.S. military and the FBI. U.K. authorities "tried all the hooding, etc. in the 1970s, and it created outrage that extended the conflict with Ireland for 15 extra years." Sands urged dropping the term "war on terror" because it makes the extremists into "warriors" and creates "good recruitment arguments." Sands noted that President Bush, unfortunately, doesn't ask advice from other countries.
  Rep. Artur Davis, D-Alabama, had an excellent discussion with Sands about the fact that Israel has fore-sworn torture, feeling that their democracy is stronger. Sands also said the the "ticking time bomb theory is completely hypothetical."
  Rep. Darrell Issa R-CA's discussion elicited from Professor Sands that, "The Army Field Manual is a sensible guide to use for interrogation. Sands regrets that the President vetoed good legislation prohibiting the use of water-boarding. He also recounted a conversation with an unnamed foreign head of state, who pulled a copy of the Yoo memo out of his pocket and asserted to Sands, "Why not do it?"
  Rep. Keith Ellison D-MN asked Phillipe Sands the question, "Does torture work?" Sands recounted his 1 and 1/2 years of investigation of the interrogation of one man, the so-called 20th hijacker, al-Khatani, "and the torture produced nothing. You cannot determine what is true with this method. For example, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed ("KSM," thought to have masterminded the 9/11 attacks) was tortured and confessed to everything. Coerced information leads to excluding the facts that are true.
  Rep. Bobby Scott D-VA asked Sands what is the affect of allowing troops to use torture. He answered, "Military morale is degraded, and exposes members of the military as well as U.S. nationals in foreign lands to higher risk from enemies." Sands reported that he has been contacted by many members of the military who are pleased by how the investigation is proceeding.
  Rep. Mel Watt D-NC asked what the committee should do next? Sands gave this advice. "Just document the facts needing exploration. Exercise prosecutorial discretion with your subpoenaes. The Committee can do this. Just ask all the lawyers about all the facts. Regarding other aspects, torture violates the Geneva Conventions. The U.S. has the obligation to investigate and prosecute or extradite officials to other countries who bring up charges against U.S. officials. "The U.S. must handle this or other countries will," he warned.
  Rep. Steve Cohen's D-TN questions to Sands elicited further leads from Sands to the Committee that should be investigated: for one, the high level of tension regarding the move towards aggressive interrogation at Guantanamo. Look into "Spike" Bowman's concerns that were brushed off by DOJ Counsel Haynes. Find out what Haynes' role was, what did he do to Khatani, and what did Donald Rumsfeld do? Sands said that Haynes already knew of Yoo's DOJ sign-off memo before the first trip to Guantanamo. Evidently, Haynes put the blame on two military officers, who've now been prosecuted. One was Diane Beavers who has been hurt by the public revelations, "outed." All these facts need to be investigated by this committee, Sands concluded. (See "The Green Light" article linked above to flesh out this imformation completely).
  

• Witness prepared statement: David J. Luban
  Professor of Law
  Georgetown University Law Center
  
  Professor Luban was questioned by Chairman Nadler. Luban discussed the intervening Supreme Court's decision regrading the application of Common Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions to detainee treatment. He also elaborated on the legal memos' words about the whole concept of measuring physical pain. Saying that the "severe pain" definition, to which the torture memos referred, is a medical emergency that was taken out of the Medicare statutes. He also discussed the memos' idea that prohibited severe physical suffering had to be applied if "prolonged." He noted that water-boarding usually takes just three minutes.
  Rep. Darrell Issa R-CA elicited the professor's information that, during interrogation death threats against the detainee's family are not legally allowed, but that some other kinds of lies to "trick-out information" is permissible, and even moral.
  Rep. Keith Ellison D-MN asked the question whether there had ever been an actual "ticking time-bomb" episode, and he replied that none has ever occurred that has been documented.
  Rep. Steve Cohen's D-TN questions to Luban also revealed that British Intelligence has admitted to using five of the 15 different severe interrogation techniques discussed during this hearing.
  Rep. Mel Watt D-NC asked, "what should be done about all this?" Luban recommended that we find out what really happened, including what techniques were actually used, publicize all the as yet unrevealed memos, get the full story out, go after legal ethics violations, but not get into the law-breaking aspects just yet, as that would be premature. He added that none of this has been a state secret for three years, denying that excuse to the administration.
  

To be continued -- "Tortured Thinking, Part III - the Final Witnesses." I encourage you to read "The Green Light" article for Sands' complete narrative of his year and a half investigation. I believe it to be very significant material because so many of the players were quite willing to talk to the professor about it.

(Cross-posted at South by Southwest.)

Tortured Thinking, Part I - the Players

By Carol Gee

The Senate Committee on the Judiciary/Subcommittee on the Constitution, Civil Rights and Civil Liberties, held an important hearing on "Detainee Interrogation Rules" May 6. (The above opening link is to the committee's news release with good highlights of the hearing's testimony). The committee also authorized a subpoena for Bush administration lawyer David Addington, who actually may be willing to testify, though he might not say very much.

Judiciary Committee Chairman, John Conyers D-MI, laid the groundwork for finding out more about the role of senior government lawyers in the development of the legal opinions authorizing interrogation methods via a series of so-called torture memos:

1. 8-1-02, the Bybee memo to Alberto Gonzales containing a narrow definition of torture -- allowed interrogation methods. Withdrawn in 2004.
2. 12-2-o2, DOD Secy. Rumsfeld approved the harsher interrogation methods used at Guantanamo Bay, which may have echoed the earlier memo.
3. 3-14-03, DOJ John Yoo memo, also involved Jim Haynes, the DOD's attorney for Rumsfeld. It was similar to 8-1-02 but more extreme. This is the memo withdrawn by DOJ lawyer Jack Goldsmith.
   

Chairman Jerrold Nadler, D-NY, swore in a panel of witnesses who gave a more in-depth picture than we have previously known of our nation's recent history of "severe interrogation," what some call torture. Witnesses included British law Professor Phillipe Sands and Georgetown Professor David Luban. Other witnesses were former administration Counsel's Office lawyer David B. Rivkin and Professor Marjorie Cohn, President of the National Lawyers Guild. Hat tip to "SmileySam" at Daily Kos for his interesting article on the hearing, including some very good links. Also, this Kos blogger borrows from Dan Froomkin's well-linked blog at the WaPo: "Torture Showdown Coming."

Republicans on the Committee who asked questions included Ranking Member, Rep.Trent Franks of Arizona, Rep. Darrell Issa of California, Rep. Mike Pense of Indiana, and Rep. Steve King of Iowa. Rep. Issa was true to form, picking a fight early with Chairman Nadler over limiting members' opening statements. When denied he demanded a roll call vote on the chair's ruling, resulting in 4 "yes," 2 "no," 1 (Issa) "Hell, no" votes.

Later the Republicans were relatively thoughtful in their questioning. Rep. Franks made a point about the Yoo memo "trying to get specific," asking Professor Luban about the term "severe pain." Luban replied that to him it refers to ideas such as a dentist's drill with no anesthetic or a broken bone. He described water-boarding as "suffering." Rep. Pence discussed his idea that our methods need to be kept secret so that "terrorists could not train themselves to resist specific methods." And he wanted to find out, after 9/11 with addition American lives perhaps on the line, how you gain information from detainees who will not respond to relationship-building techniques, what he termed "the Oprah Winfrey methods." Rep. Issa supports a ban on torture. His question to David Rivkin produced the witness' opinion that, "investigations can "degenerate into a witch hunt." Rep Steve King believes that focusing on the "narrow exceptions" of U.S. torture, rather than our "long history" of justice does a disservice to the country. In asking Professor Sands to give an instance of "when our enemies were more moral that we were," King fell into a delicious trap that provoked wry smiles as he back-peddled from Sands' answer. Sands (a British citizen) said, to paraphrase, "The United States has long been the historical moral leader of the world. And, as I spent the past year working on my investigation of what happened after 9/11, I met many military leaders of whom I had a very favorable impressions. Things went wrong under the political appointees."

To be continued with "Tortured Thinking, Part II - the Witnesses." In the meantime boys and girls, your homework is to read Phillipe Sands' "Green Light." For extra credit you can watch the hearing on C-SPAN television or watch the video posted at the House Judiciary website. (links below)

References:

• The hearing is available in full at C-SPAN: House Hearing on Guantanamo Bay and Interrogation Rules: Chairman Rep. Jerrold Nadler (D-NY) presides over a a House Judiciary Constitution, Civil Rights & Civil Liberties Subcmte. hearing on detainee treatment and interrogation techniques at facilities at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. They voted to authorize a subpoena for Vice President Cheney?s chief of staff and former legal counsel, David S. Addington to appear at a later hearing. 5/6/2008: WASHINGTON, DC: 2 hr. 22 min.


• The Senate Committee on the Judiciary -- Committee website


• " The Green Light." Professor Phillipe Sands wonderful new article this month (should be required reading) in Vanity Fair Magazine, Intro:
  

  As the first anniversary of 9/11 approached, and a prized Guantánamo detainee wouldn’t talk, the Bush administration’s highest-ranking lawyers argued for extreme interrogation techniques, circumventing international law, the Geneva Conventions, and the army’s own Field Manual. The attorneys would even fly to Guantánamo to ratchet up the pressure—then blame abuses on the military. Philippe Sands follows the torture trail, and holds out the possibility of war crimes charges.



• Representative Nadler writes at the Huffington Post (11/15/07), "No More Clever Word-play on Torture," on the torture-banning legislation subsequently vetoed by our current president: The Orderly and Responsible Iraq Redeployment Appropriations Act.


• Nov. 8, 2007 -- Hearings by the same committee on water-boarding torture at Guantanamo Bay.

(Cross-posted at South by Southwest.)

A sad farewell

By Edward Copeland

John Edwards is quitting his campaign for the Democratic nomination for president today. While I voted for Obama, I was always torn since I admired Edwards a great deal and I will miss his voice in the race.

On the other hand, Edwards' timing is impeccable. By quitting now, that means Thursday night's Democratic debate will be Obama vs. Hillary, one-on-one, for the first time. It also means that a great many of Edwards' supporters, who most likely are also anti-Hillary voters, will switch to Obama's camp in an effort to stop her, just in time for Super Tuesday.

I hope Edwards doesn't leave the national stage for good. If Obama should win, perhaps Edwards can be his attorney general and try to repair the damage that the Bush appointees of Ashcroft, Gonzales, and Mukasey have inflicted over the past seven years.

John Edwards, I commend you.

The crony general slinks away -- "I have seen tyranny, dishonesty, corruption, and depravity of types I never thought possible"

By J. Thomas Duffy

The question really begs, given his memory issues, is if Crony General Alberto Gonzales remembered where the exit was.

The Crony General served his last day yesterday, leaving with the scales of justice very much not balanced, after his caretaking role as the nations' top law enforcement officer.

And it is just astounding how telling statements hang on this man.

The Garlic pointed out how The Commander Guy noted, shortly after it was announced the Crony General would slink away, that he "He aggressively and successfully pursued public corruption...".

Yes, he did that quite well, and the Bush Grindhouse is most appreciative for that.

And yesterday, who exactly was the Crony General referring to when he served this one up:

"Over the past two and a half years, I have seen tyranny, dishonesty, corruption, and depravity of types I never thought possible," Gonzales said at a Hispanic Heritage Month ceremony at Bolling Air Force Base. "I've seen things I didn't know man was incapable of ..."

WOW!

If The Decider Guy's book is titled Dead Certain, the Crony General's should be, using the above statement, Dead On.

Whatever you do Alberto, be sure not to go fishing with Dick Cheney, or any of his men.

Bonus Crony General Links

Andrew Cohen: Good Riddance

Murray Waas: Aborted DOJ Probe Probably Would Have Targeted Gonzales

Washington Post: Justice Dept. Probing Whether Gonzales Lied

Top Ten Cloves: How It Would Be Different If Alberto Gonzales Was The Head of March Madness

Alberto Gonzales Sings 'Justice For Sale'

Two peas in a very well corrupted -- but protected -- pod.















(Cross Posted at The Garlic)

"He aggressively and successfully pursued public corruption..."

By J. Thomas Duffy

Darn it!

I was all set to write an analogy of the Crony General's resignation using a baseball motif:

"Tell them I'm through, for love of the game"

-- Billy Chapel, from the movie For The Love of the Game

I intended to point out how, as he fleeced the city of Arlington, Texas, for a new baseball stadium, The Uniter Guy, in his oil man/baseball owner days, should have spent more time learning the game.

Not that the Crony General wasn't pitching a perfect game ... Perfectly abysmal, that is.

The Commander Guy might have picked up that you don't leave your starting pitcher in there, when he's being hit like it's batting practice.

But, then I went and read "President Bush Discusses Resignation of Attorney General Alberto Gonzales" (h/t Barry Crimmins) and one line jumped out;

"He aggressively and successfully pursued public corruption..."

Boy, did he... with flying colors!

Take your pick... His bedpan voyeurism of badgering the sick, doped-up Kaiser Ashcroft... Torture... Wiretapping... The firing of the U.S. Attorneys... Painting the walls of the Injustice Department RNC Red and personally altering -- like Nathan Detroit and a racetrack tote board -- the work-placement averages of the Pat Robertson Law School...

And there was the other angle, of the Bush Grindhouse continuing to stagger like a freshman nerd taking his first swigs out of the brown-bottled GIQ.

Firing, excuse me, "reluctantly accepted his resignation", the Crony General on the Monday before the Labor Day weekend?

Anybody left in the Grindhouse that knows how to read a calendar?

A Friday Dump on this one, man, the havoc that would have caused ... MSNBC probably wouldn't have it until Tuesday, not wanting to muck with their mega-holiday-Doc-Blocs.

So, why would they pull the plug on the Crony General on a Monday?

As we did when the Blossom Turd pulled his smear-laden tent up and left town, what needed to be buried this week ...

• The pre-coronation of Ayad Allawi, with the big assist from Grindhouse-soaked Barbour Griffith and Rogers
• A little distance from the Friar's Roast of Terrorists/Lessons of Vietnam speech last week
• The continually-deflating impact of the Petraeus Report

It wasn't just happenstance that the Crony General suddenly "recalled" he best get his ass out of the frying pan (but with Congress insisting he keep in under the heat lamp)...

Two things will dominate the news this week:

The Crony General, from the scandals, to the swappin' spit-brotherly love stories of him and The Decider Guy.

And, who will replace the Crony General... Who will be Crony General No. 2?

While it is fanciful to talk about "putting standards" on the nominee, and how the next Crony General will have to "uphold the rule-of- law first", let's get real.

With the list of potentially-indictable crimes hanging over their heads, the next one will be lamer that Gonzales.

I just have a gut feeling about it.

"Mr. Chertoff... They're cueing you ... "

Bonus Crony General Links

Andrew Cohen: Good Riddance

Bush Loyalist Helped Shape Signature Anti-Terror Policies

Top Ten Cloves: How It Would Be Different If Alberto Gonzales Was The Head of March Madness

Alberto Gonzales Sings 'Justice For Sale'




















(Cross-posted at The Garlic)

Goodbye Gonzales

By Libby Spencer

Well, Gonzales has resigned and of course, everyone is talking about it. I haven't read anything past the headlines and George Bullard, who was pushing Bush's silly meme that poor Fredo was a victim of partisan politics.

I responded briefly, but other than that I don't have a whole lot to say about it at the moment. I didn't really expect it and thus find it suspect. I'm still mulling over what tactical advantage the White House hopes to gain from letting him go at this precise time. Clearly he and Rove both skipped out because the investigations into their criminality are getting too close for comfort, but still, this administration makes every move for political gain.

However, the biggest surprise for me by far is my emotional response to the news of both resignations. I'm glad that they're gone for the good of the country but I'm unexpectedly unelated. Somehow I can't shake the vague sense of having been cheated of the righteous indictments they so richly deserved.

(Cross-posted at The Impolitic.)

DAD! Those mean old people took Fredo away from me.

By Edward Copeland

If his statement from Crawford is any indication, Dubya sure didn't want to let Alberto go, presumably because he likes to surround himself with as many incompetents as possible so he doesn't look so bad. (Sorry George: You look like an incompetent twit no matter who is standing next to you.) In his statement, from Crawford, Dubya said:

"It's sad that we live in a time when a talented and honorable person like Alberto Gonzales is impeded from doing important work because his good name was dragged through the mud for political reasons."

Those Washington meanies. He better go back to the ranchhouse where Laura can hold him while he sucks his thumb and pouts. Gee, I don't suppose Bush would try to appoint Patrick Fitzgerald to replace him. Nah, Fitz wouldn't accept anyway.

People might wonder

By Carol Gee

What is The Reaction of this Texan to the news that Attorney General Alberto Gonzales is resigning? His resignation probably will not surprise many of us. It will certainly displease his friends and supporters on the Right, who have become far fewer, by the way. Over here on the Left we will be inordinately pleased. But we are somewhat saddened that it was so long in coming. The Department of Justice, the Peoples' Law Firm, will take some time to recover from its heretofore amazingly inept and partisan leadership.

Many of us felt that Gonzales, having started as the Texas "mouthpiece" for OCP (our current president) since long before they moved to Washington, was only in office because he knew something about OCP that had never been revealed. Given attorney-client privilege, we will perhaps never know what nefarious thing OCP got away with all this time. I jest, because, in all fairness we should not smear by innuendo those who have already done and said enough to disgrace themselves right out in the open.

Reprise this -- Actually I'll just reprint my 8/13/07 Karl Rove resignation post and just change the names. It is still my reaction. Except for this one thing. Gonzales did more harm than Rove did with his political machinations. Because Gonzales ran a department that had more reaching influence over the daily lives of the people of the United States, Karl Rove's political stuff will have less long term effects. This is what I blogged following Rove's resignation.

"Texan coming home... Depending on where you are along the political spectrum, this is either good news or bad news: political junkies woke up this morning and learned that [Attorney General Alberto Gonzales Presidential Political Adviser Karl Rove will be gone from the White house soon. Life handed us Democrats a lemon, and now we can make lemonade. As a Texas Democrat I have bad memories of the Texan [Gonzales] Rove. I would just as soon he stay where he is living now...

What do I think? It will be interesting to see who moves into the vacated office. In some ways OCP (our current president) has made better choices the second time around. Robert Gates replaced Donald Rumsfeld as Secretary of Defense. Josh Bolton is probably a better chief of staff than his predecessor. Stephen Hadley is probably better at his job, than was Condoleezza Rice. Etc., etc. It would be a very good thing if the same thing happened in this case, but I am not holding my breath.

People might wonder who the next Attorney General will be. I sincerely hope it is not Michael Chertoff. We have a pretty accurate resume to peruse by looking at his recent record at the Department of Homeland Security. Partly because of his lousy performance during Hurricane Katrina, New Orleans is now in the midst of its Second Happy Anniversary of the Hurricane. It does not look too good for the taciturn Chertoff. I think the Democrats might put up a fight over his nomination. Actually this is probably a trial balloon that will go psssst! in a day or two. If his is a short stint in the spotlight, it is probably wishful thinking on my part. The Democrats might just cave on this one, too. I would then get to add that one to my growing list.

(Cross-posted at South by Southwest.)

Chertoff's pet goat

By Capt. Fogg

After Katrina blew past New Orleans, leaving thousands of people stranded on bridges and in the Morial Convention Center without food or water or medical help, Secretary of Homeland Security Michael Chertoff dismissed the reports as rumors. I think of it as his "my Pet Goat" moment and through his inaction it took five days after the storm hit before help arrived and questions still remain about the allocation and misuse of funds. According to New Orleans, Louisiana Blogger and TV commentator Jeff Crouere, quoting historian Douglas Brinkley, Chertoff actually worked to obstruct and impede aid coming in from the private sector.

Is this just the man to step into Alberto Gonzales' shoes at a time when the Justice Department looks like a Presidential goon squad? If as CNN is saying today, Chertoff's appointment as Attorney General is imminent and, considering an unbroken string of political appointments of underqualified party loyalists I don't doubt it, Congress and the Administration will be faced with two confirmation battles.

Since the pool from which Bush picks his fish is growing shallower by the day, this might be a good time to start some speculation and rumor about the next Homeland Security appointment. What about Henry Hager, a former staff member of the commerce department who is, by coincidence Jenna Bush's new beau?

(Cross-posted at Human Voices.)

Adios Alberto

By Edward Copeland

It's just breaking now, but The New York Times is reporting that Alberto Gonzales is finally resigning:

Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales, whose tenure has been marred by controversy and accusations of perjury before Congress, has resigned. A senior administration official said he would announce the decision later this morning in Washington.

Mr. Gonzales, who had rebuffed calls for his resignation, submitted his to President Bush by telephone on Friday, the official said. His decision was not immediately announced, the official added, until after the president invited him and his wife to lunch at his ranch near here.

**********

Needless to say, there's already been a lot of reaction in the blogosphere to Gonzo's resignation. You can find much of it at Memeorandum. And there will, of course, be much more to come. Check back there for more as the day goes on.

See Think Progress, with updates.

CNN is reporting that Bush will make a statement from Crawford at 11:50 am ET.

A few recommended posts: The Carpetbagger Report, The Moderate Voice, Shakesville, and Balkinization.

Who will replace Gonzo? Will it be Chertoff (for more on that, see here)? Michelle Malkin, exhibiting not only her own but the right's more general insanity, suggests that the person most qualified for the job is... (drum roll)... John Ashcroft.

For a far more sane response from the right, see Ed Morrissey.

-- MJWS

Gonzales out, Chertoff in

By Michael J.W. Stickings

That's the juicy rumour at U.S. News, picked up by Steve Benen, who rightly finds it rather "odd". (Grain of salt. Taken.)

It would make sense for Gonzales to resign, or to be forced out (finally, at long last), but Chertoff has had his own share of problems at Homeland Security. (How often would the name "Katrina" come up at confirmation hearings? How often would senators ask him about his gut?)

Stranger things have happened, though, and, to quote the title of one of the better movies of last year, the Bush presidency has often been stranger than fiction.

Given that Bush likely doesn't see Chertoff the way the rest of us do (he probably thinks he's doing a heckuva job) -- given that he doesn't see reality the way the rest of us do -- I wouldn't put this one beyond the realm of possibility.

Lede of the Day: From Belknap to Gonzales

By Michael J.W. Stickings

Make sure to check out this interesting piece in the Times by Adam Cohen. Here's the opening:

William Belknap, Ulysses S. Grant’s disgraced secretary of war, is experiencing a revival. Impeached in 1876 for taking bribes, he has become the inspiration for a movement to remove Attorney General Alberto Gonzales from office. Impeachment is usually thought of as limited to presidents, but the Constitution not only allows the impeachment of Cabinet members, in Belknap’s case, it was actually done.

Could it be done now? Although much of the impeachment talk has involved Bush and/or Cheney, why not Gonzales? Consider his shady, inconsistent testimony before Congress. Consider his role in the firing of the U.S. attorneys -- whatever the specifics, and much is still not known for certain, he either authorized the firing (injustice) or had no idea what was going on under his own nose (incompetence). Consider his role in Bush's illegal domestic surveillance program. Consider his partisanship, the common denominator of his tenure both in the White House and at the Justice Department.

"Impeachment was one of the important checks and balances the founders built into the Constitution," Cohen reminds us." At state ratification conventions, it was promoted as a tool for Congress to rein in any officeholder who 'dares to abuse the power vested in him by the people.'" (See Federalist 65.)

It is time -- it has been time for a long time -- for Congress to check and to balance, to do what it is supposed to do according to the Constitution. Impeachment is a dirty word in some parts -- even in some parts of the Democratic Party.

But aside from the obvious political considerations -- impeachment could be unpopular and likely would not succeed (Gonzales would resign first, but Democrats don't have the votes regardless) -- is there a reason not to go ahead with it?

NYT on FISA -- Part I: After the vote

By Carol Gee

Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act - Today James Risen and Eric Lichtblau of The New York Times, thank goodness, are still looking at the law under FISA as recently pushed through and amended by Congress. Democratic leaders opposed the legislation, but did not successfully block it, out of fear that they would be criticized as being soft on terrorism. Many of the members may not have realized what they were doing, said Congressional aides to the authors.

The NYT reports that Congressional Democrats have been meeting with the administration to raise their concerns that the legislation is "overly broad and troubling," and "and may have given the administration more surveillance powers than it sought." The very vocal complaints also spoke to "the diminished role of the FISA court, which is limited to determining whether the procedures set up by the executive administration for intercepting foreign intelligence are 'clearly erroneous' or not." To quote further from their very informative (8/19/07) article,

Broad new surveillance powers approved by Congress this month could allow the Bush administration to conduct spy operations that go well beyond wiretapping to include — without court approval — certain types of physical searches on American soil and the collection of Americans’ business records, Democratic Congressional officials and other experts said.

. . . Several legal experts said that by redefining the meaning of “electronic surveillance,” the new law narrows the types of communications covered in the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, known as FISA, by indirectly giving the government the power to use intelligence collection methods far beyond wiretapping that previously required court approval if conducted inside the United States. These new powers include the collection of business records, physical searches and so-called “trap and trace” operations, analyzing specific calling patterns.

. . . Some civil rights advocates said they suspected that the administration made the language of the bill intentionally vague to allow it even broader discretion over wiretapping decisions. Whether intentional or not, the end result — according to top Democratic aides and other experts on national security law — is that the legislation may grant the government the right to collect a range of information on American citizens inside the United States without warrants, as long as the administration asserts that the spying concerns the monitoring of a person believed to be overseas.

Whatever explanations and mixed messages are given by the administration, we can only hope that Democrats coming back into session will not feel they must sit idly by for month after month, knowing they made a serious constitutional mistake, or several mistakes. They are not required to remain impotent. Are there no remedies? No ideas? Is there no chagrin? No outrage?

Part II of this series will explore the administration's stated views on implementing the new bill.

(Cross-posted at South by Southwest.)

Lede of the Day: The Ashcroft-Gonzales confrontation

By Michael J.W. Stickings

From WaPo:

Then-Attorney General John D. Ashcroft was "feeble," "barely articulate" and "stressed" moments after a hospital room confrontation in March 2004 with Alberto R. Gonzales, who wanted Ashcroft to approve a warrantless wiretapping program over Justice Department objections, according to notes from FBI Director Robert S. Mueller III that were released yesterday.

Awesome, eh?

Make sure to read the whole article. This certainly seems to be how business is done in the Bush White House, pushing an illegal program on a sick man and basically not giving a shit about the consequences.

(The only suitable title for the definitive historical account of the Bush presidency is Fucking America. What do you think, Michael Beschloss?)

For more, see The Carpetbagger Report and The Anonymous Liberal.

**********

Update: "Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.) Thursday asked the Justice Department’s Inspector General to investigate potentially false or misleading testimony given by Attorney General Alberto Gonzales during his appearances before various congressional committees."

Good.

Dems get mixed reviews

By Carol Gee

Last night's Democratic debate at Soldier's Field in Chicago was rather enjoyable, even exciting at times. The candidates did well, for the most part, and differentiated themselves along the way. MSNBC's Keith Olbermann did a fine job of moderating. It didn't take him long to understand where he was losing: the good crowd refused to hold its applause as he had instructed. It was great fun to see a bunch of rule-breaking Union members together and acting up.

The main point is - And this is not saying anything new, any one of the Democratic candidates would be infinitely better as President, than OCP (our current president). It is the Democrats' race to lose in 2008. We could have a worse problem than this in our crowded field.

But I am still bent out of shape about the diminution of our civil liberties protections under an amended new law sanctioned by Democrats feeling in a bind and trusting DNI Admiral Mike McConnell. The dilemma for congressional Democrats last week must have felt like an awful one for them, though I think not enough to capitulate in such numbers. Too many good folks flunked the constitutional test, according to aghast Dahlia Lithwick at Slate Magazine, who headlined her piece: "In Gonzo We Trust - They want to fire Alberto Gonzales and give him new eavesdropping powers?" To quote,

There is virtually no way to reconcile Sen. Mark Pryor's, D-Ark., claim that Gonzales has "lied to the Senate" and needs to go with his vote to expand the reach of our warrantless eavesdropping program. And how can one possibly square Sen. Dianne Feinstein's, D-Calif., claim that the AG "just doesn't tell the truth" with her vote to give him yet more unchecked authority? You either trust this AG with the power to listen in on your phone calls or you do not, and the mumbled justifications for these "yes" votes ( … but Gonzales shares his authority with National Intelligence Director Mike McConnell; … but the bill sunsets in six months) do nothing to lessen the impression that some Democrats mistrust Gonzales when it's convenient, but not when it's truly important.

I agree! (See also my post of yesterday). As I told one of my S/SW commenters, I want to forgive them but I am not there yet. I will eventually get there because I am forgiving by nature. But not be for a while, because I feel so justified in the merits of my case.

This is no small thing. The outcry has been widespread, but not universal in the MSM. Walter Pincus today at the Washington Post was very careful not to raise red flags with his readers, though the headline was less careful: "Same Agencies to Run, Oversee Surveillance Program." I guess it is early in the game for this well respected reporter. Even the mainstream media's USA Today is in agreement that Congress was wrong to go along with the outrageous power grab of OCP. Yesterday's Op Ed headline was amazing: "Wartime power grabs require beautiful sunsets." To quote the opinion piece,

If there is any redeeming feature of the excessively invasive eavesdropping law that Congress passed last week and President Bush signed Sunday, it is a "sunset" provision that makes all the bill's controversial provisions expire, unless Congress and the president agree to renew them.

. . . It's dangerous to give any administration permanent powers to fight a temporary war, even one that could last as long as the one against Islamic extremism. It's just as dangerous to trust an administration to police itself without court supervision.

A skittish Congress allowed itself to be stampeded last week into granting the president unfettered surveillance power. When it returns to Washington, it should do what it can to make sure that the sun goes down on this flawed measure.

The abridgement of U.S civil liberties is a serious and on-going problem. It is not enough that it will be "sunset-ed" (maybe) in six months. It serious enough in my mind that I will regularly visit the issue until it is fixed. As if I could have anything to do with it! But united activists could.

(Cross-posted at South by Southwest.)