Grimm fraudster: Indicting one of the GOP's leading bullies

By Michael J.W. Stickings

You probably remember Rep. Michael Grimm (R-NY -- Staten Island, to be precise) as the guy who threatened violence (murder, perhaps) against a reporter earlier this year. While the media insisted on giving him a platform as a national security "expert" (he was on CNN talking about MH370, fitting in nicely with that network's, and specifically host Don Lemon's, atrocious coverage of that story), he's basically just a violent thug, a goon even by Republican standards. And now he's facing justice:

The FBI arrested New York Congressman Michael Grimm -- a former FBI agent -- on fraud and perjury charges today and then ripped into him for dishonoring the FBI code.

Grimm, a Republican from New York City's borough of Staten Island, surrendered to the FBI this morning. After taking him into custody FBI Assistant Director George Venizelos issued a scathing assessment of Grimm.

"As a former FBI agent, Representative Grimm should understand the motto: fidelity, bravery, and integrity. Yet he broke our credo at nearly every turn. In this twenty-count indictment, Representative Grimm lived by a new motto: fraud, perjury, and obstruction," Venizelos said...

Grimm, 44, a former Marine as well as an ex-FBI agent, was indicted on charges of fraud, perjury and obstruction.

To say the least, he's an embarrassment to the FBI, the Marines, Congress, and his constituents. Hopefully he gets what he deserves.

Another Republican, Obama?

By Frank Moraes 

I have had major problems with the nomination of James Comey to head the FBI. But now I'm not sure. You see, today Glenn Greewald wrote, "James Comey is far from the worst choice to lead the FBI." That's probably about equivalent to most people saying, "James Comey is the best person we could realistically get."

Of course, Greenwald wrote that after an article blasting Comey for two very troubling actions while working for George W. Bush. The biggest one is that Comey was the guy who signed off on the NSA warrantless eavesdropping program. You probably remember that. It was big among liberals at the time. I was outraged. Of course, the Obama administration has been no better. In fact, the Obama administration followed the Bush lead by giving all of the phone companies immunity. Well, it was Comey who signed off on that, claiming that it was legal.

Also of concern: Comey signed off on the use of torture. Of course, he was against it and repeatedly said so. But in the end, he did it. That doesn't exactly speak to the mainstream narrative that he's a guy who stands up for principle. I'm sure you know the story of him fighting with Alberto Gonzales over something that was so illegal even Comey disagreed with it. If not, here is Rachel Maddow the other night gushing about it:

Visit NBCNews.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

But my problem with James Comey doesn't have to do with any of this. I figure Comey probably isn't a bad choice for the job. But just like with Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel, "Is no Democrat good enough?" I understand that as often as not these days, Republican bureaucrats are more liberal than Democrats. But I don't like the optics. And I especially don't like them with regards to security and military positions. It makes it look like Republicans really are better at these things than Democrats. In a fundamental sense, this means that Obama really doesn't care about his party. And that's a bad thing at a time when Republican politicians care only about theirs. 

(Cross-posted at Frankly Curious.)

So Peter King is sure the Tsarnaevs didn't act alone...

By Michael J.W. Stickings

Republican blowhard Peter King is convinced the Boston Marathon bombers didn't bomb alone:

Rep. Peter King (R-N.Y.), the former chairman of the House Committee on Homeland Security, said Sunday that he did not believe the suspects in last month's Boston Marathon bombings acted alone.

"It's very difficult to believe these two could have carried out this level of attack with this level of sophistication and precision acting by themselves, without training overseas or having at least facilitators at home," King said.

King, who sits on the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, said it appeared from the effectiveness of the dual bombings that Tamerlan Tsarnaev and his younger brother, Dzhokhar, had some help.

"To me, there had to be assistance and that's why the FBI, I think, is going after this so vigorously," King said.

Maybe, maybe not, but King is one to know.

I mean, he was an enthusiastic supporter of the Irish Republican Army (IRA), and where would that terrorist organization that left so many civilians dead (in the United Kingdom, a close U.S. friend and ally) have been without so much enthusiastic (and political/financial) support from across the ocean, from King and his terrorism-enabling ilk?

He was, and remains, a shameless hypocrite.

(And really, the Tsarnaev brothers acted with "sophistication and precision"? I would say the opposite is true, which is why there wasn't more damage and why they were identified and caught so quickly. Indeed, as former CIA Deputy Director Philip Mudd put it, the attack was more Columbine than al Qaeda. Yes, King is apparently that stupid as well.)

More Columbine than al Qaeda?

By Michael J.W. Stickings

As Crooks and Liars reports, former CIA Deputy Director Philip Mudd told Fox News yesterday that the Boston Marathon bombing looks "looks more to [him] like Columbine than it does al Qaeda." He added:

Two kids who radicalized between themselves in a closed circle go out and commit murder. I would charge these guys as murders, not terrorists...

What I'm saying is we want to categorize this... with a simple term, and at looking at the psychology of clusters like this -- which I did for 20 years -- the psychology is not that simple. It's two kids who decided, for whatever ideology, that they wanted to commit murder. And the murder piece is significant as the terrorism piece.

Of course, it's still to early to draw firm conclusions. But it's clear that many in the media and on the right, including some leading Republicans, are looking for easy answers and proposals based on their biased preconceptions and agendas: it's radical Islam (or, for the real bigots, Islam generally); it's jihad; it's al Qaeda or some such terrorist group (possibly Chechen); it's part of a much larger operation with further attacks possible; Dzhokhar Tsarnaev should be designated an enemy combatant (and so denied constitutional protections even though he's an American citizen); the FBI, which had been warned by the Russians, should have known better and didn't do enough to prevent the attack; America is under attack; we need to ramp up national security; etc., etc.

It's not wrong to consider the various possibilities and examine with great care what was behind the bombing, which seems to be what law enforcement officials are doing, but it's awfully dangerous to presuppose the outcomes of the investigation, or to act as if we already know all the answers.

And that's Mudd's very sober point: this was a crime, and it may be connected to radicalism, but that doesn't necessarily make it terrorism, let alone terrorism sponsored by an enemy of the United States.

Video of the two Boston Marathon bombing suspects

By Michael J.W. Stickings

As the Times reports, "[i]n a direct appeal for help from the public, the F.B.I. on Thursday released pictures and video of two young men who officials believe may be responsible for the explosions that killed three people and wounded more than 170 during the Boston Marathon."

I hope the FBI is right and that these are in fact credible suspects. Not becasue of who they are -- we don't know who they are -- but because, well, enough with the reckless and irresponsible "reporting" of "suspects" who turn out to be nothing of the sort.

CNN blew it with some bad reporting the other day, but at least John King et al. didn't identify specific people. (And I've noticed that CNN has been very careful since then, actually doing some responsible work.) For that, for the very worst "reporting" of all, just turn to the New York Post, which reported on "photos being distributed by law-enforcement officials among themselves," even putting a photo of two "potential suspects" on its front page under the typically outlandish heading "BAG MEN," no doubt thinking it had a coup in the whole rush to be first nonsense that plagues the media generally, then later pulled back after the two men were cleared, but not with any sort of mea culpa retraction and while still running wild with what its "sources" were saying, clearly having learned nothing at all, or perhaps just not giving a shit. By the way, one of the two young men, the guy in the blue track outfit, turns out to be a local high school kid who, yes, runs track. But of course as a Moroccan-American he looks the terrorist part to the right-wing idiots/bigots at the Post.

Anyway, enough of all that. Here's the FBI video of the two real suspects:

Giving politics a worse name, New York-style

By Richard K. Barry

I know it's easy to have fun with numbers, especially when fooling around with percentages, but this is not good. BuzzFeed has done some calculating on the arrest rates of New York State politicians, and the results are stark:

When New York State Senator and former Majority Leader Malcolm Smith was arrested this week, he joined a remarkably large group: in the past six years, members of the New York State Senate have been about three times more likely than average Americans to run afoul of the law. And majority leaders have been over ten times more likely. 

The arrest rate in the country as a whole for a variety of crimes the FBI tracks is just over 4%. But the New York Public Interest Research Group says 11 state senators have been arrested in the last six years, bringing the arrest rate in the state senate (based on an estimate of how many have served in that time) to around 12%. And three of the five people to serve as majority leader or majority coalition co-leader during that time have been arrested. Which means the people who help make New York's laws are disproportionately likely to be accused of breaking them.

Come on, people. You're representing my home state, and you're embarrassing me. That's right. It's all about me. 

Michael Hastings ruining journalism... again

By Frank Moraes

I really like Michael Hastings. Like most people, I learned about him when he published his explosive "The Runaway General" in Rolling Stone. I didn't give the article itself that much thought. A reporter had a good scoop. It was the reaction to the article that made me take notice of him. It seemed you couldn't turn the page of a magazine without being confronted with another journalist explaining why Hastings' article was a bad thing. Never again would the disgraced Stanley McChrystal trust him.

My opinion of Hastings went even higher when he appeared on Up with Chris Hayes in August and dismantled Josh Barro's fascist argument against Julian Assange. Even more than Jeremy Scahill, Hastings seems determined to get at the truth regardless (or perhaps because) of powerful interests.

Earlier this week, Hastings wrote an article for BuzzFeed, "The Sins Of General David Petraeus." He doesn't talk much about the sex scandal. In fact, he writes, "For the record: Who really cares whom P4 is sleeping with? The idea that the FBI was investigating his sex life says more about the FBI and our absurd surveillance and national security state than it does about King David's morality." Overall, he is understanding of both Petraeus' and Broadwell's dalliances.

The problem is not Petraeus' affair with Broadwell; it is Petraeus' affair with the media. Hastings then goes through the last ten years of his career and shows that it has been a sham. He managed to trick the Washington establishment into thinking that the Surge in Iraq was successful and then managed to get the Obama administration to repeat the Surge in Afghanistan -- with tragic results. All while the media cheered along.

Of course, just as after the Rolling Stone article, there were journalists who had to snipe. Dylan Byers at Politico wrote a hatchet piece. It is particularly offensive because it tries to psychoanalyze Hastings. Hastings lost his girlfriend in Iraq? He went after someone who worked at Little, Brown because they decided not to publish his book? Hastings considers himself a Gonzo journalist? What any of this has to do with anything is unclear.

A commenter, Tr Randolph, wrote what I thought was a very good reply to this bit of journalistic nonsense:

Reading this warning makes me like Michael Hastings even more. The idea that journalists aren't already advocates is hogwash. The cheerleading from media up to and in to the Iraq War was disgusting, but that wasn't deemed as advocating at the time. Embedded journalists were easily the biggest military advocates and Wikileaks proved they were either unable or unwilling to report horrific crimes carried out by the U.S. military...

When journalists at Politico and other places can actually start speaking to power (you know, that whole military industrial complex that you seem to gloss over) you can put Hastings out of work. Until you develop some substance yourselves, save your warnings.

Other commenters focused on one bit of Byers article that is worth repeating here:

If you believe that journalists are supposed to call bull when they see it, then Hastings is your man. But to those who believe journalists shouldn't be advocates -- either out of ethical concerns or practical ones (it's not always effective) -- Hastings is muddying sacred waters.

This is exactly the argument we heard against the Rolling Stone article: you shouldn't tell the truth about powerful people! If you do, you will lose access. And if you lose access, you won't be able to... continue not to tell the truth about them?

Afterword

This is a great bit of TV with Hastings at his best: 


(Cross-posted at Frankly Curious.)

Seriously funny

By Mustang Bobby

When you take away all the serious issues surrounding the Petraeus story — the possible breaches of security, the FBI digging into e-mails without a whole lot of probable cause, the probable break-up of marriages — and look at it with from just the perspective of characters and plot and story, this is a farce worthy of the best comedy writers.

Look at it: the dizzying connections between the leading characters, the jealousy between men and women fighting over their prizes, the FBI agent posing shirtless for photos, the society folks puffing up their resumes and connections, even the local TV coverage with the classic "oops" moment; it's an updated Feydeau farce. Or better yet, a Woody Allen sex comedy; after all, he knows something about fooling around with women on an inappropriate level.

I realize a lot of careers and important issues are on the line here, but perhaps the best way to look at it is to realize just how seriously funny all of this is once you get down to the fact that these alleged grown-ups were acting like a bunch of horny teenagers.

Stay tuned for scenes from our next episode of Covert Affairs. 

(Cross-posted at Bark Bark Woof Woof.)

Who's to blame for the Spokane MLK parade bomb?

By Michael J.W. Stickings

As you may have heard, a bomb was discovered on Monday along the route of the Martin Luther King Jr. Day parade in Spokane, Washington.

According to the FBI, the bomb was "a potentially deadly destructive device, likely capable of inflicting multiple casualties." In other words, as one FBI agent put it, it was an IED, an improvised explosive device, just the sort of thing that has taken so many lives, including so many American military lives, in war zones like Iraq. 

Indeed, that same agent, Frank Harrill, the head of the FBI's Spokane office, described the attempted bombing as "domestic terrorism." "Clearly, there was some political or social agenda here," he said.

Yes, clearly -- an agenda more than likely directed at those who would attend an MLK day parade.

Needless to say, with no known suspect(s) so far, it's far too early to blame anyone, though of course we can easily speculate as to the politics of the would-be bomber(s).

But I'm sure Sarah and Glenn and Rush and Sean and the rest are already planning their next move. Still trying to deflect any and all responsibility for the Arizona shooting, including for the violent right-wing culture that lies behind it, they may just tell us that liberals were behind this act of domestic terrorism and that the Democratic Party will defend the terrorists just as they do al Qaeda.

Because conservatives, of course, are peace-loving, violence-hating do-gooders who would never, ever, ever spill blood.

And MLK was a Teabagger, right?

FBI, DHS target violent right-wing Christian group in MI, OH, IN

By Michael J.W. Stickings

The Detroit News reports:

At least seven people, including some from Michigan, have been arrested in raids by a FBI-led Joint Terrorism Task Force in Michigan, Ohio and Indiana as part of an investigation into an Adrian-based Christian militia group, a person familiar with the matter said.

The suspects are expected to make an initial appearance in U.S. District Court in Detroit on Monday.

On Sunday, a source close to the investigation in Washington, D.C. confirmed that FBI agents were conducting activities in Washtenaw and Lenawee counties over the weekend in connection to Hutaree, a Christian militia group. Detroit FBI Special Agent Sandra Berchtold told The Detroit News the federal warrants in the case are under court seal and declined further comment.

Sources have said the FBI was in the second day of raids around the southeastern Michigan city of Adrian that are connected to a militia group, known as the Hutaree, an Adrian-based group whose members describe themselves as Christian soldiers preparing for the arrival and battle with the anti-Christ...

The Department of Homeland Security and the Joint Terrorism Task Force are also involved in the raids.

Obviously, there's a lot we don't yet know about this.

And, obviously, as a liberal who is deeply concerned with the protection of civil liberties and who is generally suspicious of such action, I do not want to applaud what could very well be heavy-handed and perhaps even misguided law enforcement activities.

But let me just say this: For all the focus of Islamic jihadism, which indeed deserves such focus, it's about time Americans woke up and realized that one of the truly gravest threats to their country comes from within, from far-right militia groups, usually linked either to Nazism or to Christianity (or to both).

They believe in sheer nonsense, of course, and yet they believe in it fervently. They are un-American -- and anti-American -- zealots, and utterly insane. In the case of extremist Christian groups like this one (Hutaree), they are radical fundamentalists who reject liberal democracy, and secularism generally, in favour of a violent end-times theology.

(I don't want to link to the group here, but TalkLeft and Gawker have some links.)

On the problem of extremist groups generally, here's the Southern Poverty Law Center's take, via Digby:

 

The number of extremist groups in the United States exploded in 2009 as militias and other groups steeped in wild, antigovernment conspiracy theories exploited populist anger across the country and infiltrated the mainstream, according to a report issued today by the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC).

Antigovernment "Patriot" groups -- militias and other extremist organizations that see the federal government as their enemy -- came roaring back to life over the past year after more than a decade out of the limelight.

The SPLC documented a 244 percent increase in the number of active Patriot groups in 2009. Their numbers grew from 149 groups in 2008 to 512 groups in 2009, an astonishing addition of 363 new groups in a single year. Militias -- the paramilitary arm of the Patriot movement -- were a major part of the increase, growing from 42 militias in 2008 to 127 in 2009.

The terrorist who was behind the attacks on Democratic offices last week, Mike Vanderboegh, points to the Hutaree's "nuttery over the past two years" but also threatens violent counter-action:

If, God forbid, shots had been exchanged, people killed, or buildings burned down a la Waco, we would be looking at a nationwide mobilization and civil war.

"No more free Wacos," stresses Vanderboegh as a rallying cry. But if an extremist group like this emerges as a real threat to law and order -- and it seems this one was considered to be too extreme, too much of a loose cannon, even by other extremist groups -- it must be taken down.

A tolerant society should only tolerate so much.

Geesh! ... They could have used Wooly Willy ...

By J. Thomas Duffy

Oh man, this is a good one.

I suppose, since The Commander Guy -- after his woody with the bullhorn, and all his "Bring it on!" and "Dead or Alive!" -- effectively punted and gave up the hunt, the FBI had to start somewhere when looking for the most notorious terrorist, this side of the Cheney-Rumsfeld Smash-and-Grab Syndicate, Osama bin Laden.

But did they have to start in the Spanish Parliament?



Spanish MP's photo used for Osama Bin Laden poster

Gaspar Llamazares said he would no longer feel safe travelling to the US after his hair and parts of his face appeared on a most-wanted poster.

He said the use of a real person for the mocked-up image was "shameless".

The FBI admitted a forensic artist had obtained certain facial features "from a photograph he found on the internet".

[snip]

The FBI claimed to have used "cutting edge" technology, but Mr Llamazares said it showed the "low level" of US intelligence services and could cause problems if he was wrongly identified as the Saudi.

"Bin Laden's safety is not threatened by this but mine certainly is," he said, adding that he was considering taking legal action.

Later, an FBI spokesman told the BBC that it was "aware of the similarities in hairline features of the age-progressed photograph of Osama Bin Laden, posted on the web yesterday, and that of an existing photograph of a Spanish public official".

"When producing age-progressed photographs, forensic artists typically select features from a database of stock reference photographs to create the new image."

Holy Cow!

With their army of lab monkeys, and bloated budgets, some FBI schmuck does what I, and thousands of other bloggers do on a daily basis - head out to Google Images!

We could slash that budget by about 90% and just job out the work to some 7th grade somewhere in the country.

Or, they expense-account it, for about two-bucks ...

They could just have used Wooly Willy.





Bonus FBI Boners

Chris in Paris: FBI uses photo of Spanish MP to make updated bin Laden poster

Steve Hynd: FBI Alters Spanish MP's Picture, Calls Him Bin Laden

Paul Carr: NSFW: Nobody suspects the Spanish politician


Bonus Bonus

Retro Garlic: J. Edgars Gay Dating Service?

D.B. Cooper Is Barbarosa ... Or Is It Barbarosa Is D.B. Cooper?

Top Ten Cloves: Difficulties DC Comics' Batman May Have Fighting Osama bin Laden

(Cross-posted at The Garlic.)

If Joe McCarthy were a Democrat

By Capt. Fogg

This new report is proof positive that known and suspected terrorists are exploiting a major loophole in our law, threatening our families and our communities. This 'terror gap' has been open too long, and our national security demands that we shut it down.

says Sen. Frank Lautenberg, (D-NJ) No one my age can fail to be reminded of Tailgunner Joe McCarthy and his fake list of names. Frank, of course, is also a damn liar.

As might be expected, we're really not talking about "known" terrorists, but about people who have been put on a watch list, but against whom there is no evidence. The Justice Department tells us says CNN, that the FBI had thousands of names on its watch list based on outdated information and should have removed them. The GAO notes properly that being on a terrorist watch list does not mean that someone is involved in any terrorist activity, so as I said, we're not talking about "known terrorists" at all. Neither are we talking about a "loophole" here; we're talking about punishment without due process.

We should all be concerned when there's a proposal to make an accusation, an opinion, a conjecture or a suspicion reason to take away someones constitutional rights, but of course there are those so frightened of coming to harm that they just don't care, which makes them unfit to be participants in a democracy such as ours: a government of laws, not of fear. Sad to say, they're not all Republicans.

Lautenberg refers to a GAO report released yesterday, which reveals that about 90% of people who have sought to buy firearms and who had their names on a "watch list" were allowed to buy them because there was no evidence that they actually were involved in illegal acts. Perhaps they had opinions that were scary, beliefs that troubled the list makers and somehow knew other scary people: perhaps they were falsely accused or, as is often the case, had a name similar to that of a convicted felon. But of course our thoughts are supposed to be free and our associations as well. Should we start putting people who oppose abortion on a terrorism watch list because others with similar beliefs have committed crimes? What about people who have attended "Tea bag" parties? People with an 'unauthorized' religion? Why isn't thought crime abhorrent to us any more?

From his perch in the grandstand, Lautenberg claims to be introducing legislation that would give the U.S. attorney general "authority to stop the sale of guns or explosives to terrorists." That's something the law already addresses and of course it's deceptive since one is not a terrorist without some evidence of illegal activity and indeed without due process to determine guilt or innocence. So what Frank is saying here is that suspicion is guilt and suspicion trumps a fair trial and if you're different or someone doesn't like you, you have no rights. How long have we been fighting monsters that we're starting not to notice what we've become?

Ghosts in the machine

By Carl

Two stories surfaced while you were sleeping that ought to help open your eyes as you stumble around for a cup of coffee:

Item 1:

The FBI is investigating whether counterfeit routers and computer hardware from China installed in U.S. government computer networks might provide a secret gateway for hackers to tap into secure government databases.

Sources told ABC News the counterfeit hardware could represent a major breach to national security. An FBI PowerPoint presentation, which somehow ended up on a Web site, lays out the concerns and the breadth of what has been a far-reaching investigation.

Friday afternoon a somewhat miffed FBI released a statement that read: "At the request of another federal government agency, on Jan. 11, 2008, the FBI's Cyber Division provided an unclassified PowerPoint presentation and briefing on efforts to counter the production and distribution of counterfeit network hardware," said FBI Cyber Division Assistant Director James Finch. "This unclassified briefing was never intended for broad distribution or posting to the Internet."

Finch goes on to talk about Operation Cisco Raider, which "targeted illegal distributors of counterfeit network hardware manufactured in China and included 15 investigations across nine FBI field offices and the execution of 39 search warrants."

According to Finch, the FBI "disrupted a large distribution network and recovered approximately 3,500 counterfeit network components with an estimated retail value of over $3.5 million."

Ahhhhhhhhhhh, outsourcing!

Item 2:

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Cyberspies have penetrated the U.S. electrical grid and left behind software programs that could be used to disrupt the system, the Wall Street Journal reported on Wednesday.

The spies came from China, Russia and other countries, and were believed to be on a mission to navigate the U.S. electrical system and its controls, the newspaper said, citing current and former U.S. national security officials.

[...] Officials said water, sewage and other infrastructure systems also were at risk.

Ahhhh, nostalgia! Hearken back to a time when Boris and Natasha...and now Li and Guangmei... would drop microfilm canisters off in a tree stump on the Appalachian Trail...

Granted, these are nations with means and resources (and in the former instance, incredibly easy access, bordering on the treasonous) to implant the software necessary to spy on and perhaps disrupt American society.

It may not sound like much, to hit our electrical system or our water and particularly our sewer systems, until you realize just what would happen: we've had regional blackouts, one as recently as August 2003, that crippled half the country and affected the rest with flight delays, food shortages, and so on. Imagine that on a national scale.

Imagine turning on the tap in any location where water is distributed and pumped mechanically or electronically, meaning basically every place west of the Rockies and south of Oregon and most of the Midwest and farm country.

Now add to that a massive sewage backup (since treatment plants would be the likely target of a cyber attack), and murky brown water that begins to spurt out of your drains.

Yeah. That bad. With no place for all that crap to go, because storm drains would be the first to back up.

You want a disheartened nation? Tell 330 million people they have to shovel shit for a few days, nevermind weeks. In the dark. Without fresh water to bathe in, even if they could clear enough of their drains for the waste water to flow down. Probably in the middle of winter, just make things really horrid.

I can almost hear Limbaugh now: "My friends! Shoveling shit builds character! Why, it's no worse than spreading manure on your gardens! I shovel shit every day and look at me! I'm filthy rich for it!"

I say Limbaugh will support this because quite simply, the Russians and Chinese aren't going to do this on Barack Obama's watch, but should some idiot Republican (and it always seems to be them, don't it?) get us into another useless war, even a cold one, with Russia AND China, they won't hesitate. They'll trigger the "S" bomb.

(Cross-posted to Simply Left Behind.)

Why bother with a constitution?

By Carol Gee

More Power to you, Mr. President? Actually, we the American people do not think so. We believe we still have the constitution, thank you very much. According to Matt Berman, who writes "The Daily Muck" (9/15/08) at TPM Muckraker:

A new AP-National Constitution Center poll shows that a majority of Americans are opposed to giving more power to the President, even at the expense of national security or the economy. The poll shows that two-thirds of Americans are opposed to shifting the balance of government towards the executive, evidence of wide-ranging skepticism of the advances in executive power during the Bush years. The poll also found more of a split when Americans were asked if Congress should be awarded greater power in times of economic or national security hardships. (AP)

I am a Constitution Voter Campaign -- At the ACLU Blog (9/15/08), Caroline Fredrickson on Salon Radio, on the Constitution Voter Campaign talks about how useful it would be to have the presidential candidates talk about Constitutional issues.

Our current president (OCP) started ignoring the Constitution by spying on Americans without a legal warrant some time ago. A great post illustrates an example. It cleverly and succinctly summarizes the new Barton Gellman material, with the five main points of the book's revelations. It came from ACLU Blog, and was written by Amanda Simon (9/15/08): "Ashcroft Defends Constitution in Spying Clusterfrack. Happy Opposite Day!"

Our current president (OCP) had massive help from the private sector in shredding our Constitution's privacy protection -- At the website, Dandelion Salad [by Tom Burghardt of Global Research, September 11, 2008], comes the sordid story. To quote:

What do the NSA's warrantless wiretapping program and enterprising capitalist grifters have in common? Workarounds...and lots of them. The kind that aren't covered by any law.

Two highly-disturbing reports by CNET and the London Review of Books describe how government intelligence agencies and niche telecom providers have teamed-up to subvert our privacy rights-while providing security agencies with real-time cell phone tracking capabilities.

. . . And with a swarming multitude of new companies crawling out of the woodwork to "service" the "homeland security" market, why its a snap. Firms such as ThorpeGlen, VASTech, Kommlabs, and Aqsacom all sell what CNET's Chris Soghoian describes as "off-the-shelf data-mining solutions to government spies interested in analyzing mobile-phone calling records and real-time location information."

Called "passive-probing" data mining, these companies are carving-out lucrative niche markets. Only there's nothing "passive" about these intrusive operations undertaken in concert with a veritable army of state and corporate spooks.

. . . And there you have it. Niche telecom providers are the latest players in the West's burgeoning "terrorism industry," one that "keeps us safe" by destroying our privacy and our rights with hefty profits all around. Call it another seamless victory for the market's "invisible hand" that clenches as it morphs into the state's iron fist wrapped in American flags and blood-drenched corporate logos.

Congress has sometimes been complicit with OCP in the business of warrantless wiretapping, even when Democrats were in charge. To give them their due, however, they have held many hearings revealing some truth about the extent of damage to the principles of the Constitution's Bill of Rights. For example, hats off to Senator Russ Feingold (D-WI) for recently holding this Judiciary subcommittee hearing: "Restoring the Rule of Law."# It was this desire to dial back the executive power overreach that was Bush's primary governing philosophy that led the senator to call together nearly a dozen experts Tuesday morning for the Judiciary subcommittee hearing. To quote:

Some Democrats -- frustrated at banging their heads against a wall much of these last eight years, as they've watched George W. Bush run roughshod over the Constitution and the rule of law -- are determined to return some semblance of order once the president leaves office next year.

The FBI became the agency charged with domestic intelligence gathering during the post-9/11 reorganization of the government's intelligence and homeland security programs. But like other organizations in the executive branch, they have become less and less interested in civil liberties over the years. The following story is an illustration of what Congress is trying to do about that. "Mueller Grilled Over Claims New FBI Powers Amounts to Racial Profiling, More Spying,"* by Robert Chlala for The Public Record on September 19, 2008. To quote:

. . . what the new framework Mueller described would actually do is allow agents to begin "assessments" and surveillance without first obtaining factual evidence. Additionally, the guidelines would permit agents to use race and ethnicity as a factor for triggering investigations.

Despite the concerns raised during the hearings and pressure from civil rights groups, Attorney General Michael Mukasey plans on signing the guidelines into law on Oct. 1.

These guidelines represent only some of a series of changes in law enforcement set in place the last year, increasing the power of federal, state and local authorities. Other new policies include the proposal to eliminate restrictions on local and state law enforcement intelligence gathering, the recruitment of over 15,000 new informants, and the creation of local-level "fusion centers" that gather and monitor masses of criminal and non-criminal information on individuals.

While the FBI guidelines have not been released to the general public, several members of Congress and key staffers from the Judiciary Committees of the House and Senate pressed and received limited access to the draft. Department of Justice briefings and a speech by Attorney General Michael Mukasey in August also shed light on the topic.

Evidently protest is not protected in the copy of the Constitution carried by OCP. The Secret Service, under the Treasury Department, is charged with the protection of the President and Vice President, as well as of the candidates currently running for those offices. They are very good at taking their marching orders from OCP, who ignores Constitutional rights under the guise of maintaining safety. This perfect example "Secret Service order police to block McCain protesters,"* was a post at The Raw Story by David Edwards and Muriel Kane on September 17. To quote:

. . . Leaders of the protest, which had been arranged and publicized by local unions and the Ohio Democratic Party, said that as many as several hundred people had been expected to attend, but police were not letting them through roadblocks surrounding the area.

ACLU Calls for Investigation into Civil Liberties Violations at RNC -- During the Republican National Convention there were mass arrests, police raids on private homes and the detention of several journalists. This comes from my ACLU newsletter, and is a reminder why I am so grateful for the ACLU's long battle to protect our rights under the Constitution. To quote:

"Attempts by law enforcement to squelch lawful political speech and stifle the press have no place in our democracy and are unacceptable," said Anthony D. Romero, Executive Director of the ACLU. "Political conventions should be a showcase for free expression, not a venue for bullying and intimidation."

The ACLU specifically called for an investigation into possible violations of the First and Fourth Amendments, including:

* The arrest of reporters trying to gather the news;
* The mass arrest of hundreds of peaceful protestors;
* The surveillance and subsequent raids on several activist groups and private homes; and
* The confiscation by law enforcement agents of constitutionally-protected private property.

The ACLU affiliate office in Minnesota has assembled legal counsel for many of the reporters and peaceful protesters arrested at the protests and has also filed a lawsuit in federal court calling for the release of boxes of literature that were confiscated during raids.

Why bother with the Constitution at all when Homeland Security, under the cover of Keeping Us Safe, can intrude into Sesame Street, of all things? I give up. "Homeland Security, Sesame Style,"* by Jeff Dufour and Patrick Gavin (9/1808), at DC Examiner, explains. To quote:

In a move that will make Bush administration detractors bring back those duct tape jokes again, the Department of Homeland Security has partnered up with the famous children's show.

"We all want our children to feel safe in this world," said Meryl Chertoff, wife of Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff, at a ceremony held at the John Tyler Elementary School to announce the partnership. "And who better to do that than our Sesame Street friends, Grover and Rosita!"

. . . As you can imagine, the partnership is aimed at children, and seeks to encourage family preparedness plans in the case of emergencies.

Hat Tip Key: Regular contributors of links to leads are "betmo"* and Jon#.

(Cross-posted at South by Southwest.)

Congress is back and what are they doing?

By Carol Gee

Elections, ethics and hearings are the stuff of the day as Congress tackles a short session before leaving again for the fall elections. Politico takes an in-depth look at 10 [races] . . . worth watching closely in "2008's hot House, Senate races," by Tim Grieve, 9/9/08. To quote: "Eight weeks from Tuesday, voters will elect 435 House members and 35 senators." Democrats have a real chance to increase the size of their majorities. But all those races will inevitably be influenced by the news of the day, both domestic and foreign.

In the past politics "stopped at the water's edge," when it came to foreign relations, but no more. The foreign relations problem of Russia vs. Georgia is something with Congress wrestles. The presidential candidates, however, are not terribly far apart on their positions, according to Politico.com:

The fallout from Russia’s conflict with Georgia is producing an unusual split in American politics — not between the parties so much as between the presidential candidates and their colleagues in Congress.

Congressional Committee Chairmen are staying busy. The Senate Judiciary Committee, chaired by Vermont Democratic Senator Pat Leahy, will be meeting to hear what the FBI Director has to say about his new surveillance guidelines. And Representative Charlie Rangel (D-NY) will continue his attempt to get off the hotseat. This all according to Matt Berman, who writes "The Daily Muck" (9/15/08) at TPM Muckraker. To quote:

The Justice Department proposed new FBI guidelines on Friday that would apply to national security and foreign intelligence threats. The guidelines, which would expand physical surveillance, have come under heavy criticism by the ACLU and some Democrats for possibly allowing for racial, ethnic, and religious targeting. FBI Director Robert Muller is set to testify to the Senate Judiciary Committee about the guidelines on Wednesday. (AP)

. . . Chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee Charlie Rangel (D-NY) has decided to hire a forensic accounting expert to assist him in his growing problems stemming from unreported income and unpaid taxes on his Dominican Republic beach house. The accountant, who is yet to be hired, will go through Rangel's finances and later deliver a report to the House ethics committee. (AP)

Legislation and more Bush administration scandal is looming -- There will not be enough time to pass much legislation, except perhaps something dealing with energy. A good story about this is in ProPublica, 9/11/08, by Paul Keil and is headlined, "Will Scandal Shake Up Offshore Drilling Bill?" To quote:

A series of inspector general reports alleging cocaine use and government regulators literally jumping into bed with Big Oil would make a splash regardless of when it came. But whether it was PR panache on the inspector general's part or a happy coincidence, yesterday's reports came just as Congress is set to debate expanding offshore drilling.

There will be hearings. And Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) has argued that "the allegations of illicit and unethical behavior...are directly related to the energy debate taking place in the Congress this week."

While it would seem that all is quiet in congress on the domestic surveillance front, civil libertarians, constitution lovers, nay-sayers, and disgruntled progressives are far from quiescent. In daily checking, my aggregator's "Investigative Faves" folder continues to bring important stories. Examples follow:

Former Attorney General John Ashcroft defended the Constitution, according to the ACLU blog's great little overview of the occasion. Glenn Greenwald at Salon.com writes at greater length, "What illegal "things" was the government doing in 2001-2004?" (Sept. 15, 2008). To quote:

. . . Barton Gellman's new book on the Cheney Vice Presidency, . . provides still more details . . . DOJ's refusal to certify the legality of the NSA's domestic spying activities. As has been known ever since Deputy Attorney General James Comey testified before the Senate in May, 2007, all of the top-level DOJ officials -- including Attorney General John Ashcroft, Comey and FBI Director Robert Mueller -- told President Bush they would resign immediately because Bush ordered the NSA surveillance program to continue even after his own Justice Department told him it was patently illegal.
. . . we almost certainly would have learned the answers . . . or, at the very least, obtained a judicial ruling that the Government broke the law -- had the telecom lawsuits been allowed to proceed. But thanks to the Congressional leadership of both parties, with the support of both major presidential candidates (though over the opposition of the Democratic Vice Presidential nominee), those lawsuits were killed, stopped in their tracks, when the telecom industry was retroactively immunized for their lawbreaking. At this point, it is extremely easy to understand why not only the White House and Congressional Republicans, but also the Democratic leadership, was so eager to ensure that this law-breaking remain concealed from the public and that there are never any consequences for it. It's because, as is true for so much of the Bush radicalism and lawbreaking over the years, top Democrats were fully aware of what was taking place and either explicitly endorsed the lawbreaking or, with full complicity, allowed it to continue. In his book, Gellman details a March 10, 2004 meeting convened by Dick Cheney regarding the DOJ's objections to the NSA surveillance programs -- in which various Bush national security officials were present along with "the four ranking members of the House and the Senate, and the chairmen and vice chairmen of the intelligence committees"
. . . Though there is dispute about whether these members of Congress expressly endorsed the continuation of the illegal program, there is no dispute that the meeting took place and that these members were repeatedly briefed on the spying program -- not only after 2004, but before 2004. This specific meeting described by Gellman, and the briefings generally, included Nancy Pelosi, Jane Harman, Steney Hoyer, and Jay Rockefeller -- all of whom voted to put an end to the telecom lawsuits (and thereby ensure that these crimes remain concealed), and the latter two of whom were, far and away, the key forces behind the new law that killed the lawsuits looking into these spying activities (and then joined Bush and Cheney at a festive, bipartisan White House signing ceremony to celebrate their joint victory).

And finally, some follow-up on telecom immunity, just so you know: "Justice Department Moving to Immunize Snooping Telcos," is from David Kravets at Wired - Threat Level, (9/12/08). To quote:

Two months ago, President Bush won congressional approval to immunize the nation's telecommunications companies from lawsuits accusing them of helping Bush funnel Americans' electronic communications to the National Security Agency without warrants -- all in the name of national security following the Sept. 11 terror attacks.

But the telecoms, facing 36 lawsuits commingled as one in a San Francisco federal court, still haven't been granted immunity in the lawsuits alleging they breached their customers' Fourth Amendment right to privacy. On Friday, however, Justice Department special counsel Anthony Coppolino said the government would comply with the immunity bill's procedural hurdles by Sept. 19 to seek blanket immunity on behalf of the companies.

. . . Among other things -- if the legislation stands -- the telecoms are off the hook if the Justice Department can prove, in sealed documents to the court, that the telecoms' assistance was, among other things, the result of a court order; or authorized under the Protect America Act of 2007 or was approved by the president and designed "to detect or prevent a terrorist attack, or in activities in preparation for a terrorist attack, against the United States, and the subject of a written request or directive."

Today in the history of the Constitution, on September 16 in 1787, Thomas Jefferson was traveling in Italy. And on the following day, September 17, 1787, the signing of the Constitution took place. So get ready to celebrate Constitution Day tomorrow with me as I write another post on the subject.

(Cross-posted at South by Southwest.)

Understanding Your FBI

By Carol Gee

The Federal Bureau of Investigation is 100 years old this year. To commemorate the occasion the website features the story of the violent death of Bonnie and Clyde, folks who came from my current neck of the woods.

Prowling around the FBI website turned up some interesting finds. First was the page for the National Security Branch. National Security Letters made the news last March. Breaking news yesterday regarded the formation of a Northern Virginia Public Corruption/Government Fraud Task Force. Let's hope that they can give us some genuine protection before the big elections in the fall.

Around the Internet -- The search term "fbi" returned 57,600,000 entries, including - of course - Wikipedia's. I feel sure that the FBI has someone assigned to monitor the Wiki site to assure accuracy, given that they had 28,576 employees in 2004. The FBI seems almost ubiquitous. And we are told that every single one of them is out there to protect us in some way.

Just so you can't say you didn't know -- The 2008 Republican National Convention is September 1-4, in Minneapolis-Saint Paul. -- Depending whether you inside or outside of the fence at the Republican Convention, this news will hit you from opposite psychological directions.

If you are a Democrat you need to know from Discourse.net,* (5/26/08) that the "FBI [is] Recruiting Infiltrators for GOP Convention Protesters." To quote:

This gets complicated. According to - City Pages (Minneapolis/St. Paul), Moles Wanted, the FBI’s Joint Terrorism Task Force is recruiting people to infiltrate anti-GOP protest groups in the run-up to the upcoming Republican convention.

The law is clear that police may attend public meetings undercover to see what people are up to. And of course undercover operations in private settings are also legal, although there should be guidelines as to when they are appropriate. And of course it’s good citizenship for private citizens to report crimes when they witness them.

Republicans have been informed,via the Top Ten questions section of the convention website, to quote Number 5, emphasis mine:

How will people who live and work in the Minneapolis – Saint Paul area be affected during the week of the convention? Detailed planning for a major event like this is obviously very important - and I want to assure you that we will have comprehensive transportation and security plans in place. . . Most convention guests will be transported to and from official events using mass transit, mainly in the form of buses, which will minimize the number of vehicles using the roadways during the event.

Security plans formulated after September 11, 2001 did not, in my opinion, include nearly enough protections for civil liberties. And that is where the United States lost its way. This story from (5/27) Dissident Voice* on torture makes it clear that torture was known about and eventually condoned at all levels of government, including the FBI, from early on in the Bush administration. The FBI did speak up or a time, but they were no match for the rest of the group.

*Hat tip to"betmo" for the *items. I always appreciate that she knows so well what I like.

(Cross-posted at South by Southwest.)

Internal threats?

By Carol Gee

"Internal threats," according to common usage in this age of Bush administration fear mongering, invokes the possibility of acts that might do harm to us or those we love. Today's post discusses news about two court rulings that should be heartening to civil libertarians because the decisions say to the government, in effect, "Just because you label something as a threat does not necessarily make it so." What both court decisions make clear is that in these cases the rights of those targeted in government actions trump the false threat claims of the government. But fearful people in government probably will not give up without more threats and accusations aimed at raising the anxiety level of the general public. We begin with the problem of homophobic fears and discrimination based on sexual preference.

Threats of passing a Constitutional amendment banning gay marriage have arisen as a result of the California Supreme Court's ruling yesterday. Salon's Glenn Greenwald provides an excellent analysis, as well as the political implications of this narrowly drawn opinion of mostly Republican appointed justices, concluding, to quote:

It's self-evident that there's no way rationally to assess whether the Court acted correctly if one doesn't bother to find out anything about the California State Constitution and the precedent interpreting and applying it. Anyone who seeks to opine about the propriety of the court's ruling without doing that basic work is simply expressing an opinion about whether they like the outcome as a policy matter, i.e., is being guided by the defining attribute of so-called "judicial activism" (ignoring relevant law in favor of outcome preferences).

What is threatening about legalizing gay marriage? For the life of me, I have never been able to understand the fears. So I will quote Bluebloggin's insightful thoughts on the matter,

First a word from the out of touch: [regarding Republican views] As usual McCain is wrong, the Judges were asked to review a Constitutional violation, which is their job. As for John Cornyn he’ll probable be hitting the dusty trail after the November elections.

Now, for the evolved: California’s Supreme Court declared gay couples in the nation’s biggest state can marry - a monumental but perhaps short-lived victory for the gay rights movement Thursday that was greeted with tears, hugs, kisses and at least one instant proposal of matrimony.

Same-sex couples could tie the knot in as little as a month. But the window could close soon after - religious and social conservatives are pressing to put a constitutional amendment on the ballot in November that would undo the Supreme Court ruling and ban gay marriage.

FBI use of, or perhaps threats of, issuing National Security Letters (NSLs) has been the subject of a scathing FBI Inspector General's report of abuse of the power of FBI NSLs. It has been extremely difficult for those in receipt of such letters to get protection or redress through the courts. But is has happened, and some in the Senate want to find our more about the practice. Thus "Senators Ask FBI to Explain Flawed 'National Security Letter' to Internet Archive," headlines this very encouraging story by Ryan Singel at Wired - Threat Level. To quote:

A bipartisan group of U.S. senators is asking FBI head Robert Mueller to explain why the feds sought records from the Internet Archive, a digital library, using a controversial administrative subpoena known as a National Security Letter, which is intended for a communications service providers.

The Internet Archive, a digital library of the web and media, beat the November 26 NSL with the help of attorneys at the Electronic Frontier Foundation and the American Civil Liberties Union. In April, the FBI agreed to withdraw the request for records on a Internet Archive user and lift the gag order that typically attaches to such requests.

The six senators sent Mueller a letter Thursday, asking him to explain what happened and to find out if the FBI reported the incident to an oversight board as a possible violation of federal law.

The Internet Archive's case is only the third known legal challenge to NSLs, despite the fact that the the FBI issues tens of thousands a year -- more than 100,000 such letters were issued in 2004 and 2005 combined.

Despite the good news covered up to this point in my post, we must remain vigilant against government charges of internal threats. When my friend "betmo" labels something "FYI," I have learned to pay attention. Her short post Wednesday highlighted a couple of different kinds of "internal threats" by the government against seemingly justified targets, all suspected wrong-doers in federal custody or "enemy" computers. The proposals involve 1) taking DNA samples from everyone incarcerated in the federal legal system, and 2) the Air Force being allowed to possess hacker tools that would give them potential access to every kind of computer in the world. The problem is that these government actions, if allowed to go forward, could diminish the core Bill of Rights civil liberties of all of us. Stay tuned for the next examples. We will inevitable find them as long as this fearful and fear mongering administration is in power.

(Cross-posted at South by Southwest.)

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.)