Showing posts with label Obama administration. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Obama administration. Show all posts

Friday, April 9, 2010

Where is the Accountability?

MS. SMITH GOES TO WASHINGTON

Words
A word is dead
when it is said,
Some say.
I say it just
Begins to live.
-- Emily Dickinson, c. 1872  


BuzzFlash,

One of my favorites by Dickinson, because I agree, especially if the word or words come from political leaders around the world. Obama just this week brought alive two common words that were never really dead: nuclear and assassination.

Not the first time our leaders have mentioned these two words. There is something about power in leaders that seems to always lead to debt, death, and destruction. This week I understand that we, as a nation, under the Obama administration have signed a treaty:


The treaty substantially cuts the nuclear weapons that the United States and Russia will deploy and will significantly reduce missiles and launchers, Obama said. It follows a 1991 treaty that expired in December and about which the United States and Russia have been negotiating.   

This is all really great, the attempt in the taming of nuclear power. However, the fact that we will still bump off our enemies using assassination attempts by the CIA per instructions from Obama, just doesn't fit well, in my mind, with a nation trying to avoid violence.

I still remember the horrible sixties and the great losses that this nation had, and I firmly believe that we, as a nation, suffered greatly for the next 30 years due to those leaders that we lost. That said, we constantly are subjecting people to dangers and violence in Iraq and Afghanistan and we still maintain over 800 bases around the world, which spreads fear and paranoia in countries that just might look to the U.S. as an invading and occupying country today, especially after what Bush did to Iraq. How can they trust the US government, when it's very hard for American citizens to do so?

These orders for assassinations, to me, are so Bush GOP. I was hoping that with the Clinton administration, and now the Obama administration, that once and for all, we could rid our government of the Bush crime family's influence and their thuggish ways of doing business. But I guess not. It always strikes me that these people in D.C. are so far away from the deadly decisions that they make for our military and for other innocent people around the world, that we Americans don't have to wonder how in the hell they sleep at night.  
* * * * *

Feb 5 2010, 4:34 PM ET

Director of National Intelligence Dennis Blair told to Congress Wednesday that the U.S. can target Americans to be killed if it believes they are involved in terrorism. This supports an earlier report that the CIA and JSOC maintain White House-approved "kill lists" of three to four Americans. Blair articulated the policy as requiring high-level approval but did not mention Congressional oversight or judicial review. He described the criteria as "whether that American is involved in a group that is trying to attack us, whether that American is a threat to other Americans." So far, the only confirmed American target is Anwar al-Awlaki. The vagueness of Blair's criteria, as well as the assertion that Awlaki meets those criteria, raises the question: What gets an American citizen on the kill lists?

A 1981 executive order signed by President Reagan explicitly bans assassination by the U.S. government. However, in 2002, the Bush administration issued a secret finding allowing the CIA to target Americans directly involved in terrorism. American citizen Kamal Derwish was killed in 2002 under this authority, struck by an unmanned drone while traveling in a car with the al-Qaeda organizer of the 2000 attack on the USS Cole. The 2002 policy, which did not extend to JSOC, claimed that "enemy combatants" can be killed, a phrase that the Obama administration does not use.      
* * * * *  

The arrogance of such threats to kill, not only American citizens, but to kill others around the world, and we Americans have seen this type of killing already. Drones killing people in Pakistan, and we are told (paraphrasing) they were nobodies, they were dangerous "terrorists," (the idiot word of the century made popular by one of its own, idiot, of course). Or oops! They were actually innocent families and were killed as if they were just nothing more than ashes to ashes or dust to dirt or U.S. collateral damage.

I still remember the carelessness and the atrocities reported in Iraq. By the way, with the deaths of two reporters in the news as well as people targeted with cameras and not guns, how many Americans remember that at least 70 journalists and photographers were killed in Iraq, and most of them by the Bush U.S. military. Eh? Bush did not want anyone photographing or reporting, who was not connected to the U.S. military.

Also, probably not reported here in the U.S., there were families killed at check points, trying to get the hell out of Iraq. Families being killed by weapons that were being tested for use. Gory descriptions of what those weapons did. Our own military and leaders appointing themselves as judge and jury? Not in a functioning democracy, but in a dysfunctional democracy, yes, we would see this and we are constantly seeing this. I wouldn't want any of them on my jury. Do those types of mistakes sound as if those weapons were in the hands of professionals?

I thought that after Bush, who had several months of warnings before 9/11, and then used that to advance his own bloody and deadly agenda, that this would have taught U.S. government serious lessons about keeping a tight rein on U.S. leadership in power... only after one million people dead and two to three million people uprooted, homeless, and over 5,000, Americans dead, all due to lies, did most of the killing finally stop, but we Americans are still there.

And, let's think for a minute, say Saddam did have WMD. Are we, the U.S., the police of the world, when our own country has the largest stash of WMD? No. It's not our job to invade and occupy another country, killing innocent people and there was no way for this leader to ever get those WMD, which Saddam did not have, to the U.S. All lies. And, branded into my brain is the picture of Bush making fun and laughing as he played at searching for those WMD.

And, yet, today, all of those murders and lies, go unaccountable. Abuse of such power demands accountability for the dead. It's called taking responsibility. If we don't demand that, why should anyone in power think twice about what they do, even when it concerns taking lives, and it almost always concerns taking the lives of innocent people. This nation has not had accountability from our leaders since Nixon.

What happens? Over and over again, we have this type of scenario, killing people on the word of our leaders, even one such as Bush, who was never elected, and don't forget the killing Clinton did in Bosnia and the bombing for years of Iraq to please Bush number one. Killing by proxy. They may not pull the trigger, but they are responsible.

What do we have to do to get a government that respects life and is willing to be a role model for a real democracy? I'd like to know. We had to fight to save any lives with a minimal type of healthcare. Vets have to fight for healthcare after being wounded. Women have to fight to be in charge of their own bodies. I still remember years ago, as I've said before, when "rape" was questioned in U.S. courts with lawyers using coke bottles. In other words a woman being raped was not accepted. She had to "do" something to deserve it. How backward was that? Just as backward as hearing that even in today's world, women serving in our own US military were being raped by U.S. military, and not too much was being done about it.

Back to our leaders dishing out assassination jobs or invasions, when none of these people have ever known the violence of war and its lasting affects on the human heart and soul, or have even served in U.S. military. War involves such trauma that it lasts the lifetime of those involved. That is why they hate us.

Tormented from a lifetime of memories of horror. Just review the figures of so many of our own in U.S. military, suffering with PTSD and a lack of good healthcare, who took their lives after returning to this country.

Bush number two went AWOL without punishment. It's too easy for any leader of the U.S. today to kill people. I was always under the impression that Congress should be the watchdog of this type of misuse of power. But, we don't even have that type of Congress today. How many members of Congress have served in a war or in U.S. military, I wonder, and how many tried to stop Bush?

Below, more proof that Obama is just another continuation -- sorta, kinda like Clinton, and Bush number two -- of U.S. government's use of violence and using Bush's joke of the century:

"War on terrorism." We Americans are not that stupid, and our leaders are too far away from the American populace to realize that, unless they are out campaigning, that is. War is terrorism. Assassinations without trial, evidence, or a jury are not and never will be the leadership signs of a working democracy. Where is the passion that goes along with such beliefs. I don't see it in U.S. government, and it hasn't been there for years.   

And, we Americans thought we voted for change.
* * * * *

This article originally appeared in the October 2009 edition of Freedom Daily. Subscribe to the print or email version of Freedom Daily.

Bush’s war-on-terrorism paradigm obviously provides another way to treat suspected terrorists — simply by killing them. No arrests, no Miranda warnings, no presumption of innocence, no attorneys, no trials, and no other messy procedures associated with the criminal-justice system. Not even incarceration in a military dungeon, torture, or trial before a kangaroo tribunal.

Instead, just have the CIA assassinate them.
* * * * *  

Actually, it (the Bush GOP's war on terrorism) started years ago. How many Americans know the history behind this true family of crime?
* * * * *

With CIA headquarters now officially named the George Bush Center for Intelligence and with veterans of the Reagan-Bush years still dominating the CIA's hierarchy, the spy agency might be hoping that the election of Texas Gov. George W. Bush will free it from demands to open up records to the American people.
* * * * *  

Of course, Bush was never elected and the Supreme was never punished for putting their guy into the White House. The fake five should have been impeached. Even the Supreme Court should not be above U.S. law. But, hell, U.S. law doesn't seem to be in any of the three branches of U.S. government in today's world.

For anyone interested, the below link is a long article that brings us up to 9/11:


Where does it say in our Constitution that any President or illegal resident, such as Bush, of the White House has the power to use the CIA to carry out assassinations or even invasions and occupations for that matter? It's always been my belief that since George H. W. Bush was in charge of the CIA, that half of that organization are good people for the country and yet, another half is still under the influence of Bush Sr., and are thugs. A word that has a history and a direct connection to the word that became 'assassination.'

"Thug was first used as a term for a member of an organization of professional robbers and assassins in India who strangled their victims."
-- Oxford Dictionary of Word Histories.

* * * * * 

The threat of an Al Qaeda "Attack on America" is being used profusely by the Bush administration and its indefectible British ally to galvanize public opinion in support of a global military agenda.

Known and documented, the "Islamic terror network" is a creation of the US intelligence apparatus. There is firm evidence that several of the terrorist "mass casualty events" which have resulted in civilian casualties were triggered by the military and/or intelligence services. Similarly, corroborated by evidence, several of the terror alerts were based on fake intelligence as revealed in the London 2006 foiled "liquid bomb attack", where the alleged hijackers had not purchased airline tickets and several did not have passports to board the aircraft.

The "war on terrorism" is bogus. The 911 narrative as conveyed by the 911 Commission report is fabricated. The Bush administration is involved in acts of cover-up and complicity at the highest levels of government.

Revealing the lies behind 911 would serve to undermine the legitimacy of the "war on terrorism".

Revealing the lies behind 911 should be part of a consistent antiwar movement.
Without 911, the war criminals in high office do not have a leg to stand on. The entire national security construct collapses like a deck of cards
-- Michel Chossudovsky is the author of the international bestseller America’s "War on Terrorism"  Global Research, 2005. He is Professor of Economics at the University of Ottawa and Director of the Center for Research on Globalization.       
* * * * *  

I'm only bringing this up again because it's still going on even with Obama. This fake, so-called "war on terror." We, the U.S. and our leaders, such as both of the Bushes, have been the largest terrorists around the world, along with members of the CIA doing the bidding of these leaders and killing people when they don't even know for sure, "they just think they might be terrorists, which is what happened in Iraq and Pakistan" and this has been a proven fact. This makes the U.S. no different from any other outlaw country that goes around killing innocent citizens, such as our own innocent citizens were killed on 911. And what did Bush do to please those Americans wanting blood, anybody's blood? He bombed Afghanistan and killed up to 5,000 innocent citizens and never did get bin Laden, whose family just happened to be Bush family friends.

More facts that happened back then: At least 100 members of the bin Laden family were allowed to leave this country by Bush, without being questioned by the FBI, during the U.S. ordered fly down.

Also in the news this week is a report of a guy on a U.S. flight smoking a cigarette in the bathroom and when he is discovered, it's as if the professionals or upper class were left at home and the incident was being handled by the freshman. Whenever I hear of such idiocy, I have to think of the poor and very ignorant woman who made the mistake of believing some talking Bush GOP sap who was telling Americans that duct tape would protect them from an attack, and she wrapped her two children and herself into a small compartment and they smothered to death. 

When we have people in government being paid large salaries, they should be expected to know what the hell they are doing and what they are talking about. I personally am sick and tired of the slick phrases and parroted themes dished out to the populace by U.S. government. The same themes that were used constantly for the full eights years of the Bush GOP regime.   That was the kind of leadership that we in the U.S. did not need.

However, we do still need accountability. But what does Bush get for his continuing eight years of debt, death, and destruction all on his so-called quest of "fighting a war on terror?"  A library and speaking engagements. More proof that these leaders represent only the top 1 to 5 percent of the U.S. population, and that is the real change that we must achieve in this nation.

Which brings us to today, and since the Obama administration, just as the Clinton administration, refuses to demand accountability for the lives taken so frivolously by the Bush GOP regimes, and forge on ahead as if they meant nothing, nothing will change. Absolutely nothing. Just as it was during the eight years of the Clinton administration, and today, during the Obama administration, we have constant threats of violence from the Right Wing of the Republican Party, and the leaders of that party do nothing. We have violence inside and outside this country without responsibility. Bush would have arrested the teabaggers if they were Democrats, because he arrested and had cops at every protest, and these protests were against violence, his violence.

Power without responsibility will continue. Instead of a U.S. government of law and order, we have a government of power among the privileged and elitists. If there is a war going on, regardless of where, it is, in reality, a war against the poor.  

Thanks BuzzFlash,  
Shirley Smith
MS. SMITH GOES TO WASHINGTON

Let The Sun Shine In......

Sunday, December 27, 2009

Right-wing Freakout......

Just part of the Christmas season, anymore....like decorated trees, houses and such.

O Tannen-Mao? The right-wing's White House Christmas tree freak-out

http://mediamatters.org/items/200912230023

Taking a cue from Andrew Breitbart's BigGovernment.com, several conservative media outlets have reported on three ornaments on the White House Christmas tree depicting President Obama's face superimposed on Mount Rushmore, Mao Zedong, and Hedda Lettuce. Despite the suggestion that those three Christmas tree ornaments (out of hundreds) indicated a "political statement" by the White House, according to the first lady's office, the tree was decorated by community groups, and the White House was unaware of those specific ornaments.

Breitbart's BigGovernment.com posts WH Christmas tree "exlcusive"


BigGovernment.com: "Transvestites, Mao And Obama Ornaments Decorate White House Christmas Tree." In a December 22 BigGovernment.com entry, "Capitol Confidential" posted photos of the three ornaments, writing:

Why let a holiday season come between the White House and making some political statements? The White House pegged controversial designer Simon Doonan to oversee the Christmas decorations for the White House. Mr. Doonan, who is creative director of Barney's New York has often caused a stir with his design choices. Like his naughty yuletide window display of Margaret Thatcher as a dowdy dominatrix and Dan Quayle as a ventriloquist's dummy. For this year's White House, he didn't disappoint.

Fox News, conservative blogs pick up the story.......

Fox News' Special Report highlights "interesting ornaments." As documented by Media Matters for America's Jeremy Holden and Jeremy Schulman, the December 22 edition of Fox News' Special Report with Bret Baier featured a "Political Grapevine" segment on the ornaments, during which Baier reported:
BAIER: They include the communist leader Mao; drag queen -- celebrity queen -- Hedda Lettuce, who boasts on her Web site about her ornament being featured in the White House; and Mount Rushmore with a familiar face [President Obama] added.
Washington Times blog: "Chairman Mao adorns White House Christmas tree..." A December 23 entry to The Washington Times' Water Cooler blog linked to and quoted a December 23 entry on David Horowitz's NewsReal blog attacking the White House for choosing "a lovely ornament featuring China's mass murderer, Chairman Mao, to adorn our national Christmas tree at the White House."

NewsReal: White House "denigrating our Christian traditions." The December 23 NewsReal blog post to which The Washington Times linked further asserted:

Considering Obama's hostility to Christianity, as shown by his celebration of every religion except Christianity, Americans shouldn't be surprised. After all, the first thing any successful dictator must do is banish God from the public square and make fealty to the state primary.

Undoubtedly, Obama and Michelle are just expressing themselves, as is their right. That they choose to do so by denigrating our Christian traditions in such a disrespectful fashion however, is akin to a dog peeing on a Bible. And that's just not very presidential.

Gateway Pundit: "What a complete shock. A real stunner." From a December 22 GatewayPundit.com post, linking to BigGovernment.com's "Exclusive":

Barack Obama's White House Christmas Tree this year includes mass murderer Mao Tse-Tung ornaments.
[...]
You've gotta hand it to the Obamas. At least they're consistent.
Maybe they have yuletide tapes by G-D AmeriKKKa Reverend Wright playing in the background?
Steyn: Ornaments are "the new Democrat Holy Trinity." Guest-hosting Rush Limbaugh's radio show on December 23, Mark Steyn cited BigGovernment.com's story and commented: "I don't know what this is, the new Democrat Holy Trinity. And lo, the angel Gabriel appeared to the drag queen and said, 'Thou shalt conceive a child from Chairman Mao, and his name shall be Barack, and the star -- and he shall shimmer like a star in the west, blotting out Teddy Roosevelt on Mount Rushmore.' "

BigGovernment.com's "exclusive" undermined by facts, common sense

White House: Tree was decorated by community groups. As Media Matters noted, Baier, in his Fox News report highlighting the ornaments, undermined BigGovernment.com's reporting by noting that the "first lady's office says local community groups were asked to decorate hundreds of ornaments but that they are unaware of these specific decorations."

Conservative blogger: "most likely explanation" that "they really didn't know what was on the ornaments." In a December 22 entry, HotAir.com blogger "Allahpundit" dismissed BigGovernment.com's "exclusive" as nonsensical, writing:

Laying aside the fact that spotting a right-wing dictator on ornaments in the Bush White House would have had Media Matters stumbling towards its fainting couch, isn't the most likely explanation here that they really didn't know what was on the ornaments? Why court PR trouble with a deliberate provocation via something this trivial?

Contact:
Bret Baier
http://twitter.com/specialreport

Contact:
The Washington Times
Washington Times
Washington Times
3600 New York Ave NE
Washington, DC 20002-1947
(202) 636-3000
http://twitter.com/washtimes

Contact:
Special Report with Bret Baier
http://twitter.com/specialreport

Contact:
Fox News Channel
FOX News Channel
1-888-369-4762
1211 Avenue of the Americas
New York, NY 10036
http://twitter.com/foxnews

Contact:
Mark Steyn
E-mail: mailbox@steynonline.com



IN ACCORDANCE WITH TITLE 17 U.S.C. SECTION 107, THIS MATERIAL IS DISTRIBUTED WITHOUT PROFIT TO THOSE WHO HAVE EXPRESSED A PRIOR INTEREST IN RECEIVING THE INCLUDED INFORMATION FOR RESEARCH AND EDUCATIONAL PURPOSES. PELICAN BLOGS HAS NO AFFILIATION WHATSOEVER WITH THE ORIGINATOR OF THIS ARTICLE NOR ARE PELICAN BLOGS ENDORSED OR SPONSORED BY THE ORIGINATOR.


"VIEW SOURCE ARTICLE" LINKS ARE PROVIDED AS A CONVENIENCE TO OUR READERS AND ALLOW FOR VERIFICATION OF AUTHENTICITY. HOWEVER, AS ORIGINATING PAGES ARE OFTEN UPDATED BY THEIR ORIGINATING HOST SITES, THE VERSIONS POSTED ON THIS BLOG MAY NOT MATCH THE VERSIONS OUR READERS VIEW WHEN CLICKING THE "VIEW SOURCE ARTICLE" LINKS.

Let The Sun Shine In......

Sunday, August 30, 2009

What's Really Up With Obama and Holder?



The truly rotten apples were at the top during the last appalling administration. Let's hope the top apples in the current administration are not proven even more rotten by acts of obstruction of justice and conspiracy after the fact.


A.G. Holder needs to hear from every Pelican Independent who feels as strongly about this horrendous issue as I do.


The crimes of the Bush administration have already made the country less secure in many, many ways. Will the current DOJ refuse to hold top officials from the last administration accountable for those crimes? If this turns out to be the case, the Obama administration may well be a one term administration. I , for one, will not be here to vote for them. I certainly could never vote for the party who enabled their White House to commit horrendous crimes in our name and with our blood and treasure by refusing to do their jobs of over-sight but who, instead, made every attempt to change the laws to permit war crimes and domestic crimes such as wire-tapping of American citizens and data-mining which would be useless in finding and arresting real terrorists but which would be very useful in gathering information about ordinary American citizens for use at some future date in order to commit more and worse crimes against the Constitution.




I became an independent after the assassinations of Jack and Bobby Kennedy, when it became clear to even my very republican father that the U.S. had become a big Banana Republic; his words.



The assassination of JFK was believed to have been the deluded actions of one lone gunman. Not many people in my neck of the woods believed any of the conspiracy theories which ranged from: 1) LBJ was behind the assassination to 2) the possibility that Nixon was behind it. That alone was astonishing given that Oswald was murdered in front of our eyes on national television by a small-fry nightclub owner connected to organized crime. His stated motive for having done so was laughable. Nevertheless, there was no Internet in those days, making it easier for the government to subvert any "inconvenient truth."



It was my father who put one and one together and came up with rotten bananas to describe what was happening to our country; a coup. I was still in shock and beginning a very long grief process. I remember thinking, "it's all down hill from here." I remember the hole in my heart when hope had resided


It was no less than an hour after he informed me of Bobby's death that he told me that he could no longer easily believe in the lone-nutcase official story of either assassination. (Was it not Will Rogers, one of my favorite American folk-philosophers, who said that the good thing about Americans is that an official has to lie to the American people if he/she is planing or conspiring with others to commit crimes or cover them up; the bad thing about Americans is that they are easily lied to?)


I remember how shocked I was that a man who despised the Kennedys was making such an accusation, especially to his daughter who was a "Kennedy Democrat" long before I could even vote.


Later, noting that the joke that was the Warren Commission had Democrats on it and that the Democrats, at the time, had a majority in Congress and that a cover-up was allowed to stand without much outcry at all, especially after Bobby's death. (JFK and RFK were two popular Democrats from the same family, a family that was never the same after their violent deaths. The nation was never the same either.) Furthermore, Bush/Cheney were not the first president and vice president who lied this nation into an unnecessary war by escalating a small presence in Vietnam to a full blown invasion based on a lie, the "Gulf of Tonkin incident." Thus, I became an independent, as did my father, and have never registered to vote as anything but an independent.



We weren't alone. Many independents broke from the Republican and Democratic parties in the late 60s and early 70s because it became clear that neither party could be trusted entirely with our values and principles.


Perhaps, the current administration believes that those of us who have been demanding accountability for years will have no other real choice but to vote for the lesser of the evils. Unfortunately for them, we have quite a few alternatives, not the least of which is to remove all support by removing ourselves from our country; a country that no longer resembles the one we were taught to believe in.


The main forces behind the election of Obama and a democratic congress were 1) an astounding turn-out of young voters 2) a large turn-out of minorities and 3) a large majority of independent voters swung toward the Democrats as a result of criminal and incompetent actions by the most appalling administration of my lifetime and their enablers in the rest of a government so corrupt it is becoming doubtful that the nation will survive it.



I would hate to see the young voters of today as disgusted and disenfranchised as we were 40 years ago. It would also be sad to see minority voters turn away from the first president from a minority group. Most of us, independents, would hate to have to drop out of the electoral process as many of us did years ago, but who became re-engaged in the last decade or so. Nevertheless, it can happen if the promises of the Obama campaign become forgotten by the Democrats.



If the more recent crimes by the GOP are not investigated and those found guilty of those crimes are not held accountable, we can expect even worse crimes by a new GOP administration.



By David Swanson
(with image by Michael Parenti)


Attorney General Eric Holder is addressing a war crime without addressing the wars, and is focusing on the lowest ranking participants in that crime without addressing its status as official policy established by higher ups and openly confessed to by a former president and vice president. This is bad applism, the same approach that has held a handful of recruits responsible for Abu Ghraib, claiming to thereby remove bad apples from a good system. But Congress' and the public's approach to the horrors of the past eight years is driven by our own bad applism, by our belief that the departure of Bush and Cheney in itself significantly repaired a system of government that is rotten to the core.


As Holder left an appropriations subcommittee hearing on April 23rd I spoke up loudly from the third row, "We need a special prosecutor for torture, Mr. Attorney General. Americans like the rule of law. The rule of law for everybody."


He replied as he approached me and walked by, surrounded by body guards, "And you will be proud of your government."


I was joined by others in replying simultaneously, "Yes, we want to be proud of our government. We're ready. No need to wait."


Four months later, last Monday, Holder appointed a special prosecutor, but only for particular incidents of torture and with this important, and illegal, limitation announced by Holder: "[T]he Department of Justice will not prosecute anyone who acted in good faith and within the scope of the legal guidance given by the Office of Legal Counsel (OLC) regarding the interrogation of detainees." Even did our domestic system of government allow the OLC to create laws, our obligation under the Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, signed by President Reagan, ratified by the Senate, and made the supreme law of the land by Article VI of our Constitution, would prevent the creation of any law that permitted torture.


This decision by Holder had been publicly dictated to him by President Obama, and therefore sets a precedent of allowing a president to choose when laws should be enforced, and of allowing an aggressive political party to dictate such things to a defensive one. In April 2008, candidate Obama told the Philadelphia Daily News, "I would not want my first term consumed by what was perceived on the part of Republicans as a partisan witch hunt." (Apparently it's somehow different to have it consumed by what Republicans perceive as an evil plot to euthanize their grandmothers.) Holder's decision also establishes as accepted precedent the practice of "legalizing" obvious crimes by instructing the OLC to draft secret memos stating that the crimes are legal.


Holder's intention on Monday was clearly not to create a criminal investigation of a crime, but to create a preliminary investigation into whether to have a full investigation into certain types of people involved in certain incidents. Those meant to have immunity include not just any torturers who complied with the OLC's secret memos, but also the lawyers who drafted the memos, the lawyers who told them what to draft, and the higher ups who authorized and developed the torture program. And if the preliminary investigation never results in prosecutions, then immunity will be shared by all, even the bad apples.


But another course of events is possible. Assistant United States Attorney John Durham could, if he chooses, expand his focus beyond Holder's intentions. Durham does not have the independence enjoyed by someone like Ken Starr, who was authorized under the now lapsed independent counsel statute, and funded by Congress, to investigate then President Bill Clinton until he found or manufactured a crime, any crime. But Durham has been assigned to preliminarily investigate certain instances of torture, and the limitations dictated by Holder do not technically limit him.


Who in this sick saga "acted in good faith and within the scope of the legal guidance given by the OLC"? Nobody we've heard of thus far. Certainly not Alberto Gonzales who encouraged George W. Bush to declare that the Taliban and Al Qaeda were not covered by the Geneva Conventions in order to avoid prosecution for war crimes. Definitely not George W. Bush who acted on that advice, who held command responsibility for acts of torture before and after the drafting of OLC memos, who launched the illegal wars of which torture was one small part, who failed to hold torturers accountable once exposed, and who has confessed in a televised interview to approving of torture. Decidedly not Dick Cheney, who has made similar televised confessions with great frequency while also fingering Bush. And not John Rizzo, acting general counsel for the CIA until this past July, who told the OLC what types of torture he wanted "legalized" and provided false information to the OLC to encourage that process. Logically not the OLC lawyers themselves who drafted the memos that blatantly declare crimes to be legal, crimes known to them to be illegal, memos later overturned by the Department of Justice under President Bush before being enshrined as having temporarily been law by Holder and Obama. Nor the same lawyers and others at the Justice Department who orally approved acts of torture not covered by the memos. Nor those lawyers and the lawyers at the CIA who created guidelines for interrogations that the CIA's inspector general considered so vague as to encourage their own violation. And not any of the actual torturers we've yet read about, each torture session thus far exposed having taken place prior to the memos, in excess of the crimes authorized by the memos, in ignorance of the memos, and/or with documented concern by the torturers that they might later be prosecuted.


While I am not yet proud of my government in this regard, I am proud of my country's civil society and of the many organizations and individuals that immediately protested Holder's announcment on Monday as insufficient. These included groups like the ACLU, MoveOn.org, Alliance for Justice, Constitution Project, and Amnesty International that for years refused to support calls for the impeachment of Cheney or Bush, but which now support their prosecution, as do 217 organizations that have signed a statement I drafted in February. Congressman John Conyers, Congressman Jerrold Nadler, and Senator Russ Feingold, all opposed impeachment but all immediately released appropriate statements on Monday, as did many good bloggers who never backed impeachment but immediately criticized Holder's plans as insufficient. Of course, also speaking out on Monday were groups like the Center for Constitutional Rights and Voters for Peace who have always been there. True Majority / U.S. Action, which has replaced MoveOn.org in recent months as the model of timidity, in contrast announced an unqualified success last week. But what happened last week demands action from all of us, and an understanding of the full extent to which our system of government itself has been damaged.


In a nutshell, here are four things that happened simultaneously at the beginning of last week:

1. Selective leaking from the OPR.

For years, we've awaited the "imminent" release of a report from the OPR on the OLC, that is to say a report from the Office of Professional Responsibility on the Office of Legal Counsel, a report by one section of the Department of Justice on another. It may strike a few of us as silly to await a report on the drafting of torture memos (not to mention war memos) from the same agency that produced them, when we've already seen the memos and can remind ourselves of their blatant and gruesome criminality any time we like. But the House Judiciary Committee and Senate Judiciary Committee have delayed any investigations or impeachments until that report is released, state bar associations to which citizens have filed complaints have delayed any possible disbarrments until that report appears, and commentators have suggested for reasons that remain unclear to me that this report will change everything. Holder began his announcement on Monday by stating that he had "reviewed" this report "in depth." But he did not make it public. Had he done so, it would likely have called attention to his failure to open a criminal investigation into the crimes there described, namely the drafting of the memos. Instead, Holder leaked to the New York Times the findings of another OPR report recommending the reopening of investigations of particular torture cases that the Department of Justice had previously chosen not to pursue. Then he announced an investigation into those who had violated, as opposed to those who had drafted, the memos. This selective leaking was not entirely unlike the Bush-Cheney gang's practice of selectively leaking misleading claims about weapons of mass destruction to the New York Times and then discussing those reports the next day on television.


2. Recommendations by task force on interrogations and transfers.

After five months, a task force created by President Obama made public some of its recommendations to him, including recommending the creation of a new team to oversee interrogations, and recommending the continued use of rendition -- the practice of shipping people to other nations for interrogation. This generated a pair of contrasting stories. The first, which got more play, became another story of Obama (again) ending torture and putting the past behind us. The second became a story about concern that torture would be continuing, albeit outsourced. In other positive but limited news, the Obama administration leaked word that it would finally give the Red Cross, if not the public, the names of prisoners it was holding outside any rule of law in secret camps in Iraq and Afghanistan, and -- compelled by a court -- Obama finally released Mohammed Jawad, a teen-aged prisoner held for six years in Guantanamo on no legal basis, as others still are.


3. Release of CIA IG report and other documents.

Following a suit by the ACLU, the CIA was forced to release (portions of) a report on torture produced by its inspector general in 2004 and other documents outlining the CIA's and OLC's torture policies as late as 2007. These documents added to our understanding of the crimes committed without exonerating anyone or establishing that torture had proved itself an effective interrogation method. Included in the report, but heavily redacted, are accounts of torture to the point of murder, which is arguably not a useful interrogation method. And, of course, were torture ever effective it would remain illegal as well as potentially counterproductive by producing animosity toward a nation that engages in it and by brutalizing those practicing it. Redacted from the report for no legitimate reason that I can imagine -- and the former inspector general himself objects to this censorship -- were the report's recommendations. Also released, to the Center for Constitutional Rights, was a pair of memos that former Vice President Cheney had been claiming to want released for months. Cheney had said repeatedly that these memos would prove that torture had been effective. Nothing in the memos actually backs up Cheney's claims or contradicts the evidence that torture does not work, evidence presented to the Senate Judiciary Committee by former interrogator Ali Soufan on May 13th. In fact, the documents that Cheney claimed would prove his case consist largely of information allegedly obtained from Khalid Sheikh Mohammed with no explanation of how it was obtained, except for references to his revealing information once confronted with the testimony of other prisoners. And much of the information relates to plots that were at most in the brainstorming stage. The time bomb wasn't ticking and in fact didn't even exist.


4. Appointment of prosecutor.

Having orchestrated the three announcements above, Holder announced the appointment of a special prosecutor with the limitations I've described.


THE FIRST BRANCH


We can and must increase the direct pressure on the Department of Justice to fully prosecute torture and numerous other crimes, including aggressive war, the use of assassination squads, misspending funds on war, lying to Congress, using false propaganda domestically, imprisoning children, detaining people without charge, using the U.S. military domestically, spying without warrant, exposing an undercover agent, obstructing justice, politically motivated prosecutions, and so on. Many of these crimes could be prosecuted at the state or local level as well, including the murder of U.S. soldiers, as argued by Vincent Bugliosi. We can and must work to advance civil suits and foreign and international prosecutions as well. We must use every tool and technique we have, and I enthusiastically support the discussions some activist organizations are currently engaged in about plans to nonviolently surround the Department of Justice and not let anyone leave until the department lives up to its name. But isn't there another angle that we're forgetting? Might we not have some use for that institution that takes up the first 58 percent of the U.S. Constitution?


Restoring power to Congress is essential if we want to deter and prevent executive abuses in the future, so an approach that empowers Congress has long-term advantages. And in the short-term, we may find that we have more power over people we can vote out of office, generate good and bad local media for, fund and defund, and protest and disrupt as needed, than we do over a prosecutor. It strikes me as just possible that we could pressure Congress to produce additional, superfluous but influential, information that would feed an expansion of the criminal investigation while imposing other forms of accountability directly.


Reasons Congress might be empowered to act with greater backbone than it's shown in the past several years include: 1) progressive House members came very close to stopping a war supplemental / IMF bailout bill in June. 2) progressive House members may stop or shape a healthcare bill if they don't collapse in the final lap. (This is true and important regardless of how good or bad you think the measure is for which they've taken a stand.) 3) these first two things have happened because of public pressure and the public is just getting warmed up. 4) the corporate media last week finally began admitting that torture has occurred, calling it by the name torture, and admitting that torture is a crime. 5) the new Justice Department has made clear that it will not hold the previous Justice Department accountable. 6) Congressional action at this point cannot be used as an excuse for not appointing a special prosecutor; he's already been appointed. 7) Democrats gain politically every time Cheney and Bush and their criminal gang of thugs are mentioned in public.


So, what do we want Congress to do? We want the House Judiciary Committee to hold impeachment hearings for judge, and former OLC head, Jay Bybee, force him to talk, subpeona those involved, and enforce compliance through the Capitol Police and inherent contempt, not through the Justice Department or the White House. We want the Senate Judiciary Committee and other committees to take up appropriate crimes, send out subpoenas, and enforce them. We want the House to establish a select committee, as would be done through passage of H.Res. 383, a resolution introduced in April by Congress members Barbara Lee, Robert Wexler, and John Conyers. We want the House and Senate to pass a bill to extend to 10 years the statutes of limitations on prosecuting the crimes at issue, as proposed by John Conyers seven months ago but not yet introduced as a piece of legislation. (Most crimes are limited to 5 years for prosecution, torture is typically 8 years, unless torture becomes murder in which cases there is no limitation.) The Justice Department is investigating for possible prosecution crimes on which the statute could soon expire. In such circumstances, the Attorney General ought to be extremely grateful to Congress should it take this action. And if any of this must wait for the never-to-be-released OPR report on the OLC, then Congress can publicly and aggressively demand the release of that report, or a member with access to it can read it into the record. Congress also needs to force the release of torture photos, and sadly a side benefit to Holder of having now named a prosecutor may be a new legal basis for concealing them.


Congressman John Conyers spoke to a crowd of activists from around the country at Busboys and Poets restaurant in Washington, D.C., in June at a fifth birthday party for Progressive Democrats of America. Conyers opened by remarking: "There is no one more disappointed than I am in Barack Obama." This comment sank in hard for some of the activists in the room who had been told by Conyers last year that electing Obama took precedence over impeaching Dick Cheney. But Conyers was talking about healthcare. "Buddy," said Conyers, referring to President Obama, "you are wrong on healthcare and it's going to cost you big time." Conyers argued that unless we compelled Obama to order Congress to write a better healthcare bill, Obama would be a one-term president. Of course, this is extremely twisted. It is far easier for us to influence our representatives in Congress, and they have the power to send Obama a good healthcare bill whether he wants it or not. But I bring this up as an indication of willingness by Conyers to differ with the executive. If it's right to push for better healthcare, it might just be right to push for enforcement of our laws against torture as well. In some corner of his soul, Conyers wanted to impeach Bush and Cheney, and not a single one of the arguments he used against it applies to Jay Bybee.


Well, I take that back. There is one argument he used that still applies, but it's greatly weakened and it never held water. It is true that the corporate media would attack Conyers and call him names. While the media has generally and suddenly admitted that torture is a crime and that the crime was committed, there is also a general media consensus that it should not be prosecuted. A number of media pundits, in fact, have asserted that it would be wrong to prosecute such crimes precisely because the media would do an outrageous job of reporting on it. But Conyers and other members of the Judiciary Committee and other congress members in general are smart enough to realize that no media coverage has the power to make Dick Cheney sympathetic. And Conyers would not have to do this alone. Wexler, Nadler, Kucinich, Baldwin, Lee, and others would readily stand with him.


There are three big forces corrupting our government, and the corporate media is only one of them. Another is the influence of parties. Why did the war supplemental / IMF bailout bill pass? Because the Democratic party threatened and bribed its members to vote Yes, against the wishes of their constituents. "I want to support my president," said Rep. Jan Schakowsky (D-Ill.), who changed her No vote to a Yes. But Conyers voted No, and to my knowledge there is very little that his party can threaten him with.


The third big corrupting force is legalized bribery or "campaign contributions." There is a lot of money behind keeping the wars going and covering up most war crimes. There is huge money behind protecting the corporations engaged in illegal spying. There is a tidal wave of money drowning out healthcare reform. But there is not a major money source behind torture. We need to think in terms of removing these sources of corruption as we work to restore power to Congress, but on the issue of torture the corrupting dollar signs may not be aligned strongly against us.


Another force corrupting our government is the shift of power from Congress and the courts to the White House and the immunity from law enforcement granted to the president. These are changes happening right now, as outrageous innovations made by Bush and Cheney are accepted and cemented in place by Obama. Imagine if Conyers had attempted or even succeeded in impeaching Cheney, if Congress had not tried to retroactively immunize Bush and Cheney through legislation, if courts had universally upheld the law the past several years, or if prosecutions of top officials were now underway. In that very different world, which can still be achieved, I'm willing to wager that President Obama would not be altering laws with signing statements or creating laws with executive orders, would not be establishing preventive detention, would not be continuing renditions, would not be escalating in Afghanistan or continuing in Iraq or routinely striking Pakistan or employing mercenaries like Blackwater or propagandists like the Rendon Group, would not have kept Robert Gates as Secretary of "Defense", would not have allowed John Rizzo to remain for any time as general counsel at the CIA, would not have given jobs in the White House to John Brennan or Greg Craig, would not be keeping so many politically selected prosecutors in place so long, would not be keeping the spying programs in place and secret, would not be expanding claims of state secrets beyond what Cheney ever attempted while imitating Cheney in hiding records of visitors to the White House, and would not be failing to prosecute crimes like torture which is what allows them to continue no matter how many times you say they've ended. Without a real deterrent, like law enforcement, any crimes that Obama does end can simply be revived as policy options, no longer crimes, by his successors.


When will we all get over it and stop asking for justice? It doesn't matter. That's the wrong question. Without justice, the crimes will continue and remain available to the leader of our empire who with each passing year accumulates more of the powers of an emperor. (As someone tweeted at me last week, the Romans thought they were keeping themselves safe by torturing Jesus.) Law enforcement is not in conflict with "looking forward". It is only by preventing crimes that we can look forward to a world without them.


Deterring crimes is a key part of the reform process needed in Washington, but other systemic changes are needed as well, and new approaches to citizen engagement are needed to get us there. Imagining that the departure of Bush and Cheney moves us noticably in that direction is, I think, our own form of bad applism. Undoing the damage that they and those who went before them have done is a task that remains ahead of us. And envisioning and creating a structure of government that goes beyond undoing the damage to establish positive rights and benefits that others in the world enjoy or are seeking is a task that no one will lead us in other than ourselves.

##

David Swanson is the author of the new book "Daybreak: Undoing the Imperial Presidency and Forming a More Perfect Union" by Seven Stories Press. You can pre-order it and find out when tour will be in your town: http://davidswanson.org/book. Arrange to review it on your blog and Seven Stories will get you a free copy. Contact crystal at sevenstories dot com.


IN ACCORDANCE WITH TITLE 17 U.S.C. SECTION 107, THIS MATERIAL IS DISTRIBUTED WITHOUT PROFIT TO THOSE WHO HAVE EXPRESSED A PRIOR INTEREST IN RECEIVING THE INCLUDED INFORMATION FOR RESEARCH AND EDUCATIONAL PURPOSES. PELICAN BLOGS HAS NO AFFILIATION WHATSOEVER WITH THE ORIGINATOR OF THIS ARTICLE NOR ARE PELICAN BLOGS ENDORSED OR SPONSORED BY THE ORIGINATOR.


"VIEW SOURCE ARTICLE" LINKS ARE PROVIDED AS A CONVENIENCE TO OUR READERS AND ALLOW FOR VERIFICATION OF AUTHENTICITY. HOWEVER, AS ORIGINATING PAGES ARE OFTEN UPDATED BY THEIR ORIGINATING HOST SITES, THE VERSIONS POSTED ON THIS BLOG MAY NOT MATCH THE VERSIONS OUR READERS VIEW WHEN CLICKING THE "VIEW SOURCE ARTICLE" LINKS.

Let The Sun Shine In......

Sunday, August 16, 2009

Cheney Dares Holder With Outing Of Bush

Barton Gellman of the Washington Post has now joined feature writers from Time in aping Cheney’s hagiographer in chief, Stephen Hayes of The Weekly Standard. They all choose to dote on Cheney’s loyalty to his former chief of staff, Irv Lewis “Scooter” Libby, while ignoring reasons why Cheney might have hoped for a presidential pardon himself.
Gellman is a talented journalist with a tainted record. He wrote a truly shameless article for the Post when it was competing with The New York Times for cheerleading laurels prior to the war on Iraq.
Remember those dangerous sounding “aluminum tubes” said to be procured by Iraq to develop a nuclear bomb — the ones that turned out to be for conventional artillery?
The Bush administration tasked the Times’ Judith Miller and Michael Gordon to push the canard that the tubes’ technical properties showed the intended use to be as casings for rotors in centrifuges to enrich uranium, a key step in producing a nuclear bomb. The pair rose to the occasion with flair.
We have witnessed some real journalistic prostitution during the last 40 years, but nothing to equal the 8 years of BuCheney administration.
The Times front-paged their story on Sunday, Sept. 8, 2002; and on the morning talk shows Dick Cheney, Colin Powell, Donald Rumsfeld and Condoleezza Rice all referred to the Times story.
First leak it; then confirm it. It worked like a charm. None of the talk show hosts thought to ask an impolite question — like who gave the information to the Times.
Simple tactics, but that's all one needs when dealing with simpletons.
The Post’s Gellman was suborned into doing a similar story on chemical weapons in the fall of 2002, when the White House was fuming at recalcitrant analysts in both the Defense Intelligence Agency and the CIA.
The not-yet-corrupted intelligence analysts still there could simply not get the hang of it. They were having a hard time, sans evidence, in producing faith-based intelligence on “weapons of mass destruction” in Iraq.
DIA had issued a formal report saying there was no evidence of active chemical or biological weapons programs. And CIA analysts could find no credible evidence of meaningful ties between Iraq and al Qaeda, despite the extreme pressure to find some.
(The CIA ombudsman told the Senate Intelligence Committee there occurred a “hammering” of analysts more severe than any he had seen in his 32-year career in the analysis directorate.)
Gellman to the Rescue
On Dec. 12, 2002, the Post front-paged a Gellman report that “Islamic extremists affiliated with al Qaeda took possession of a chemical weapon in Iraq last month or in late October.” The story was attributed to “two officials with firsthand knowledge of the report and its source.”
Lest any readers miss the import, Gellman stressed that, if true, this “would be the most concrete evidence to support the charge, aired for months by President Bush and his advisers, that al Qaeda terrorists receive material assistance in Iraq.”
The next 27 paragraphs of Gellman’s story were so laden with caveats and the subjunctive mood that they brought to mind Alice’s plaintive cry in Wonderland:
“There is no use trying, said Alice; one can't believe impossible things. I dare say you haven't had much practice, said the Queen. When I was your age, I always did it for half an hour a day. Why, sometimes I've believed as many as six impossible things before breakfast.”
The Dec. 12, 2002 Post article drew loud complaints, including from the paper’s ombudsman, Michael Getler, who asked: “What, after all, is the use of this story that practically begs you not to put much credence in it? Why was it so prominently displayed, and why not wait until there was more certainty about the intelligence?”
Come on, Getler; you know why. Bush and Cheney were scraping for evidence to “justify” attacking Iraq. Gellman and your paper were happy to oblige.
Having proved his mettle, Gellman was able to acquire the kind of access to Cheney and his palace guard that would enable him to write a useful book, Angler: The Cheney Vice Presidency, with some stunning revelations.
For example, Gellman describes how Cheney convinced then-House Majority Leader Dick Armey, a leading Republican opponent of war with Iraq, to vote in favor of the war resolution:
"Cheney ... had ... a borrowed hideaway office in the Capitol building. … He brings Armey in ... [and says] 'Let me explain to you what's really going on. ... Saddam is much more dangerous than we want to tell the public.'"
"He told Armey two things that he's never said in public and that are not true," Gellman continues. "He said that Saddam personally … had direct ties with al Qaeda. And he said that Iraq was making substantial progress towards a miniature nuclear weapon" and would soon have “packages that could be moved even by ground personnel" and "a delivery system in their relationship with organizations such as al Qaeda."
These claims, writes Gellman, "crossed so far beyond the known universe of fact that they were simply without foundation."
Good for Gellman — Then
But Gellman now seems to be angling for still more access to Cheney and his dwindling circle of supporters. In his Post article on Thursday, “Cheney Uncloaks His Frustration With Bush,” Gellman is back to fawning for food.
Maybe he has another book in mind, confident that no one will take seriously the panegyric likely to come from the pen of Cheney’s “authorized biographer,” neocon Stephen Hayes.
Gellman’s sugary piece gets a little sickening, but bear with me. Apparently, it is easy to focus on Cheney’s imaginary redeeming qualities, if you limit your interviews to his inner circle.
From Cheney’s second-term national security adviser John Hannah, and Aaron Friedberg, a foreign policy adviser, Gellman learns that Cheney “really feels he has an obligation to save the country from danger.”
Another interviewee was impressed by Cheney’s “continuing zeal” for the positions he took while in office. Gellman describes Cheney as “urgently focused … on shaping events.”
Gellman also stirs up some empathy for the lion-in-winter ex-Vice President. According to Gellman, Cheney takes a morning drive to Starbucks for a decaffeinated latte (no caffeine because of his heart condition, you know) and attends the soccer and softball games of his grandchildren.
The trouble for Gellman’s sympathetic portrayal is that there is far too much evidence of criminal activity on the record about his subject, though you wouldn’t know that from reading the Post article.
What Cheney is “urgently focused” on right now is staying out of prison. As he sits writing his memoir in his own Eagle’s Nest over his garage in a fancy Virginia suburb, Cheney is pulling out all the stops to ensure that he does not have to face the music for war crimes.
For Cheney, there apparently will be no trips to Paris? No, that’s where Rumsfeld almost got arrested two years ago. After a war-crimes complaint was lodged, he had to go out the back door of the embassy and dart to the airport for the first flight back to the U.S., before the Paris magistrate decided whether or not to detain him.
Angry at Bush, But Why?
I do think that Hayes, the pundits for Time and Gellman have it right when they say that Cheney is angry with George W. Bush, but they are disingenuous about the reason why. They must have figured out that when Cheney vents his anger at Bush’s failure to pardon Libby, the ex-Vice President is really livid that Bush did not issue a blanket pardon for Cheney and other co-conspirators.
Cheney had every reason to expect the pardon (excusing crimes such as torture and launching an aggressive war by deceiving Congress), given that he seems to have engaged in those crimes with his boss’ full knowledge and encouragement.
Can these journalists be so dense that they miss this motive for Cheney’s anger? They paint a picture of a man intensely loyal to a favored subordinate; and that is no doubt true, since one’s power is diminished to the extent you are not seen as able to rescue someone in your employ.
But when Cheney accuses Bush of abandoning “an innocent man” who had served the President loyally; when Cheney excoriates anyone who would “sacrifice the guy who was asked to stick his head in the meat grinder” — he appears to be talking about himself as much as Libby.
It is such an obvious allegory, a classic example of self-pity masquerading as altruism; and the pundits don’t get it — or, more likely, pretend not to.
My sense is that Cheney is feeling abandoned; that he senses the real danger of being brought to justice; and that he is waging a series of pre-emptive strikes to head that off.
....And an abandoned authoritarian can, indeed, be a dangerous animal.
Put yourself in Cheney’s shoes, as uncomfortable as they might be. Daughter Liz has disclosed more than once what has her father so agitated — press reports that Attorney General Eric Holder is close to appointing a special prosecutor to investigate White House-authorized crimes, including torture — not policy differences, mind you, but capital crimes under U.S. as well as international law.
Cheney’s war crimes and other felonies? Not enough room to list them all here. But suffice it to say that Cheney’s fingerprints – and those of his legal counsel David Addington – are all over the torture policies. Inspector General reports from the Department of Justice and from the CIA are scheduled to be released soon and are sure to reveal more Cheney fingerprints.
Attorney General Holder reportedly found the CIA IG report nauseating with what are likely to be stomach-churning accounts of torture.
Revealing Photos
Still more photos, videos and documents are likely to surface in the months ahead revealing more evidence of torture, kidnapping and perhaps hit-team activities – even if President Barack Obama succeeds in keeping most of the photos under wraps.
Reading recently about the post-WWII Nuremberg Tribunal, I was reminded that it was the film of Nazi concentration camps that wiped the arrogant smirks off the faces of senior Nazi officials, defendants like Hermann Goering and Rudolf Hess.
Bulldozers pushing corpses into open pits, bodies stacked like cordwood — the films of such atrocities had devastating effect. According to one witness, “Field Marshal Wilhelm Keitel sat there, bent over and broken, mopping his lined face with a soggy ball of handkerchief.” The smirks never came back.
I saw that on the History Channel not more than a few weeks ago, about the trial of unrepentant authoritarians in 1940s Germany; people so toxic because their entire, short-lived Nazi Empire was built on grotesque lies which lead to false pride, ugly nationalism and hatred of other. The German people have spent nearly 60 long years in the global political wilderness. It has been a long road back for the German people, from the desolation of their country by the Nazi Party. We, Americans, would do well to contemplate the fate of the German people and ask ourselves if we really need that experience. The allies had a military victory over the axis nations. We may well suffer an economic holocaust. There is more than one way to win a world war, these days.
Cheney and his associates have got to be prepared for something similar, even though they were not vanquished in war. They probably consider the chances slight that they would be brought to an international court, even though Chief U.S. prosecutor, Supreme Court Justice Robert H. Jackson, pointedly warned at Nuremberg:
“…the ultimate step in avoiding periodic wars, which are inevitable in a system of international lawlessness, is to make statesmen responsible to the law. And … while this law is first applied against German aggressors, the law includes, and if it is to serve a useful purpose it must condemn aggression by any other nations, including those which sit here now in judgment.”
As for violations of U.S. law, the list is long. Interestingly, two of the three Articles of Impeachment against Richard Nixon approved by the House Judiciary Committee on July 27, 29 and 30, 1974, were based, in part, on misusing the CIA.
Such misuse was brought to a whole new level, as Cheney visited CIA Headquarters promoting “intelligence” on non-existent threats and took a leading role in misusing the agency to torture detainees.
There’s also the possibility that some of Cheney’s co-conspirators will renounce their abuses, either out of genuine remorse for the hubris they showed at the height of their powers or in a bid to rehabilitate their careers.
We have learned from our D.C. sources that this is a real possibility. There is amazing material out there which is still off the record but, probably, will not remain so after 2012.  The ACNM has not yet been forced to cover the recent past and all of its corruption. The day is coming and, we guestimate, before 2012.
From his new job at Texas Tech in Lubbock, former Attorney General Alberto Gonzales earlier this week conceded that he erred in using the word “quaint” and “the Geneva Convention” in the same sentence in a memo he signed on its way to President Bush when Gonzales was White House counsel.
Now that Gonzales has a job with health benefits, we can expect further steps to disassociate himself from the smoking-gun executive memorandum of Feb. 7, 2002, which ordered that the protections of the Geneva Conventions would not apply to al Qaeda or Taliban detainees.
Late last year, the Senate Armed Services Committee reported that this Feb. 7, 2002, memorandum “opened the door” to a wide range of abusive interrogations. It is also an open secret that Cheney’s chief lawyer David Addington drafted that memorandum, although Gonzales forwarded it on so Bush could sign it.

 
Though Addington mid-wifed a whole generation of Bush-era illegalities, he has pretty much disappeared from public view.
It seems a sure thing that the next time Addington comes to testify on the Hill, the smirks he displayed when he and John Yoo appeared before the House Judiciary will have disappeared. Addington’s view of the law is so bizarre that he might be disbarred. He is more liability than asset to Cheney at this point.
What to Expect
The bottom line for Cheney is this: Too much has gone wrong, and Cheney cannot afford to take any chances that there will not be more cracks in the wall protecting Bush-era secrets.
The good news, as far as Cheney is concerned, can be seen in the clear signs that neither Obama nor Holder have any stomach for holding Cheney to account — and still less for holding Bush accountable.
Perhaps there is something in the water here in Washington, but folks in power seem far more interested in circumventing the law than enforcing it — political expediency wins out over solemn oaths to protect and defend the Constitution.
Corruption can, indeed, be contagious, like small pox or some deadly virus cooked up in one of our biolabs or those of some other nation. Viral corruptous could kill billions of people and wipe out whole species.
At times this avoidance of accountability assumes ludicrous proportions, with the Obama administration going the extra mile and more to cover up its predecessors' misconduct.
Though I proudly voted for Obama, this fact is of great concern to me and other independents in the pelican group. I am afraid that Obama's major weakness, and we all have one, is that he is far too concerned with how our nation appears, our image. If we, as a nation, do not get past image consciousness, we will not survive as the U.S.A.
For instance, releasing the suppressed testimony of Dick Cheney before U.S. Attorney Patrick Fitzgerald in 2004 concerning the leaking of the name of CIA operations officer Valerie Plame (in order to discredit her husband, former U.S. Ambassador Joseph Wilson, who had accused the White House of “twisting” Iraq War intelligence) would certainly throw light on this sorry episode.
In the closing arguments of the trial at which Libby was found guilty of perjury and obstruction of justice, Fitzgerald declared: “There is a cloud over the Vice President…and that cloud remains because this defendant obstructed justice.”
Bush’s Justice Department refused to release Cheney’s testimony, even though, as Fitzgerald said, “there were no agreements, conditions and understandings” about keeping the transcript secret.
Then, instead of living up to President Obama’s promise of openness, the new administration continued to oppose releasing Cheney’s testimony. In addition to the many reasons adduced by the former administration for keeping the testimony secret, Obama/Holder’s lawyers added a new one, dubbed by Dan Froomkin the “Daily Show Disclosure Exclusion.”
As we have asked before, how could Cheney be more maligned than he already is? How could any of the ciminal members of the BuCheney administration be more maligned that they already have been? Untill there is justice and accountability, the court jesters will continue to speak truth, as they have for ages..
A Justice Department lawyer actually argued in federal court that there should be an exemption from the Freedom of Information Act disclosure rules for documents that might subject senior administration officials to embarrassment — as on Jon Stewart’s “Daily Show” on Comedy Central.
BWAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!
Justice civil division lawyer Jeffrey M. Smith argued that, if Cheney’s remarks were published, then a future Vice President might refuse to provide candid information during a criminal probe out of concern “that it’s going to get on the ‘Daily Show.’”
Like Cheney has not done exactly that? Testimony while not under oath and holding the hand of one's co-conspirator is hardly testimony, as was the case with Bush and Cheney and the 9/11 Commission. That should have been, even for the most intellectually deprived among us, that something was highly rotten and it wasn't in Demark.
If I were Cheney, that feckless kind of lawyering would be music to my ears. I would read it as a sign of cowardice on the part of Obama and Holder.
Yep, I'm afraid that it is beginning to sound that way to us. I really hate this. 
Obama and Holder sometimes appear so eager to prove themselves to the Washington Establishment that they protect Bush-Cheney secrets even when a disclosure would serve an important national security goal.
After all, a powerful argument for releasing Cheney’s transcript would be that it might discourage future senior government officials from leaking the identity of undercover CIA officers for craven political reasons. Also, it might give a politician pause before aiding and abetting a criminal cover-up.
If accountability for criminals doesn't work. If people do not get the right lesson from consequences, why have prisons at all? Why not have giant hospitals for sociopaths and psychopaths where they will be treated humanely but never allowed to inflict harm on the rest of the world again. Those with the most wealth and power can do more harm in one day than the rest of us could do in a lifetime. If anyone must be held accountable, it must be them.
It seems certain that prosecutor Fitzgerald asked Cheney to explain his handwritten note demanding that then-White House Press Secretary Scott McClellan falsely exonerate Libby in the Plame leak, like McClellan had already done for Bush’s political adviser Karl Rove.
Cheney wrote:
“not going to protect one staffer and sacrifice the guy that was asked to stick his head in the meat grinder because of incompetence of others - ”
However, instead of the words “that was,” Cheney had initially written, “this Pres” before striking through “this Pres.,” which was still legible.
You don’t have to be a crackerjack analyst to figure out why Cheney changed the active to the passive voice and struck out “this Pres.” The evidence indicates that President Bush was more directly involved in the Valerie Plame affair than is now understood.
CLEARLY!
Implicating Bush
Despite six months of resisting demands for a serious investigation of Bush-Cheney wrongdoing, Holder appears, finally, to be stepping to the plate with the intent of appointing a special prosecutor, albeit one whose authority may be tightly circumscribed.
We'll  believe it when we see it. Promises of transparancy and accountability will no longer hold water.
But Cheney doesn’t want to risk the chance that a special prosecutor might insist on expanding the probe beyond the possible indictment of a few low-level operatives who exceeded the Bush administration’s prescriptions on how much water to use in waterboarding a prisoner.
So, Cheney appears to be pursuing a new strategy of pre-emption. His most obvious tactic is to tie his actions on torture tightly to Bush. On May 10 when Bob Schieffer asked Cheney how much Bush knew about the “enhanced interrogation techniques," the former Vice President stated clearly, if redundantly:
“I certainly, yes, have every reason to believe he knew — he knew a great deal about the program. He basically authorized it. I mean, this was a presidential-level decision. And the decision went to the President. He signed off on it.”
Cheney was certainly eager to answer the question. The idea, of course, would be to juice the jitters he already perceives at senior levels of the Obama administration, and to make it clear that no one will take Cheney down alone; i.e., without Bush right beside him.
In Cheney's view, this image of a former President in the dock is sure to deter dithering lawyers and politicos at the top of the White House and Justice Department, who are more interested in sniffing the political winds than in enforcing the rule of law.
My worst fear is that Cheney may be right.
Ours too, Ray.............
Ray McGovern works with Tell the Word, the publishing arm of the ecumenical Church of the Saviour in inner-city Washington. He was a CIA analyst for 27 years and now serves on the Steering Group of Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity (VIPS). 


IN ACCORDANCE WITH TITLE 17 U.S.C. SECTION 107, THIS MATERIAL IS DISTRIBUTED WITHOUT PROFIT TO THOSE WHO HAVE EXPRESSED A PRIOR INTEREST IN RECEIVING THE INCLUDED INFORMATION FOR RESEARCH AND EDUCATIONAL PURPOSES. PELICAN BLOGS HAS NO AFFILIATION WHATSOEVER WITH THE ORIGINATOR OF THIS ARTICLE NOR ARE PELICAN BLOGS ENDORSED OR SPONSORED BY THE ORIGINATOR.


"VIEW SOURCE ARTICLE" LINKS ARE PROVIDED AS A CONVENIENCE TO OUR READERS AND ALLOW FOR VERIFICATION OF AUTHENTICITY. HOWEVER, AS ORIGINATING PAGES ARE OFTEN UPDATED BY THEIR ORIGINATING HOST SITES, THE VERSIONS POSTED ON THIS BLOG MAY NOT MATCH THE VERSIONS OUR READERS VIEW WHEN CLICKING THE "VIEW SOURCE ARTICLE" LINKS.

Let The Sun Shine In......