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:

Obama, Russian President Dmitry Medvedev to sign new nuclear arms treaty - latimes.com

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.  

* * * * *

What Gets an American on the White House Kill List?

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.

* * * * *

The CIA, Assassination, and the War on Terrorism by Jacob G. Hornberger

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?

* * * * *

George H.W. Bush, the CIA & a Case of State Terrorism by Robert Parry

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:

TIME Magazine: Before Sept. 11 — The Secret History  

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......

Blackwater's Unwritten Death Contract

Does any of this come as a surprise to anyone?

Blackwater, or XE as they are now called, are a corrupt, sociopathic, religiously insane gang. That's all that needs to be said about these cuckoo birds.

The only question is, as usual; when will they be held accountable?

By Ray McGovern
August 20, 2009

Hats off to Mark Mazzetti of the New York Times for reporting that it was after CIA Director Leon Panetta’s holdover lieutenants finally told him that, under President Bush, they had farmed out assassinations to their Blackwater subsidiary, that he abruptly stopped the project and told Congress.

I use “they” advisedly, since the CIA officials who had kept Panetta in the dark continue to function as Panetta’s top managers at the agency.

Until now, it was not clear what prompted Panetta to set up hurried consultations in late June with the intelligence oversight committees of the House and Senate. And an odd odor still hangs over the affair.

After being briefed by Panetta, one committee member described him as “stunned” that his lingering lieutenants had kept information on the program from him until nearly five months into his tenure.

And yet there is not the faintest hint that anyone on either committee dared to ask why Panetta continues to leave such tainted officials in very senior positions.

Mazzetti quotes officials as admitting that “the C.I.A. did not have a formal contract with Blackwater” for a program with “lethal” authority.

What Mazzetti does not mention — and what he, like the vast majority of Americans, may not know — is that there is a one-sentence umbrella “contract” available for use as authorization for such activities. It is a legal loophole of sorts, through which Bush and Cheney drove a Mack truck.

Bush administration lawyers were not the first to read considerable leeway into that loophole — one sentence in the language of the National Security Act of 1947. The sentence can be (ab)used as authorization for all manner of crimes — irrespective of existing law or executive order.

A Cheney-esque “unitary executive” perspective and a dismissive attitude toward lawmakers reinforced George W. Bush’s predilection to exploit this ambiguous language, taking it further than it had ever been taken in the past.

The Act (as slightly amended) stipulates that the CIA Director shall:

“Perform such functions and duties related to intelligence affecting the national security as the President or the National Security Council may from time to time direct.”

There’s the “umbrella contract.” While more than one past President (I served under seven during my tenure at CIA) has taken advantage of that open language, the Bush administration translated the dodging into a new art form.

This, in turn, was sustained by Frankenstein cottage industries like Blackwater to launch and operate the administration’s own Gestapo. I use the word advisedly; do not blanch before it.

As for outsourcing, the Nazi Gestapo enjoyed umbrella authorization from the Fuhrer; they and the SS knew what was wanted, and famously “followed orders.”

There was absolutely no need to go back to supreme authority for approval to contract out some of their work. German legislators turned out to be even more intimidated than ours — if you can imagine it.

Charlatans Can Apply…and Stay

As for an American President’s freedom of action, all a President need do is surround himself with eager co-conspirators like the sycophant former Director of Central Intelligence, George Tenet, (not to mention his, and Panetta’s, lingering lieutenants) who give allegiance to their secret world of unchecked power, rather than to the Constitution of the United States.

True, a Vice President thoroughly versed in using the levers of power can be a valuable asset. But the sine quo non for successful subversion of our Constitutional process is this: cowardly members of Congress so afraid of being painted pastel on terrorism that they abdicate their oversight responsibility.

George W. Bush and Dick Cheney made “terrorification” of Congress a high priority, and congressional leaders caved, winking even at torture, kidnapping, warrantless eavesdropping, etc., etc., etc.

Speaking of contracting, Congress’ oversight role was, in a very real sense, “contracted out” — to eight invertebrate leaders from the House and Senate whose unconscionable, see-no-evil acquiescence was driven solely by their felt need to appear tough on terrorism.

“After 9/11 everything changed,” is certainly an overused aphorism. But it does apply to the spirit and soul of our country, after President Bush was given the pulpit at National Cathedral.

Vengeance is ours, said the President. And the vast majority of Christian leaders were cowed into razoring out of their Bibles “Blessed are the Peacemakers.”

The clergy clapped, and so did the Congress and the Fawning Corporate Media (FCM). Don’t you remember?

The situation bears a striking resemblance to that described by writer Sebastian Haffner in Berlin in 1933 after the Reichstag fire (Germany’s 9/11):

“What was missing is what in animals is called ‘breeding.’ This is a solid inner kernel that cannot be shaken by external pressures, something noble and steely, a reserve of pride, principle, and dignity to be drawn on in the hour of trial. It is missing in Germans.

“As a nation they are without backbone. That was shown in March 1933. At the moment of truth, when other nations rise spontaneously to the occasion, the Germans collectively and limply collapsed, yielded to a nervous breakdown, and became a nightmare to the rest of the world.” [Defying Hitler, p. 135]

Stormy Applause

And our Congress? During the President’s infamous State-of-the-Union address on Jan. 28, 2003 (yes, the one with the uranium-from-Africa-to-Iraq and other make-believe), Bush got the most unbridled applause when, after bragging about the 3,000 “suspected terrorists” whom he said had been arrested, he added:

“And many others have met a different fate. Let's put it this way: They are no longer a problem to the United States and our friends and allies.”

The lawmakers’ reaction and the cheering that followed in the FCM reminded me of the short italicized note that Pravda regularly tacked onto the bottom of paragraphs recording the text of similarly fulsome leadership speeches: Burniye aplaudismenti; vce stoyat! — Stormy applause; all rise!

Even so, Soviet leaders generally avoided (as not quite presidential) the seeking of applause for thinly veiled allusions to extrajudicial killing.

It is Congress that is collectively responsible for abdicating its oversight responsibility, while cheering on creeps like Cofer Black, CIA’s top counter-terrorism official from 1999 to May 2002 and now one of Blackwater’s senior leaders.

In his prepared testimony to a joint congressional 9/11 inquiry on Sept. 26, 2002, the swashbuckling Black said this about “operational flexibility”:

"All I want to say is that there was ‘before’ 9/11 and ‘after’ 9/11. After 9/11 the gloves came off. ... I know that we are on the right track today and as a result we are safer as a nation. ‘No Limits’ aggressive, relentless, worldwide pursuit of any terrorist who threatens us is the only way to go and is the bottom line.”

What were those “gloves” to which you referred, Mr. Black? Do you mean that legal restrictions were gone? And “No Limits?” Is it the case that there now are no limitations on your pursuit of terrorists?

From what do you derive that kind of authorization, Mr. Black? These are just sample questions that, apparently, occurred to none of the congressional inquiry members to ask.

And authorization? In the Bush/Cheney White House, all it took was a presidential signature, like that appearing in strokes of large felt-tipped pen under the two-page executive memorandum of Feb. 7, 2002.

Last December the Senate Armed Forces Committee, without dissent, concluded that this memo, “opened the door” to abusive interrogation by exempting al Qaeda and Taliban detainees from Geneva protections. Alberto Gonzales, in an inadvertent blunder, released that memo five years ago.

Special presidential memos (often referred to as “Findings”) authorizing covert action like the lethal activities of the CIA and Blackwater have not yet surfaced. They will, in due course, if the patriotic truth tellers who have now spoken to the Times and the Washington Post about CIA and Blackwater continue to put the Constitution and courage above secrecy oaths.

The Savage Mood

CIA operative Gary Schroen told National Public Radio that, just days after 9/11, Cofer Black sent him to Afghanistan with orders to “Capture bin Laden, kill him, and bring his head back in a box on dry ice.” As for other al Qaeda leaders, Black reportedly said, “I want their heads up on pikes.”

Schroen told NPR he had been stunned that, for the first time in 30 years of service, he had received orders to kill targets rather than to capture them. Contacted by the radio network, Black would not confirm the exact words of the order to Schroen, but did not dispute Schroen’s account.

This quaint tone reverberated among macho pundits in the FCM. Washington Post veteran Jim Hoagland, who was extremely well plugged in to the Bush administration, on Oct. 31, 2001, wrote an open letter to President Bush.

Apparently no Halloween prank, Hoagland strongly endorsed the wish for “Osama bin Laden’s head on a pike,” a wish he attributed to Bush’s “generals and diplomats.” The consummate insider, Hoagland then almost gave the real game away, giving Bush a list of priorities:

“The need to deal with Iraq’s continuing accumulation of biological and chemical weapons and the technology to build a nuclear bomb can in no way be lessened by the demands of the Afghan campaign. You must conduct that campaign so that you can pivot quickly from it to end the threat Saddam Hussein’s regime poses.”

I have the feeling we are in for many more chapters recording how the savage mood in Washington played out during the last seven years of the Bush/Cheney administration.

Yes, Ray, but when, if ever, will something be done about it?

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......

CIA....Blackwater.....Death Squads....XE

 

Sound vaguely familiar? Think Contras and other Central American, South American  Hit Squads!

BuCheny undid years of cleaning up America's act. Junior finished what his poppy started.

These people don't live on the same plant ordinary earth citizens do. 

They need to be held accountable!!!!

 

Didn't George Bush send Blackwater to New Orleans after Katrina.? 

XE: accountable to no one? I don't think so, Tim, not matter what they call themselves!!!!!

 

 

August 20, 2009

C.I.A. Sought Blackwater’s Help in Plan to Kill Jihadists

By MARK MAZZETTI

WASHINGTON — The Central Intelligence Agency in 2004 hired outside contractors from the private security contractor Blackwater USA as part of a secret program to locate and assassinate top operatives of Al Qaeda, according to current and former government officials.


Executives from Blackwater, which has generated controversy because of its aggressive tactics in Iraq, helped the spy agency with planning, training and surveillance. The C.I.A. spent several million dollars on the program, which did not successfully capture or kill any terrorist suspects.


The fact that the C.I.A. used an outside company for the program was a major reason that Leon E. Panetta, the C.I.A.’s director, became alarmed and called an emergency meeting in June to tell Congress that the agency had withheld details of the program for seven years, the officials said.


It is unclear whether the C.I.A. had planned to use the contractors to actually capture or kill Qaeda operatives, or just to help with training and surveillance in the program. American spy agencies have in recent years outsourced some highly controversial work, including the interrogation of prisoners. But government officials said that bringing outsiders into a program with lethal authority raised deep concerns about accountability in covert operations.


Officials said the C.I.A. did not have a formal contract with Blackwater for this program but instead had individual agreements with top company officials, including the founder, Erik D. Prince, a politically connected former member of the Navy Seals and the heir to a family fortune. Blackwater’s work on the program actually ended years before Mr. Panetta took over the agency, after senior C.I.A. officials themselves questioned the wisdom of using outsiders in a targeted killing program.


Blackwater, which has changed its name, most recently to Xe Services, and is based in North Carolina, in recent years has received millions of dollars in government contracts, growing so large that the Bush administration said it was a necessary part of its war operation in Iraq.


It has also drawn controversy. Blackwater employees hired to guard American diplomats in Iraq were accused of using excessive force on several occasions, including shootings in Baghdad in 2007 in which 17 civilians were killed. Iraqi officials have since refused to give the company an operating license.
Several current and former government officials interviewed for this article spoke only on the condition of anonymity because they were discussing details of a still classified program.


Paul Gimigliano, a C.I.A. spokesman, declined to provide details about the canceled program, but he said that Mr. Panetta’s decision on the assassination program was “clear and straightforward.”


“Director Panetta thought this effort should be briefed to Congress, and he did so,” Mr. Gimigliano said. “He also knew it hadn’t been successful, so he ended it.”


A Xe spokeswoman did not return calls seeking comment.


Senator Dianne Feinstein, the California Democrat who leads the Senate Intelligence Committee, also declined to give details of the program. But she praised Mr. Panetta for notifying Congress. “It is too easy to contract out work that you don’t want to accept responsibility for,” she said.


The C.I.A. this summer conducted an internal review of the assassination program that recently was presented to the White House and the Congressional intelligence committees. The officials said that the review stated that Mr. Panetta’s predecessors did not believe that they needed to tell Congress because the program was not far enough developed.


The House Intelligence Committee is investigating why lawmakers were never told about the program. According to current and former government officials, former Vice President Dick Cheney told C.I.A. officers in 2002 that the spy agency did not need to inform Congress because the agency already had legal authority to kill Qaeda leaders.


One official familiar with the matter said that Mr. Panetta did not tell lawmakers that he believed that the C.I.A. had broken the law by withholding details about the program from Congress. Rather, the official said, Mr. Panetta said he believed that the program had moved beyond a planning stage and deserved Congressional scrutiny.


“It’s wrong to think this counterterrorism program was confined to briefing slides or doodles on a cafeteria napkin,” the official said. “It went well beyond that.”


Current and former government officials said that the C.I.A.’s efforts to use paramilitary hit teams to kill Qaeda operatives ran into logistical, legal and diplomatic hurdles almost from the outset. These efforts had been run by the C.I.A.’s counterterrorism center, which runs operations against Al Qaeda and other terrorist networks.


In 2002, Blackwater won a classified contract to provide security for the C.I.A. station in Kabul, Afghanistan, and the company maintains other classified contracts with the C.I.A., current and former officials said.
Over the years, Blackwater has hired several former top C.I.A. officials, including Cofer Black, who ran the C.I.A. counterterrorism center immediately after the Sept. 11 attacks.


C.I.A. operatives also regularly use the company’s training complex in North Carolina. The complex includes a shooting range used for sniper training.


An executive order signed by President Gerald R. Ford in 1976 barred the C.I.A. from carrying out assassinations, a direct response to revelations that the C.I.A. had initiated assassination plots against Fidel Castro of Cuba and other foreign politicians.


The Bush administration took the position that killing members of Al Qaeda, a terrorist group that attacked the United States and has pledged to attack it again, was no different from killing enemy soldiers in battle, and that therefore the agency was not constrained by the assassination ban.


But former intelligence officials said that employing private contractors to help hunt Qaeda operatives would pose significant legal and diplomatic risks, and they might not be protected in the same way government employees are.


Some Congressional Democrats have hinted that the program was just one of many that the Bush administration hid from Congressional scrutiny and have used the episode as a justification to delve deeper into other Bush-era counterterrorism programs.


But Republicans have criticized Mr. Panetta’s decision to cancel the program, saying he created a tempest in a teapot.


“I think there was a little more drama and intrigue than was warranted,” said Representative Peter Hoekstra of Michigan, the top Republican on the House Intelligence Committee.


Officials said that the C.I.A. program was devised partly as an alternative to missile strikes using drone aircraft, which have accidentally killed civilians and cannot be used in urban areas where some terrorists hide.
Yet with most top Qaeda operatives believed to be hiding in the remote mountains of Pakistan, the drones have remained the C.I.A.’s weapon of choice. Like the Bush administration, the Obama administration has embraced the drone campaign because it presents a less risky option than sending paramilitary teams into Pakistan.

B.S.

Copyright 2009 The New York Times Company


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......

Cheney Dares Holder With Outing Of Bush

The Dick: Now hear this, if you come after me you will have to put Bush in the Dock as well. No one has the nerve to do that to another president, certainly not a bunch of weak-spined Democrats?.

Well, Obama, do you have the guts to clean house in D.C, allow ex-presidents and vice presidents to be held accountable for appalling war crimes and crimes against the Constitution causing decades of damage to this nation? What is the point in having a constitution if it can be shelved under national duress? The people are not protected from an over-zealous government. The rest of the world is not safe either.

Cheney's New Gambit

By Ray McGovern
August 14, 2009

The stenographers of the Fawning Corporate Media (FCM) are missing the most obvious explanation for former Vice President Dick Cheney’s widely reported “disappointment” with former President George W. Bush on the issue of pardons -- self-interest.

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......

On Bush, Cheney Crimes: Seek Truth and Accountability

There will never be reconciliation without accountability!

posted by John Nichols on 03/04/2009 (The Nation)

Senate Judiciary Committee chair Patrick Leahy, D-Vermont, deserves credit for pressing ahead with his modest proposal to establish a truth and reconciliation commission to review the assaults on the Constitution and general lawlessness of the Bush-Cheney administration.

As Leahy said at the opening of Wednesday's Judiciary Committee hearing on "Getting To The Truth Through A Nonpartisan Commission Of Inquiry":

Nothing has done more to damage America's place in the world than the revelation that this Nation stretched the law and the bounds of executive power to authorize torture and cruel treatment. The Bush administration chose this course, but tried to keep its policies and actions secret, knowing that they could not withstand scrutiny in the light of day. How many times did President Bush go before the world and say that we did not torture and that we acted in accordance with law?

There are some who resist any effort to look back at all, while others are fixated on prosecution, even if it takes all of the next eight years, or more, and further divides this country.

Over the last month, I have suggested a middle ground to get to the truth of what went on during the last several years, in a way that invites cooperation. I believe that that might best be accomplished though a nonpartisan commission of inquiry. I would like to see this done in a manner removed from partisan politics. Such a commission of inquiry would shed light on what mistakes were made so that we can learn from these errors and not repeat them.

That is a reasoned and responsible stance, of the sort we have come to expect from Leahy.

There is no question that the chairman is pushing further into the constitutional thicket than President Obama or Attorney General Eric Holder seem to be willing to go. And there is certainly some merit in borrowing from the wise experiments in accountability initiated by other countries -- especially South Africa, which used the truth-and-reconciliation-commission model to get those responsible for Apartheid-era crimes to acknowledge where the bodies were buried in return for the promise of immunity.

Unfortunately, Leahy's proposal to remove from the table the prospect of prosecution of officials who have committed crimes goes against the fundamental American precept that the rule of law must apply to all of us -- even presidents, vice presidents, attorneys general and White House aides.

Justice Anthony Kennedy was correct when he observed in the Supreme Court decision restoring the writ of habeas corpus that was undermined by the Bush administration and its congressional amen corner, that the Constitution is not something an administration is able "to switch... on and off at will."

Even Leahy admits that: "We must not be afraid to look at what we have done, to hold ourselves accountable as we do other nations who make mistakes. We must understand that national security means protecting our country by advancing our laws and values, not discarding them."

Unfortunately, the chairman's proposal for a commission switches off the rule of law by suggesting that the prospect of legal prosecution even in cases of extreme lawlessness -- and congressional action to address gross assaults on the Constitution -- in favor of "developing a process to reach a mutual understanding of what went wrong and learn from it."

The chairman of the Constitution subcommittee of the Judiciary Committee, Wisconsin Democrat Russ Feingold, suggests that it is unwise to simply give up on the prospect of prosecuting lawbreakers.

While Feingold compliments Leahy's initiative and says that "getting all the facts out about what happened over the last eight years is a crucial part of restoring the rule of law," the Senate's most outspoken defender of the Constitution warned today against going too far in surrendering the essential tools of the accountability process.

"On the question of immunity, I think we should tread carefully," told Wednesday's hearing. "There are cases that may require prosecution, and I wouldn't want a commission of inquiry to preclude that. Those who clearly violated the law and can be prosecuted should be prosecuted. On the other hand, the country will really benefit from having as complete a telling of this story as possible, so the ability of the commission to seek immunity for lower level participants certainly needs to be considered. How to do this is one of the complex questions that I hope can be explored in this hearing."

The American Civil Liberties Union agrees with Feingold's view that prosecutions should not be ruled out. The group is urging Holder and the Department of Justice to appoint a special prosecutor to conduct an investigation and, if warranted by the facts, to bring criminal charges against members of the Bush-Cheney administration who broke the law.

Additionally, the ACLU is calling for the creation of a congressional Select Committee that would work in conjunction with Leahy's truth and reconciliation commission. "(The)combination of both committees would be an effective format for congressional review of Bush administration policies," explains an ACLU statement on the issue, which recalls the important work of a committee headed by Idaho Senator Frank Church that investigated executive abuses in the 1970s. "The Select Committee would have the ability to allocate the necessary time and resources outside of the day-to-day demands of the standing committee structure. It would also bring together members from the relevant committees with jurisdiction over the relevant issues to share their expertise concerning the programs under review."

Says ACLU Washington Legislative Office director Caroline Fredrickson: "Americans' faith in government has been deeply. While a truth commission is a valid and admirable suggestion, Congress must go further. Congress' complacent approach to oversight has done our country irreparable harm and legitimized illegal and counter-productive intelligence programs. It's time for Congress to step up in a very real way and assert its role of oversight."

Leahy is not a bad player here.

He understands that there must be a measure of accountability if we are going to renew this country's commitment to the rule of law and to constitutional governance.

The Vermonter is asking the right questions: "(How) did we get to a point where we were holding a legal U.S. resident for more than five years in a military brig without ever bringing charges against him? How did we get to a point where Abu Ghraib happened? How did we get to a point where the United States Government tried to make Guantanamo Bay a law-free zone, in order to try to deny accountability for our actions? How did we get to a point where our premier intelligence agency, the CIA, destroyed nearly 100 videotapes with evidence of how detainees were being interrogated? How do we make sure it never happens, again?"

But the answer to those questions must, necessarily, be bolder.

It will take a greater measure of accountability than just Leahy's truth commission to "make sure it never happens again."

The ACLU's Fredrickson is right when she says: "The truth commission is a beginning for Congress to reassert its power, but it must go further."

Let The Sun Shine In......