two Department of Justice anonymous sources said that a Senior DOJ official who finalized an Office of Professional Responsibility report, changed the assessment of the torture memo's creator's Jay Bybee and John Yoo's behavior to "poor judgement."
But the reviewer, career veteran David Margolis, downgraded that assessment to say they showed "poor judgment," say the sources. (Under department rules, poor judgment does not constitute professional misconduct.) The shift is significant: the original finding would have triggered a referral to state bar associations for potential disciplinary action-which, in Bybee's case, could have led to an impeachment inquiry.
/snip
Two of the most controversial sections of the 2002 memo-including one contending that the president, as commander in chief, can override a federal law banning torture-were not in the original draft of the memo, say the sources. But when Michael Chertoff, then-chief of Justice's criminal division, refused the CIA's request for a blanket pledge not to prosecute its officers for torture, Yoo met at the White House with David Addington, Dick Cheney's chief counsel, and then-White House counsel Alberto Gonzales. After that, Yoo inserted a section about the commander in chief's wartime powers and another saying that agency officers accused of torturing Qaeda suspects could claim they were acting in "self-defense" to prevent future terror attacks, the sources say. Both legal claims have long since been rejected by Justice officials as overly broad and unsupported by legal precedent.
John Yoo, a graduate of Harvard and Yale law school, who clerked for SC Justice Clarence Thomas, and served as a torture enabler in the Bush administration at the Dept of Justice from 2001 to 2003, is currently a law professor at the University of CA at Berkeley. http://www.law.berkeley.edu/ph...
Jay Bybee, a graduate of Brigham Young University and BYU's J Reuben Clark Law School, helped John Yoo write the torture rationalization memos for President Bush during his Dept of Justice Office of Legal Counsel tenure from 2001 to 2003. Bybee currently serves on the US Court of Appeals of the Ninth Circuit. http://www.fjc.gov/servlet/tGe...
It is not known at the current time when they will be displaying "poor judgement" again, nor how many fatalities might result.
Like everything else the Bush administration touched the capture or attempted capture of Osama Bin Laden was a complete failure. As the world watched the U.S. military had pursued Bin Laden and his deputies to the Tora Bora region of Afghanistan. Trapped in the caves there Donald Rumsfeld then U.S. Defense Secretary decides that Bin Landen's capture should be handled by the Afghan army while the U.S. army watched. Osama Bin Laden and his deputies escaped into Pakistan where they are still believed to be. Think about the consequences of that decision. Al Qaida though weakened at that moment would not only continue to exist but draw recruits as extremists saw Osama Bin Laden's escape as a victory over America and its allies in the so called War on Terror. Even if they had captured Bin Laden would that have destroyed Al Qaida of course not but they wouldn't be the potent symbol they are today thanks to the complete incompetence of George Bush and his advisors.
Lets talk about torture for a few minutes, shall we? The Dog hears the groans out there, and yeah, he gets that this is an icky subject, but even in our digital age where it is easy to find content you like and ignore the stuff you don't, there are some things you should not look away from. Torture is one of them. However just because torture is horrible does not mean there is not a place for mockery in our pursuit of accountability to the rule of law! Follow the Dog below the flip for more details.
So you can bet this will be completely underreported in the United States, or not at all.
I find it almost humorously ironic that a man who stole an election in the United States then invaded a country where he set up a faux Democracy, and the puppet that he installed has now proceeded to steal his own election.
All the while we spend $133 million dollars a day -- $5.5 million bucks an HOUR, 24/7 to have our military in said puppet's country, loading taxpayer money into Big Corporate's pockets.
It's almost a perfect perpetual-motion machine of corruption.
On the videotape, a couple of mooks are shown blithely filling out a slew of ballots for President Hamid Karzai. Tick-mark. Tick-mark. Tick-mark.
Says one to the other: "We should at least include a few for Dr. Abdullah, don't you think?"
The man in question, Dr. Abdullah Abdullah, can't prevent a bemused chortle from escaping his lips as he watches the video clips, surreptitiously shot, that purport to show brazen vote-rigging by Karzai boosters of both minnow and barracuda variety - from anonymous foot soldiers to the head of the Independent Election Commission in Ghazni province.
It is, indeed, to laugh. It is, perchance, to cry. It might become a matter of vocal citizen demonstration, too, beyond the formal complaints - some 100 - that Team Abdullah has already registered with authorities over alleged fraud in Afghanistan's national elections.
This presidential vote, the second-ever democratic poll in Afghanistan, but the first organized and mounted by Afghans themselves, is rapidly turning into a wreck.
Happy Monday and welcome to the Dog's ongoing letter writing campaign for accountability to the rule of law for the apparent Bush Administration State Sponsored Torture program. For those playing our home game, the way this works is every Monday the Dog writes a letter to decision makers urging them to take action under our legal obligations, both Federal and International, to investigate and where evidence of criminality exists prosecute those who ordered, those who justified and those who carried out torture in the name of the United States of America. You get involved by either cut and pasting the letter to the links the Dog provides, or writing your own letter based on this weeks ideas.
Happy Monday and welcome the Dog's ongoing letter writing campaign in support of accountability for the Bush Administrations apparent State Sponsored Torture program. The basic idea of this campaign is to keep the issue of torture accountability in the minds of the decision makers. To do this the Dog writes a letter every week that you the reader can then either use as the jumping off point for your own letter or can cut and paste and send it to the links provided.
For those of us who are really concerned (obsessed) with the rule of law the revelations of the Cheney sponsored CIA Death Squads are the kind of thing which makes you want to curl up and rock back and forth while thinking of our happy place. It might be going a little under-thought about by most of the nation right now as we are focused on the Health Care bills and the ever diverting "Great Republican Melt Down" with Americas three current favorite clowns, Governor's Palin and Sanford, and Sen. Ensign (The Family, NV) taking up all the oxygen but this is serious stuff we should be really concerned about.
How Guantanamo's prisoners were sold The president of Pakistan's [Pervez Musharraf] attempts to publicise his memoirs throw light on the flawed and dishonest processes that the US uses in bringing "terrorists" to justice
by Clive Stafford Smith - NewStatesman - 09 October 2006
The payments help us see why so many innocent prisoners ended up in Guantanamo Bay. Musharraf writes that "millions" were paid for 369 prisoners - the minimum rate was apparently $5,000, enough to tempt a poor Pakistani to shop an unwanted Arab to the Americans, gift-wrapped with a story that he was up to no good in Afghanistan.
"We can only give you a couple of minutes with the President, so make your points quickly," his aide said opening the door to the Oval Office, where I instantly felt the full force of the smile that has charmed the world.
"As you know, Mister President, my client Alphonse Capone is in the Federal prison in Joliet, Illinois-"
"For shipping cigarettes into Illinois without paying Federal and State taxes," the president interjected. "See, I've read his case. A six million dollar swindle."
"Right. But he was born into a Mafia family. He grew up in an organized crime culture. As a boy he was forced to sit through the entire 'Godfather' trilogy every year on St. Valentine's Day."
"Your point being-"
"He was programmed to do his job. He didn't know it was wrong. He was only following orders."
The President shook his head. "If you're going to ask me to release him on that basis, forget it. No can do. If I were to release every Mafioso who said he was taking orders from higher-ups half the prison cells in America would be empty and their guards would be out of jobs, and this is a bad time for that."
Asking the Left side of the Blogosphere what the greatest of President Bush's crimes/sins against this nation was is kind of inviting a shouting match. There are so many to choose from, wars, torture, environmental law changes or lack of enforcement, the list goes on and on. Without an operational definition it is a argument which could consume thousands of words on line or tens of pints at a bar. The Dog is going to provide you with the definition and explain why he thinks there is one overarching act which out shines (if that is the right metaphor for such heinous acts) all others.
It appears we had a f..king religious nut as President who lied to obtain support for the invasion of Iraq in order to bring the end times closer. Cheney and Rumsfeld manupulated the "boy king" by playing to his religious delusions.
Former President George Bush explained to then-President of France Jacques Chirac that that the Biblical creatures Gog and Magog were at work in the Mid-East and must be defeated. It apears that Bush told Chirac that invasion of Iraq was willed by God in order to usher in the "end times."
"This confrontation is willed by God, who wants to use this conflict to erase his people's enemies before a New Age begins".
The Presumption of Innocence, and other Quaint Ideals
Presumption of Innocence (Innocent until proven guilty)
A principle that requires the government to prove the guilt of a criminal defendant and relieves the defendant of any burden to prove his or her innocence.
The presumption of innocence, an ancient tenet of Criminal Law, is actually a misnomer. According to the U.S. Supreme Court, the presumption of the innocence of a criminal defendant is best described as an assumption of innocence that is indulged in the absence of contrary evidence
[...]
the presumption of innocence is essential to the criminal process. The mere mention of the phrase presumed innocent keeps judges and juries focused on the ultimate issue at hand in a criminal case: whether the prosecution has proven beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant committed the alleged acts. The people of the United States have rejected the alternative to a presumption of innocence-a presumption of guilt-as being inquisitorial and contrary to the principles of a free society.
There is always the need, when one is looking at something complex and sprawling, to have a skeleton key, a filter that brings the overall arch of the story into focus whenever you get lost in the myriad details. For the last 8 years we have not had enough information about the actions of the Bush administration to develop such a skeleton key, this, however, has now changed. It turns out there is a single unifying factor which runs from August 2001 to January 20th 2009; fear.
I watched your press conference last night. I was happy with the tone that you set about the N1H1 '09 virus and thought you gave quite good advice. However that is not why I am writing you today. Mr. President I continue to be dismayed with your efforts to straddle the line on the issue of the Bush administrations apparent State Sponsored Torture program.
Welcome to the fifth of the Dog's letter writing campaign series. The basic premise here is to, on a weekly basis; write a letter to the President, the Attorney General, the nine Justices of the Supreme Court, Speaker Pelosi and Majority Leader Reid, urging them to investigate the apparent State Sponsored Torture program of the Bush Administration. In order to get their attention, every week the Dog writes from a different perspective about the issue, so that on the off chance that they read more than one of these letters it is clear that it is not the same thing over and over. This series also offers the reader the chance to write their own letter or cut and paste the Dog's letter and send it in. The more people that we have sending weekly letters the higher chance that we will be heard on this issue, so if you could take the time to send this along it would be greatly appreciated.
Roland Burris spoke to Rod Blagojevich! Name a Politician in Illinois who hasn't? We all knew he was lying...but in the matter of lies...this was a tiny one.
Heck Bill Clinton lied too and he got Impeached!
George Bush lied....so what.
The difference was, "under oath"!
Bush testified, but not under oath, with no transcripts and with Cheney to help him out.
Why don't we just forget about prosecution of Bush, Cheney, et al, let them ride off into the fading sunset off the hook having tortured and killed their way to a nice comfortable retirement as long as they just go away, and instead just change things so there is no more torture and war crimes being committed by the President in future?
That is fundamentally the "move forward" argument. Is it a legitimate argument, or is it an excusing of war crimes? It's not a legal question, it's a political one.
On Tuesday we saw the first of a multipart video discussion between Progressive Democrats of America board member David Swanson and Yellow Dog Democrat and Chair of The National Congress of Black Women Dr. Fay Williams, talking with Paul Jay of The Real News on the question of whether or not to prosecute Bush and Cheney, and heard Dr. Williams state that if we want prosecution to happen people are going to have to make Obama and Holder do it. People have to move the window of political possibility far enough to make them do it, in other words.
The question has moved far beyond our Petition For A Special Prosecutor since we began it though more signatures can only help it to become reality, is now in the media to a degree that impeachment never came close to, and is becoming a national if not worldwide debate, and Republicans are obviously terrified that it might happen, as we saw highlighted so clearly Wednesday with the Kit Bond Republican comedy of lies and fiasco.
In this second part of the discussion between Swanson, Williams and Paul Jay their conversation continues as they address and debate directly whether the "move forward" argument is legitimate, and about many of the ramifications and complexities involved in the question, with Swanson arguing the pros and Williams arguing some of the cons.
RealNews commentator, Pepe Escobar asks the question, "Where is the Special Prosecutor?"
Note an important point Pepe makes about how this will reflect on Obama if other countries must tackle the war crimes' issue.
In their TV appearances, both Bush and Cheney attempt to make it appear that Khalid Sheikh Mohammed was an isolated incidence of waterboarding. CIA Chief Hayden admitted to three incidences of waterboarding:
"Waterboarding has been used on only three detainees," he told members of the Senate Intelligence Committee. "It was used on Khalid Sheikh Mohammed. It was used on Abu Zubaydah. And it was used on [Abd al-Rahim al-]Nashiri."
I think it would be safe to say, there were more than three who were waterboarded (Hayden also admitted to thirteen others being subjected to "enhanced interrogation methods," but not waterboarding). And what about the deaths that occurred at Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo? And those who were renditioned to other countries?
The point is that both Bush and Cheney tried to "legitimize" the use of waterboarding by 1) making it appear an isolated case and, 2) invaluable information was obtained. They, of course, try to make it seem to the American public that torture's O.K. in "certain circumstances" -- that there are exceptions to the laws. THERE ARE NO EXCEPTIONS!
Here are some thoughts on the use of "enhanced interrogation techniques" by a Human Rights Watch representative and other CIA operators:
"The person believes they are being killed, and as such, it really amounts to a mock execution, which is illegal under international law," said John Sifton of Human Rights Watch.
The techniques are controversial among experienced intelligence agency and military interrogators. Many feel that a confession obtained this way is an unreliable tool. Two experienced officers have told ABC that there is little to be gained by these techniques that could not be more effectively gained by a methodical, careful, psychologically based interrogation. According to a classified report prepared by the CIA Inspector General John Helgerwon and issued in 2004, the techniques "appeared to constitute cruel, and degrading treatment under the (Geneva) convention," the New York Times reported on Nov. 9, 2005.
It is "bad interrogation. I mean you can get anyone to confess to anything if the torture's bad enough," said former CIA officer Bob Baer.
Larry Johnson, a former CIA officer and a deputy director of the State Department's office of counterterrorism, recently wrote in the Los Angeles Times, "What real CIA field officers know firsthand is that it is better to build a relationship of trust ... than to extract quick confessions through tactics such as those used by the Nazis and the Soviets." . . . .
Well, it's all coming out now. The Bush administration was warned about the potential problems with the housing bubble and loans being made, considered regulation, but backed off under pressure from, guess who? Yes, the very banks being bailed out now.
Accountability means one thing for working people and another for the investment class.
WASHINGTON - The Bush administration backed off proposed crackdowns on no-money-down, interest-only mortgages years before the economy collapsed, buckling to pressure from some of the same banks that have now failed. It ignored remarkably prescient warnings that foretold the financial meltdown, according to an Associated Press review of regulatory documents.
"Expect fallout, expect foreclosures, expect horror stories," California mortgage lender Paris Welch wrote to U.S. regulators in January 2006, about one year before the housing implosion cost her a job.
Reform Immigration -
March on Washington
