David Frum on Rush: “A walking stereotype of self-indulgence”
Rush is a walking stereotype of self-indulgence—exactly the image that Barack Obama most wants to affix to our philosophy and our party. And we’re cooperating!
Showing posts with label Harper's. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Harper's. Show all posts
Mar 5, 2009
Go Rush
Progressives love seeing Rush. From Harper's quoting David Frum in the NewMajority:
Jul 15, 2008
Political Psychopaths
Cannot recommend too strongly THE WRECKING CREW (sub. needed) How a Gang of Right-Wing Con Men Destroyed Washington and Made a Killing by Thomas Frank.
Of the Jack Abramhoff, Grover Norquist, Bush-Cheney regime, Frank Writes:
They have made a cult of outsourcing and privatizing, they have wrecked established federal operations because they disagree with them, and they have deliberately piled up an Everest of debt in order to force the government into crisis. The ruination they have wrought has been thorough; it has been a professional job. Repairing it will require years of political action.
Of the Jack Abramhoff, Grover Norquist, Bush-Cheney regime, Frank Writes:
They have made a cult of outsourcing and privatizing, they have wrecked established federal operations because they disagree with them, and they have deliberately piled up an Everest of debt in order to force the government into crisis. The ruination they have wrought has been thorough; it has been a professional job. Repairing it will require years of political action.
Jul 14, 2008
The Outlaw Presidency
Dan Froomkin's The Outlaw Presidency, discussing Jane Meyer's The Dark Side: The Inside Story of How the War on Terror Turned into a War on American Ideals, points to a significant fact of the American political culture.
Finally, it is now conventional wisdom that the Bush-Cheney regime is the most lawless and immoral administration in American history, though I still recommend that elitist Harper's magazine. See Thomas Frank's The Wrecking Crew: How a Gang of Right-wing Con men Destroyed Washington and Made a Killing.
Finally, it is now conventional wisdom that the Bush-Cheney regime is the most lawless and immoral administration in American history, though I still recommend that elitist Harper's magazine. See Thomas Frank's The Wrecking Crew: How a Gang of Right-wing Con men Destroyed Washington and Made a Killing.
Apr 11, 2008
Kevin Phillips on the Economic Numbers Racket
Update: Debt Rattle, Fire and Iceland; Central Banks Signal Deepening Concern at Outlook as G-7 Meets
via MAL Contends
In the Harper's May issue (not available online yet), Kevin Phillips has a vital piece discussing why the American economy is in worse shape than is acknowledged by bipartisan elites who have been participating not in some "grand conspiracy, just accumulating opportunisms."
In the Harper's May issue (not available online yet), Kevin Phillips has a vital piece discussing why the American economy is in worse shape than is acknowledged by bipartisan elites who have been participating not in some "grand conspiracy, just accumulating opportunisms."
Phillips cites John Williams, a California-based economic analyst and statistician, who dubs this predilection over the last several decades to paint an overly-rosy picture of the economy and Americans' financial health: "Pollyanna Creep."
Myself, I call it, lying.
Although Phillips does not write it, like in most dysfunctions of government, the Bush administration is the worst.
Americans know perfectly well that American elites have functioned as a collective Squealer—the character who is a pig in George Orwell's Animal Farm, who contra reality on the farm incessantly squeals how well everyone is doing and how blessed is the state of Animal Farm in all respects.
One does not need to be a reader of CounterPunch, or for that matter a reader of John Edwards and Dennis Kucinich, to know that this taboo analysis is instructive to American families and impolitic towards the squealers.
Writes Phillips:
We might ponder as well who profits from a low-growth U.S. economy hidden under statistical camouflage. Might it be Washington politicos and affluent elites, anxious to mislead voters, coddle the financial markets, and tamp down expensive cost-of-living increases for wages and pensions?
I think we indeed might ponder these points and consider them in the next election, and especially the white working class demographic which seems to focus on gays and their own god deemed vengeful and unloving towards other tribes, especially around election time.
Concludes Phillips:
The U.S. dollar, off more than 40 percent against the euro since 2002, could slip down an even rockier slope. ... The credit markets are fearful, and the financial markets are nervous. If gloom continues, our humbugged nation may truly regret losing sight of history, risk, and common sense.
Unless we enforce a reversal of the major economic and political trends in our society, no manner of preventing gays from marrying or asking for god's wrath is going to help our fellow citizens in this grand American experiment.
Mar 31, 2008
Horton on Iraq
Good piece by Scott Horton at Harper's.
"... starting with the media’s own framing of the question: “Is the surge working?” The question should be different, namely, what are the U.S. objectives in Iraq and are they being met, or even served, by these developments?"
"... starting with the media’s own framing of the question: “Is the surge working?” The question should be different, namely, what are the U.S. objectives in Iraq and are they being met, or even served, by these developments?"
Feb 20, 2008
CBS 60 Minutes Siegelman Story to Air on Sunday
Scott Horton has been a one-man US Dept of Justice watchdog, exposing case after case of political prosecutions.
Don't miss 60 Minutes this-coming Sunday on the prosecution of Don E. Siegelman. The Bush administration pressured CBS and tried unsuccessfully to kill the segment.
CBS 60 Minutes Siegelman Story to Air on Sunday
Writes Horton:
I am advised by CBS News that their long-awaited feature dealing with the trial of former Alabama Governor Don E. Siegelman will air on the next 60 Minutes program, on Sunday, February 24. I am told by people who have seen it that this is one of the best pieces of domestic exposé journalism the 60 Minutes team has put together in the last several years. Mark your calendar and if you’re out, this is the time to master the Tivo or the VCR record function.
Don't miss 60 Minutes this-coming Sunday on the prosecution of Don E. Siegelman. The Bush administration pressured CBS and tried unsuccessfully to kill the segment.
CBS 60 Minutes Siegelman Story to Air on Sunday
Writes Horton:
I am advised by CBS News that their long-awaited feature dealing with the trial of former Alabama Governor Don E. Siegelman will air on the next 60 Minutes program, on Sunday, February 24. I am told by people who have seen it that this is one of the best pieces of domestic exposé journalism the 60 Minutes team has put together in the last several years. Mark your calendar and if you’re out, this is the time to master the Tivo or the VCR record function.
Feb 16, 2008
US Atty Biskupic Tainted in Bolten-Miers Contempt Charges
The House of Representatives issued contempt citations for White House Chief of Staff Joshua Bolten and former White House counsel Harriet Miers Friday, eliciting howls from House Republicans intent of protecting Bush corruption.
After months of stonewalling the House Judiciary Committee, the White House refused to testify under oath and produce documents about myriad DoJ and White House scandals, essentially flipping off Congress and the American people, bringing about the contempt citations.
Writes Scott Horton at Harper’s Magazine:
Writes Horton at Harper’s Magazine:
The people deserve answers even if the corrupt Bush administration is fortifying their walls of obstruction until they get out of Dodge.
For more information:
- Harper's Magazine: How Can US Atty Biskupic Continue in His Job?
- NYT: Give Jailed Former Alabama Dem Gov. Same Check as Georgia Thompson
- Gonzales Defends US Atty Biskupic at House Hearing
After months of stonewalling the House Judiciary Committee, the White House refused to testify under oath and produce documents about myriad DoJ and White House scandals, essentially flipping off Congress and the American people, bringing about the contempt citations.
Writes Scott Horton at Harper’s Magazine:
(T)he White House took the position that the scope of examination would be narrowly tailored so as to exclude precisely the subject matter of the inquiry: Did White House staffers interfere with prosecutors for partisan political reasons?The documents that the White House did produce point the finger at Wisconsin’s U.S. Atty Stephen Biskupic, among others.
Writes Horton at Harper’s Magazine:
… On one document concerning the failure of Milwaukee U.S. Attorney Steven Biskupic to bring ‘vote fraud’ prosecutions, Karl Rove has scribbled a note ‘Discuss w/Harriet.’ In fact we know that Biskupic was on the ‘to-fire’ list. He then began to bring a series of politically motivated prosecutions, including the case against Georgia Thompson that the Seventh Circuit dismissed as ‘preposterous.’ And Biskupic then disappeared from the “to-fire” list. So what discussions Rove had with Miers are right at the heart of the inquiry. But the White House offer ruled that off limits. That was obviously unacceptable.So why was Biskupic the subject of talks between Rove and Miers, and what the heck is with these ridiculous prosecutions Biskupic pursued subsequently?
The people deserve answers even if the corrupt Bush administration is fortifying their walls of obstruction until they get out of Dodge.
For more information:
- Harper's Magazine: How Can US Atty Biskupic Continue in His Job?
- NYT: Give Jailed Former Alabama Dem Gov. Same Check as Georgia Thompson
- Gonzales Defends US Atty Biskupic at House Hearing
Jan 25, 2008
Prosecute U.S. Atty Biskupic under Federal Criminal Code?
The conduct of Stephen Biskupic, United States Attorney for the Eastern District of Wisconsin (2002 - present) has generated two prominent reactions.
As arguably the most controversial U.S. Atty in Wisconsin history, Biskupic has drawn both praise and angry denunciation for his prosecutions of:
- The proven-innocent Georgia Thompson (see also Biskupic tried to 'squeeze' Georgia Thompson)
- Several overturned “voter fraud” cases (see also Voter-Fraud Complaints by GOP Drove Dismissals)
- Wisconsin Navy veteran Keith Roberts (see also U.S. Attorneys Scandal–Milwaukee)
The praise for Biskupic is exemplified by the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel’s Mike Nichols (Biskupic is antithesis of a politician, May 11, 2007) who applauds the prosecution of the innocent and apolitical state worker Georgia Thompson, writing:
“Granted, the prosecution of Thompson, the purchasing official in the Doyle Administration, was a bust. Being a political creature like Thompson, it turns out, is not a crime."
But you have to admire a prosecutor who starts from the premise that it might be.”
Admiration of prosecutors destroying the lives of innocents is far from universal.
Of Biskupic, one reader e-mailed:
I am even angrier! In addition to prosecuting and imprisoning an innocent woman, I see he also prosecuted a veteran for trying to get the benefits he is entitled to. So the government can take the services of people who volunteer for military services and then discard them like cannon fodder, subject them to a politically inspired show trial in the manner of Stalin's Russia and Hitler's Germany, frame them up and imprison them. And what about all those indictments for voter fraud? How many are innocent citizens imprisoned for exercising their right to vote.
And since the Bush Administration was trying to suppress the minority vote, how many were minorities, framed up and imprisoned for voting as if they lived in a southern county presided over by some ignorant, red neck, cracker sheriff?
Biskupic is hardly alone in his using the U.S. Attorney’s office for political prosecutions and retaliation against perceived domestic enemies. The abuse of the Bush Department of Justice to settle political scores and further rightwing ideology is pervasive.
Many Americans have been asking the questions: Is this legal? Can’t we prosecute the prosecutors who have corrupted the judicial process and ruined the lives of innocents?
Scott Horton, a human rights attorney and columnist for Harper’s, has a column today suggestive of a possible answer to these questions.
In his A Political Prosecution Goes Under the Microscope, Horton writes:
As the countdown begins to the end of the Bush Administration, abuse of the criminal justice system is finally coming into focus.
Within the Justice Department itself, the Office of Professional Responsibility and the Inspector General are conducting a joint investigation into the case of the “Gonzales Eight,” namely the firing of eight U.S. attorneys on December 7, 2006. Preliminary inquiries by Congress produced the resignation in disgrace of most of the senior leadership of the Justice Department, including Attorney General Gonzales. Now (we) hear that Alberto Gonzales has 'lawyered up' — for good reason. The internal probe will, I am told, demonstrate a stunning pattern of management of political prosecutions out of the White House. Karl Rove himself figures at the center of the process. And George W. Bush will put in more than a couple of key appearances in the process before this drama has been played out. …
What’s at stake in this case? (The great jurist) Robert H. Jackson reminded us in his speech “The Federal Prosecutor” that our society can never tolerate a situation in which prosecutors investigate individuals rather than crimes. When this occurs, the basic principles of our criminal justice system are subverted and the nation is put on the path toward tyranny. The damage is compounded when a prosecutor uses his vast powers, held under a public trust, to attack his political enemies. But all signs point to this being the case in Michigan, like in others cases in Alabama, Mississippi, Georgia, and Wisconsin. …
At this point it is plain that the Justice Department is not guided by policies and principles in its posture, but by an earnest resolve to keep hidden the dark truths that an entire nation now suspects and which will come to the front burner as soon as the results of the Department’s own investigation into the misconduct of Attorney General Gonzales become public. It’s time to shine a bright and sanitizing light down the crevice of these prosecutions and let the truth be known.
Horton recommends that a remedy in the U.S. Code for the situation inflicted on the nation by the DoJ be examined for possible future prosecution by a non-Bush U.S. Department of Justice.
TITLE 18, PART I, CHAPTER 73, § 1505 and TITLE 18, PART I, CHAPTER 73, § 1512
“Now as it turns out, using the office of U.S. attorney to wage a political vendetta is a crime under sections 1505 and 1512 of the (federal) Criminal Code,” writes Horton.
Horton refers to TITLE 18, PART I, CHAPTER 73, § 1505 and TITLE 18, PART I, CHAPTER 73, § 1512 of the U.S. Code in discussing the political prosecution of a prominent Democrat by DoJ Republicans.
One hopes that the federal Code would be deemed applicable in the United States v. Keith A. Roberts (07-1546) case in which, as Wisconsin Public Radio reports, Keith Roberts, a Wisconsin Navy veteran, became a political target,
related to (his) Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) diagnosed as occurring because he witnessed and tried to prevent his friend from being crushed to death by a C-54 airplane while stationed at a Naval air base in Naples, Italy 1969, and unrelated assault by the Navy Shore Patrol—granted and then denied, has not yet been decided by the CAVC (U.S. Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims).Section 1505 reads in part: “…Whoever corruptly, or by threats or force, or by any threatening letter or communication influences, obstructs, or impedes or endeavors to influence, obstruct, or impede the due and proper administration of the law under which any pending proceeding is being had before any department or agency of the United States ...,” describing a criminal activity consonant with Biskupic's conduct.
But the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) after being accused of fraud in 2003 by Roberts ignored the CAVC process and investigated and asked that Roberts be prosecuted for fraud by the US Attorney’s office.
A future prosecution would have to make the case that the U.S. Dept of Veterans Affairs (VA) and U.S. Atty Biskupic corruptly obstructed the VA's proceeding of the Roberts' appeal for VA disability benefits.
That should not be exceedingly difficult as there exists at least a prima facie case that this is precisely what did happen to the Wisconsin Navy veteran, Roberts. See Top VA Officials Plotted to Indict Vet in Violation of Federal VA Rules.
The Georgia Thompson and “voter fraud” cases present more clear cases of political corruption. And the Roberts case exhibits a crony's tendency to back the then-head of Bush's VA goal of obstructing vets diagnosed with PTSD.
Let's hope that for the sake of justice that all of these cases are examined thoroughly by the DoJ's Office of Professional Responsibility, the DoJ Inspector General, and the appropriate congressional committees (now being stonewalled) overseeing the judiciary.
Wisconsin citizens deserve and justice demands full confidence in the impartial, politics-free United States Attorney's offices.
Research Project Needed
One cannot realistically expect results from the Bush DoJ, but a public-interest organization, or a pro bono research project flushing out and constructing a hypothetical criminal case under sections 1505 and 1512 begun by a law firm or law school students offers the hope in the restoration of the travesty of justice that today's U.S. Dept of Justice has become.
Prosecutorial Immunity
Prosecutorial Immunity, as Erwin Chemerinsky writes, is not absolute. See also Johns, Margaret Z in Reconsidering Absolute Prosecutorial Immunity.
###
Jan 17, 2008
Iraq Mercenaries: Privatized and Unprofessional
Unaccountable, ruthless and endangering U.S. troops, the Iraq mercs are George W. Bush's fitting warriors.
Read Scott Horton's newest column, Ending a Culture of Impunity for Contract Soldiers.
###
Read Scott Horton's newest column, Ending a Culture of Impunity for Contract Soldiers.
###
Dec 21, 2007
GOP Pres Candidates Looking Bad
Update II: The GOP is not so hot on the Huckster:
- National Review's Rich Lowry: "Huckacide"
- Washington Post's Charles Krauthammer: "overdose of public piety," "scriptural literalism,"
- Weekly Standard's Stephen Hayes: Huckster "seems to believe the best foreign policy is one guided by the Golden Rule;" [maybe the Huckster is dangerous; if the guy starts campaigning on human rights and compassion, look out, though I doubt that will happen].
Update: Arianna Huffington has a piece comparing the Huckster to Frankenstein running amok and leading the pack in the GOP primary. Writes Huffington:
With Mike Huckabee's continuing surge, the Republican Party now has an Iowa front-runner whose religious beliefs are virtually identical to those of George Bush. He's anti-choice, born-again, against gay-marriage, and gets political advice directly from God.
So why is the Republican establishment suddenly in a state of near-apoplexy about Mike Huckabee? Shouldn't they be happy? They've been cultivating evangelicals and fundamentalists for 30 years. Now they finally have a candidate who's truly part of the movement. So what's the problem?
Actually, that is the problem. The evangelical crowd was fine when it was just a resource to be cynically exploited every few years in demagogic anti-gay get-out-the-vote campaigns. But now the holy-rolling monster the GOP's Dr. Frankensteins have created has thrown off the shackles, fled the lab, and is currently leading in Iowa. And the party doesn't know what to do.
In the 2008 election that is indisputably a challenging historical period for the GOP to begin with, the top five candidates for the GOP presidential nomination all present major problems in assembling a winning GOP coalition in the general election, and even two weeks away from the Iowa caucuses no candidate looks like a winner.
But as Chris Cillizza says: Someone Has to Win the GOP Nomination.
Below is Cillizza's take on the top five GOP presidential candidates with additional weaknesses (most previously published) added in brackets.
Rudy Giuliani isn't positioned to win a single state before Florida's Jan. 29 primary. [James Dobson, the leading religious right leader of the Focus on the Family group that self-consciously rallies religious right voters has made clear that Rudy is political anathema; hence Rudy will perform badly with the religious right; and Rudy’s past positions on affirmative action, abortion, civil right for gays, and immigration will kill his candidacy, no matter how often he portrays his inner-jerk persona in an attempt to appear tough.]
Mitt Romney has fallen behind in Iowa and his flip flops on issues like abortion and gay rights make him unacceptable to the Republican base. [As Governor of Massachusetts, Romney was even more pro-choice and pro-civil rights for gays than Rudy. The massive effort underway to convert him into a rightwinger won’t fly (detailed in a Harper’s (November) piece by Ken Silverstein). As quoted by Silverstein: “(Romney) says all the right things, his speeches run through the litmus test on conservative issues, but there’s no conviction behind it. …,” said Cyndi Mosteller, a social rightwinger and GOP politico in South Carolina. Add to that Christian religious bigotry against Mormons and you have a political loser.] Update: Romney drawing heat for falsely claiming he and his father marched with Martin Luther King, adding to the growing perception that Romney will do and say much anything to further his political ambitions. See also NYT's Romney Learns That ‘Facts Are Stubborn Things’.
Mike Huckabee is surging in Iowa but doesn't have the money or organization to take advantage of a win in the Hawkeye State.
[The rapist-pardoning Huckster is a divisive fake just dying to be found out. Even the Republican establishment has blasted the guy. Provincial, ignorant of foreign affairs, his success in the GOP race thus far has depended directly upon his below-the-radar-and-ascending appeals to the religious right, and his ability to mount a positive, above-the-fray campaign as the other Republicans competed for who is the most mean-spirited in advocating for draconian measures such as more torture, more Gitmo prisons, more war, more fences, and more trashing of Mexicans as Karl Rove's dream of a GOP appeal to Hispanics evaporates. Add to this that he would be deficient in traditional GOP political strengths in foreign affairs and tough-on-crime appeals, and the Huckster would be a goner in the general election.]
John McCain is running a single-state strategy in New Hampshire, but in that state he trails Romney by double digits. ["Speaking as a private individual, I would not vote for John McCain under any circumstances," said James Dobson. Few religious right leaders have forgiven McCain for his wildly unpopular (in Republican circles) McCain/Feingold bill, and his April 9, 2000 speech trashing the religious right (that’s the Robertson/Falwell “agents of intolerance” speech). McCain would perform worse than Rudy; let's hope for Joe-mentum for McCain.]
Fred Thompson doesn't seem to care much whether he wins or loses. [As a late September piece in The Politico notes, quoting Dobson: "Isn’t Thompson the candidate who is opposed to a constitutional amendment to protect marriage, believes there should be 50 different definitions of marriage in the U.S., favors McCain-Feingold, won’t talk at all about what he believes, and can’t speak his way out of a paper bag on the campaign trail?" Dobson asked in the message, obtained by The Associated Press. "He has no passion, no zeal and no apparent ‘want to.’ And yet he is apparently the Great Hope that burns in the breasts of many conservative Christians? Well, not for me, my brothers. Not for me!" Grandpa Fred is dead, and he comes across as tired and wooden: An older version of an unenergetic John Kerry.] And as Cillizza notes: Apathetic.
###
But as Chris Cillizza says: Someone Has to Win the GOP Nomination.
Below is Cillizza's take on the top five GOP presidential candidates with additional weaknesses (most previously published) added in brackets.
Rudy Giuliani isn't positioned to win a single state before Florida's Jan. 29 primary. [James Dobson, the leading religious right leader of the Focus on the Family group that self-consciously rallies religious right voters has made clear that Rudy is political anathema; hence Rudy will perform badly with the religious right; and Rudy’s past positions on affirmative action, abortion, civil right for gays, and immigration will kill his candidacy, no matter how often he portrays his inner-jerk persona in an attempt to appear tough.]
Mitt Romney has fallen behind in Iowa and his flip flops on issues like abortion and gay rights make him unacceptable to the Republican base. [As Governor of Massachusetts, Romney was even more pro-choice and pro-civil rights for gays than Rudy. The massive effort underway to convert him into a rightwinger won’t fly (detailed in a Harper’s (November) piece by Ken Silverstein). As quoted by Silverstein: “(Romney) says all the right things, his speeches run through the litmus test on conservative issues, but there’s no conviction behind it. …,” said Cyndi Mosteller, a social rightwinger and GOP politico in South Carolina. Add to that Christian religious bigotry against Mormons and you have a political loser.] Update: Romney drawing heat for falsely claiming he and his father marched with Martin Luther King, adding to the growing perception that Romney will do and say much anything to further his political ambitions. See also NYT's Romney Learns That ‘Facts Are Stubborn Things’.
Mike Huckabee is surging in Iowa but doesn't have the money or organization to take advantage of a win in the Hawkeye State.
[The rapist-pardoning Huckster is a divisive fake just dying to be found out. Even the Republican establishment has blasted the guy. Provincial, ignorant of foreign affairs, his success in the GOP race thus far has depended directly upon his below-the-radar-and-ascending appeals to the religious right, and his ability to mount a positive, above-the-fray campaign as the other Republicans competed for who is the most mean-spirited in advocating for draconian measures such as more torture, more Gitmo prisons, more war, more fences, and more trashing of Mexicans as Karl Rove's dream of a GOP appeal to Hispanics evaporates. Add to this that he would be deficient in traditional GOP political strengths in foreign affairs and tough-on-crime appeals, and the Huckster would be a goner in the general election.]
John McCain is running a single-state strategy in New Hampshire, but in that state he trails Romney by double digits. ["Speaking as a private individual, I would not vote for John McCain under any circumstances," said James Dobson. Few religious right leaders have forgiven McCain for his wildly unpopular (in Republican circles) McCain/Feingold bill, and his April 9, 2000 speech trashing the religious right (that’s the Robertson/Falwell “agents of intolerance” speech). McCain would perform worse than Rudy; let's hope for Joe-mentum for McCain.]
Fred Thompson doesn't seem to care much whether he wins or loses. [As a late September piece in The Politico notes, quoting Dobson: "Isn’t Thompson the candidate who is opposed to a constitutional amendment to protect marriage, believes there should be 50 different definitions of marriage in the U.S., favors McCain-Feingold, won’t talk at all about what he believes, and can’t speak his way out of a paper bag on the campaign trail?" Dobson asked in the message, obtained by The Associated Press. "He has no passion, no zeal and no apparent ‘want to.’ And yet he is apparently the Great Hope that burns in the breasts of many conservative Christians? Well, not for me, my brothers. Not for me!" Grandpa Fred is dead, and he comes across as tired and wooden: An older version of an unenergetic John Kerry.] And as Cillizza notes: Apathetic.
###
Dec 20, 2007
Scott Horton's Congressional Testimonyon KBR Rape
Human rights attorney and Harper's writer on the rape of a KBR employee:
What the Jamie Leigh Jones Case Teaches Us
I testified today at the Judiciary Committee’s hearings on the KBR rape case. The Department of Justice declined to send a representative to the hearing–”an absolute disgrace,” in the words of Chairman John Conyers, a comment which several Republican members hastened to join in. Here are some highlights from the testimony:
Is America establishing a culture of impunity among its contractors operating in areas of armed conflict? This is the question which a proliferation of reports out of Iraq invites. When I addressed this committee on June 25, I noted that there was a troubling potential that certain categories of contractors would escape accountability altogether because of some issues that exist with the Military Extraterritorial Jurisdiction Act. I also noted concern that the Department of Justice might not be giving sufficient resources and priority to its enforcement responsibilities over contractors in Iraq and Afghanistan. Unfortunately all those concerns have been borne out.
America’s objectives in Iraq and Afghanistan, as articulated by the President, the Secretary of Defense and the Secretary of State, include helping to create a new democratic society which values the rule of law. But the contractor community that America has fielded to pursue this objective operates in an environment that looks increasingly like Texas West of the Pecos in 1890—without even a Judge Roy Bean to keep things in order. This atmosphere of immunity was created by decisions made by the United States Government, starting with the issuance of Coalition Provisional Authority Order No. 17, which shields non-Iraqi contractors from the nation’s law-enforcement system. That step was arguably appropriate under the circumstances—particularly because the Iraqi criminal justice system was a shambles—but it also conferred on the United States the responsibility to provide an effective substitute. The failure to do this undermines the mission’s credibility. But it also creates an environment which is dangerous to all involved—contractors, the military and other U.S. Government personnel, and the host community in which they operate.
Since June, we have witnessed a parade of further headlines which demonstrate precisely the shortcomings that were identified and addressed in Congressman Price’s legislation, H.R. 2740. And while that legislation overwhelmingly cleared the House—in a 389 to 30 vote—the Senate has not yet acted on a parallel measure. This legislation is urgently needed and should be enacted and signed into law in the near future.
This committee should focus on two questions. First, is there a question relating to appropriations or to legislation which has contributed to the problem which the public now so clearly sees? Second, has the executive branch done what it can and should do to enforce the law?
The horrible rape incident involving Ms. Jennifer Leigh Jones is sickening to hear recounted. It also provides an opportunity to consider exactly how the Government has responded to crimes committed by and among contractors. We have a community of 180,000 contractors in Iraq. Crimes do occur, and this is and must be considered a politically neutral fact. It does not suggest that the reliance upon contractors is mistaken. The decision to rely much more heavily on contractors was not a partisan decision. This community consists entirely neither of angels or devils, but of ordinary human beings, most of whom undoubtedly try to act honorably in fulfilling their duties. You won’t find a community of this size in the United States, or anywhere else in the world, that doesn’t experience serious violent crimes—hundreds of times in the course of a year. Add to that the fact that high pressure circumstances—such as life in a war zone in which shootings and bombings are common—frequently lead to higher than normal rates of violent crime.
Human experience also teaches—since the first formation of human communities—that when the state fails to enforce order, to identify crimes as crimes and to punish them swiftly and certainly, crimes proliferate. The Government has a duty to the citizens of the United States, and also to the employees of the contractor community, to vigorously uphold the law. Indeed, this is one of the most fundamental duties of any Government. If the executive branch felt it needed new tools to do the job, or more money, it had a duty to come to Congress and regulate these questions. I have a lot of difficulty seeing how the executive branch has met this responsibility in the context of the United States presence in Iraq.
I have not independently investigated the facts of the Jones case, though I personally find her account painful and compelling. But if I consider the facts that Ms. Jones has described, taking only those which have not been disputed by Kellogg Brown & Root, then I see no impediment to the exercise of the criminal law jurisdiction of the United States by the Department of Justice. As alleged the crimes occurred among employees of contractors involved in a contingency operation, on installations or facilities maintained by the United States abroad, and involve U.S. citizens as perpetrators and victims. These facts would provide multiple bases for the Department of Justice to exercise its jurisdiction. The crimes which have been alleged—rape, assault and false imprisonment among them—would come under at least two different grants of jurisdiction to U.S. federal courts, namely the Military Extraterritorial Jurisdiction Act, as amended in 2004, and the special maritime and territorial jurisdiction, as expanded by the USA PATRIOT Act. Of course, depending on the identity of the perpetrators, and potentially also the contracts which brought the personnel to Iraq, there might be some legal issues. This would have to be developed by investigation.
The astonishing failure in this case is the failure of an appropriate law enforcement authority to conduct a prompt and timely investigation of the allegations while Ms. Jones was still in theater. It does appear that the matter was reported to the Justice Department early on, and Ms. Jones recalls meeting with a special agent of the FBI from the Baghdad Embassy. But the investigation was conducted by the State Department, and it does not appear to have been an investigation designed to support a decision to take criminal action, including potential prosecution. In a case of this sort, having a timely, professional investigation conducted that secures forensic evidence in a form which is admissible in subsequent criminal proceedings is critical. This does not appear to have occurred. This will make prosecution by the Department of Justice incalculably more difficult. It may lead a prosecutor to conclude that even though a serious crime likely occurred, it will be too difficult to develop the evidence necessary to prosecute it.
In fact the way the medical examination and resulting evidence was handled was truly shocking.
These factual allegations from the Jones case strike me as significant and revealing of structural flaws in the way contractor-related crimes are being handled in Iraq and Afghanistan:
(1) The Justice Department is effectively not present on the scene, does not have personnel deployed charged with conducting investigations, collecting evidence and making preliminary decisions as to whether incidents are suitable for prosecution. This would require a team of FBI agents with appropriate training, including access to forensic labs and personnel.
(2) The case when first alleged seems to have been treated as an issue related to administration of a contract, rather than a criminal justice matter, triggering only a State Department investigation. But the State Department does not have authority to conduct criminal inquiries or to bring charges.
(3) The Department of Defense was called upon to provide medical expertise, which was a reasonable step. But no guidelines appear to have been available as to how this was done. The alleged surrender of the rape kit by military medical personnel to Kellogg Brown & Root was grossly improper, producing a serious lapse in the chain of custody—and in this case, loss of evidence which cannot be reproduced. It reflects an attitude which I hear constantly when interviewing State Department and Defense Department personnel—namely, that the problem is the contractor’s. Of course, the contractor has an interest in performing its contract and maintaining a good relationship with the contracting agency. The contractor does not have any interest per se in law enforcement. It might well decide to terminate employees it believes are involved in a crime, but beyond that the contractor will, very appropriately, believe that the responsibility for law enforcement lies with law enforcement agencies.
On December 5, the Department of State and the Department of Defense, represented through Deputy Secretaries Negroponte and Gordon, entered into a Memorandum of Agreement which sets out guidelines for cooperation in some investigations. When I first received and examined this document, I was convinced I must have been missing several pages. The most extraordinary thing about it is in fact what it does not cover. Remember, this process started in the wake of the Nisoor Square incident on September 16, in which private security contractors working for Blackwater Worldwide opened fire in the Nisoor Square neighborhood of Baghdad, leaving 17 civilians dead and severely wounding 24 more. The confusion, defensiveness, multiplicity of uncoordinated, ad hoc investigations, and inter-agency finger-pointing that characterized the U.S. government response to the shootings highlight the fact that the U.S. Government at this late date still had no plan or procedure for investigating allegations of serious violent crime involving private contractors fielded by the U.S. government in Iraq.
The Defense Department and the State Department got into a bit of a squabble over these investigations, a turf battle if you will. The Memorandum of Agreement was supposed to work out procedures for reconciling their differences. It actually contains a number of important advances. But there is one agency with clear primary responsibility for the investigation of criminal conduct and action thereon, and that agency—the Department of Justice—is nowhere to be found. It’s not a party to the Agreement. In fact, while there is a fairly vague reference to “appropriate” law enforcement agencies, the Justice Department isn’t even mentioned.
With respect to the Nisoor Square incident itself, the first Justice Department investigators appeared two weeks after it was first reported, published above the fold in newspapers around the United States. It made its appearance only after a public spotlight was focused on it, and demands were made by editorial boards and members of Congress for it to account for its inaction.
I wish this had been a unique course of events. But it seemed to me completely typical. We should also look back to the first reports out of Abu Ghraib. Remember that the Report authored by Generals Kern, Jones and Fay identified six contractors, and General Taguba linked two of them to the most serious abuses that occurred at Abu Ghraib. These matters were referred to the Department of Justice, and on to the Eastern District of Virginia in 2004. At the point of referral they had been fully investigated by the Army’s Criminal Investigations Department, with a full dossier supporting prosecution. That same set of investigations fueled more than a dozen courts-martial and even more nonjudicial punishments. On the military side, the process may be subject to some criticisms, but at least there was a process that moved forward and resulted in criminal prosecutions and serious sanctions.
And what about the Abu Ghraib cases involving contractors that were passed to the Department of Justice? Though there is a single newspaper report of a grand jury meeting at which questions were asked about these cases, there is no sign of any meaningful prosecutorial action—not even of efforts to interview victims and key witnesses. The Eastern District of Virginia has a reputation for acting quickly and skillfully. It has in the past years handled some of the highest profile cases in the country. The contrast between those cases and its handling of the cases from Abu Ghraib is nothing short of stunning. And the explanations that have been offered simply do not hold water.
There has not been a single completed prosecution of a crime involving a contractor implicated in violent crime coming out of Iraq, although the reported incidents which would have merited investigation are legion. Again, it is simply impossible to believe that in a community with a peak population of 180,000 people—with many more people than that actually cycling in and out of these jobs, tens of thousands of them Americans—over a period of approaching five years there has been no violent crime. The facts point to something else: an attitude of official indifference within the Department of Justice, or at least a decision to accord these crimes a very low priority and no or very little resources.
Looking back quickly to the two questions I started with:
The developments at Nisoor Square and the tragedy experienced by Ms. Jones show that the legislation that Congressman Price proposed is badly needed. Congressman Price’s bill, as enacted by the House, requires the Justice Department to allocate the personnel and resources needed to address criminal allegations involving contractors. These cases reveal that as an urgent necessity. The Price bill also strengthens the Justice Department’s jurisdictional basis for action which would help avoid unproductive litigation over the scope of the Congressional grant of jurisdiction.
The Jones case, and the Nisoor Square case point to a failure by the Justice Department to provide appropriate resources to address law enforcement within the contractor community in Iraq. There is an urgent need to have investigators, prosecutors and trained support personnel on the ground in Iraq. Back in Washington there should be a staff of experienced trial attorneys with depth in relevant criminal law and the law of armed conflict who can support prosecutions. The Criminal Division needs to be given an explicit mandate to cover this area, and dedicated funding, resources and personnel to do so. The fact that such resources are missing has clearly contributed to the failure to act in a timely and appropriate manner in the Nisoor Square event, in the case that Ms. Jones has described, and in many other incidents as well. It has damaged our nation’s reputation for doing justice.
I look forward to your questions.
###
What the Jamie Leigh Jones Case Teaches Us
I testified today at the Judiciary Committee’s hearings on the KBR rape case. The Department of Justice declined to send a representative to the hearing–”an absolute disgrace,” in the words of Chairman John Conyers, a comment which several Republican members hastened to join in. Here are some highlights from the testimony:
Is America establishing a culture of impunity among its contractors operating in areas of armed conflict? This is the question which a proliferation of reports out of Iraq invites. When I addressed this committee on June 25, I noted that there was a troubling potential that certain categories of contractors would escape accountability altogether because of some issues that exist with the Military Extraterritorial Jurisdiction Act. I also noted concern that the Department of Justice might not be giving sufficient resources and priority to its enforcement responsibilities over contractors in Iraq and Afghanistan. Unfortunately all those concerns have been borne out.
America’s objectives in Iraq and Afghanistan, as articulated by the President, the Secretary of Defense and the Secretary of State, include helping to create a new democratic society which values the rule of law. But the contractor community that America has fielded to pursue this objective operates in an environment that looks increasingly like Texas West of the Pecos in 1890—without even a Judge Roy Bean to keep things in order. This atmosphere of immunity was created by decisions made by the United States Government, starting with the issuance of Coalition Provisional Authority Order No. 17, which shields non-Iraqi contractors from the nation’s law-enforcement system. That step was arguably appropriate under the circumstances—particularly because the Iraqi criminal justice system was a shambles—but it also conferred on the United States the responsibility to provide an effective substitute. The failure to do this undermines the mission’s credibility. But it also creates an environment which is dangerous to all involved—contractors, the military and other U.S. Government personnel, and the host community in which they operate.
Since June, we have witnessed a parade of further headlines which demonstrate precisely the shortcomings that were identified and addressed in Congressman Price’s legislation, H.R. 2740. And while that legislation overwhelmingly cleared the House—in a 389 to 30 vote—the Senate has not yet acted on a parallel measure. This legislation is urgently needed and should be enacted and signed into law in the near future.
This committee should focus on two questions. First, is there a question relating to appropriations or to legislation which has contributed to the problem which the public now so clearly sees? Second, has the executive branch done what it can and should do to enforce the law?
The horrible rape incident involving Ms. Jennifer Leigh Jones is sickening to hear recounted. It also provides an opportunity to consider exactly how the Government has responded to crimes committed by and among contractors. We have a community of 180,000 contractors in Iraq. Crimes do occur, and this is and must be considered a politically neutral fact. It does not suggest that the reliance upon contractors is mistaken. The decision to rely much more heavily on contractors was not a partisan decision. This community consists entirely neither of angels or devils, but of ordinary human beings, most of whom undoubtedly try to act honorably in fulfilling their duties. You won’t find a community of this size in the United States, or anywhere else in the world, that doesn’t experience serious violent crimes—hundreds of times in the course of a year. Add to that the fact that high pressure circumstances—such as life in a war zone in which shootings and bombings are common—frequently lead to higher than normal rates of violent crime.
Human experience also teaches—since the first formation of human communities—that when the state fails to enforce order, to identify crimes as crimes and to punish them swiftly and certainly, crimes proliferate. The Government has a duty to the citizens of the United States, and also to the employees of the contractor community, to vigorously uphold the law. Indeed, this is one of the most fundamental duties of any Government. If the executive branch felt it needed new tools to do the job, or more money, it had a duty to come to Congress and regulate these questions. I have a lot of difficulty seeing how the executive branch has met this responsibility in the context of the United States presence in Iraq.
I have not independently investigated the facts of the Jones case, though I personally find her account painful and compelling. But if I consider the facts that Ms. Jones has described, taking only those which have not been disputed by Kellogg Brown & Root, then I see no impediment to the exercise of the criminal law jurisdiction of the United States by the Department of Justice. As alleged the crimes occurred among employees of contractors involved in a contingency operation, on installations or facilities maintained by the United States abroad, and involve U.S. citizens as perpetrators and victims. These facts would provide multiple bases for the Department of Justice to exercise its jurisdiction. The crimes which have been alleged—rape, assault and false imprisonment among them—would come under at least two different grants of jurisdiction to U.S. federal courts, namely the Military Extraterritorial Jurisdiction Act, as amended in 2004, and the special maritime and territorial jurisdiction, as expanded by the USA PATRIOT Act. Of course, depending on the identity of the perpetrators, and potentially also the contracts which brought the personnel to Iraq, there might be some legal issues. This would have to be developed by investigation.
The astonishing failure in this case is the failure of an appropriate law enforcement authority to conduct a prompt and timely investigation of the allegations while Ms. Jones was still in theater. It does appear that the matter was reported to the Justice Department early on, and Ms. Jones recalls meeting with a special agent of the FBI from the Baghdad Embassy. But the investigation was conducted by the State Department, and it does not appear to have been an investigation designed to support a decision to take criminal action, including potential prosecution. In a case of this sort, having a timely, professional investigation conducted that secures forensic evidence in a form which is admissible in subsequent criminal proceedings is critical. This does not appear to have occurred. This will make prosecution by the Department of Justice incalculably more difficult. It may lead a prosecutor to conclude that even though a serious crime likely occurred, it will be too difficult to develop the evidence necessary to prosecute it.
In fact the way the medical examination and resulting evidence was handled was truly shocking.
These factual allegations from the Jones case strike me as significant and revealing of structural flaws in the way contractor-related crimes are being handled in Iraq and Afghanistan:
(1) The Justice Department is effectively not present on the scene, does not have personnel deployed charged with conducting investigations, collecting evidence and making preliminary decisions as to whether incidents are suitable for prosecution. This would require a team of FBI agents with appropriate training, including access to forensic labs and personnel.
(2) The case when first alleged seems to have been treated as an issue related to administration of a contract, rather than a criminal justice matter, triggering only a State Department investigation. But the State Department does not have authority to conduct criminal inquiries or to bring charges.
(3) The Department of Defense was called upon to provide medical expertise, which was a reasonable step. But no guidelines appear to have been available as to how this was done. The alleged surrender of the rape kit by military medical personnel to Kellogg Brown & Root was grossly improper, producing a serious lapse in the chain of custody—and in this case, loss of evidence which cannot be reproduced. It reflects an attitude which I hear constantly when interviewing State Department and Defense Department personnel—namely, that the problem is the contractor’s. Of course, the contractor has an interest in performing its contract and maintaining a good relationship with the contracting agency. The contractor does not have any interest per se in law enforcement. It might well decide to terminate employees it believes are involved in a crime, but beyond that the contractor will, very appropriately, believe that the responsibility for law enforcement lies with law enforcement agencies.
On December 5, the Department of State and the Department of Defense, represented through Deputy Secretaries Negroponte and Gordon, entered into a Memorandum of Agreement which sets out guidelines for cooperation in some investigations. When I first received and examined this document, I was convinced I must have been missing several pages. The most extraordinary thing about it is in fact what it does not cover. Remember, this process started in the wake of the Nisoor Square incident on September 16, in which private security contractors working for Blackwater Worldwide opened fire in the Nisoor Square neighborhood of Baghdad, leaving 17 civilians dead and severely wounding 24 more. The confusion, defensiveness, multiplicity of uncoordinated, ad hoc investigations, and inter-agency finger-pointing that characterized the U.S. government response to the shootings highlight the fact that the U.S. Government at this late date still had no plan or procedure for investigating allegations of serious violent crime involving private contractors fielded by the U.S. government in Iraq.
The Defense Department and the State Department got into a bit of a squabble over these investigations, a turf battle if you will. The Memorandum of Agreement was supposed to work out procedures for reconciling their differences. It actually contains a number of important advances. But there is one agency with clear primary responsibility for the investigation of criminal conduct and action thereon, and that agency—the Department of Justice—is nowhere to be found. It’s not a party to the Agreement. In fact, while there is a fairly vague reference to “appropriate” law enforcement agencies, the Justice Department isn’t even mentioned.
With respect to the Nisoor Square incident itself, the first Justice Department investigators appeared two weeks after it was first reported, published above the fold in newspapers around the United States. It made its appearance only after a public spotlight was focused on it, and demands were made by editorial boards and members of Congress for it to account for its inaction.
I wish this had been a unique course of events. But it seemed to me completely typical. We should also look back to the first reports out of Abu Ghraib. Remember that the Report authored by Generals Kern, Jones and Fay identified six contractors, and General Taguba linked two of them to the most serious abuses that occurred at Abu Ghraib. These matters were referred to the Department of Justice, and on to the Eastern District of Virginia in 2004. At the point of referral they had been fully investigated by the Army’s Criminal Investigations Department, with a full dossier supporting prosecution. That same set of investigations fueled more than a dozen courts-martial and even more nonjudicial punishments. On the military side, the process may be subject to some criticisms, but at least there was a process that moved forward and resulted in criminal prosecutions and serious sanctions.
And what about the Abu Ghraib cases involving contractors that were passed to the Department of Justice? Though there is a single newspaper report of a grand jury meeting at which questions were asked about these cases, there is no sign of any meaningful prosecutorial action—not even of efforts to interview victims and key witnesses. The Eastern District of Virginia has a reputation for acting quickly and skillfully. It has in the past years handled some of the highest profile cases in the country. The contrast between those cases and its handling of the cases from Abu Ghraib is nothing short of stunning. And the explanations that have been offered simply do not hold water.
There has not been a single completed prosecution of a crime involving a contractor implicated in violent crime coming out of Iraq, although the reported incidents which would have merited investigation are legion. Again, it is simply impossible to believe that in a community with a peak population of 180,000 people—with many more people than that actually cycling in and out of these jobs, tens of thousands of them Americans—over a period of approaching five years there has been no violent crime. The facts point to something else: an attitude of official indifference within the Department of Justice, or at least a decision to accord these crimes a very low priority and no or very little resources.
Looking back quickly to the two questions I started with:
The developments at Nisoor Square and the tragedy experienced by Ms. Jones show that the legislation that Congressman Price proposed is badly needed. Congressman Price’s bill, as enacted by the House, requires the Justice Department to allocate the personnel and resources needed to address criminal allegations involving contractors. These cases reveal that as an urgent necessity. The Price bill also strengthens the Justice Department’s jurisdictional basis for action which would help avoid unproductive litigation over the scope of the Congressional grant of jurisdiction.
The Jones case, and the Nisoor Square case point to a failure by the Justice Department to provide appropriate resources to address law enforcement within the contractor community in Iraq. There is an urgent need to have investigators, prosecutors and trained support personnel on the ground in Iraq. Back in Washington there should be a staff of experienced trial attorneys with depth in relevant criminal law and the law of armed conflict who can support prosecutions. The Criminal Division needs to be given an explicit mandate to cover this area, and dedicated funding, resources and personnel to do so. The fact that such resources are missing has clearly contributed to the failure to act in a timely and appropriate manner in the Nisoor Square event, in the case that Ms. Jones has described, and in many other incidents as well. It has damaged our nation’s reputation for doing justice.
I look forward to your questions.
###
Dec 6, 2007
Obstruction of Justice at the CIA
Scott Horton at Harper's has a piece out reviewing the latest outrage from the Bush administration.
Outrageous contempt for the American public is the norm from this regime that has no legitimacy in any serious democratic ethos.
###
Outrageous contempt for the American public is the norm from this regime that has no legitimacy in any serious democratic ethos.
###
Nov 25, 2007
UK Archbishop: U.S. ‘Worst’ Imperialist; Scorns God's-Chosen-Country Notion
Update: It’s the Oil, Stupid
What's obvious in other western countries would bring forth a storm of ridicule were simple truisms repeated by the major American presidential candidates or the major newspapers and television networks.
The obvious example is our illegal and imperialistic enterprise to establish a client oil state in Iraq, under the cover of well-crafted propaganda about democracy and deterring terrorism—aka lies.
In reaction, the Archbishop of Canterbury (England) said in a wide-ranging interview with the London Times published this morning that America is the single worst imperialist power, surpassing even Britain during its imperial apex.
From the (UK) Times online, Abul Taher reports:
The Archbishop of Canterbury has said that the United States wields its power in a way that is worse than Britain during its imperial heyday.
Rowan Williams claimed that America’s attempt to intervene overseas by “clearing the decks” with a “quick burst of violent action” had led to “the worst of all worlds”.
In a wide-ranging interview with a British Muslim magazine, the Anglican leader linked criticism of the United States to one of his most pessimistic declarations about the state of western civilisation.
He said the crisis was caused not just by America’s actions but also by its misguided sense of its own mission. He poured scorn on the “chosen nation myth of America, meaning that what happens in America is very much at the heart of God’s purpose for humanity”. ...
He went on to suggest that the West was fundamentally adrift: “Our modern western definition of humanity is clearly not working very well. There is something about western modernity which really does eat away at the soul.”
Williams suggested American leadership had broken down: “We have only one global hegemonic power. It is not accumulating territory: it is trying to accumulate influence and control. That’s not working.”
Read more at (UK) Times online.
###
What's obvious in other western countries would bring forth a storm of ridicule were simple truisms repeated by the major American presidential candidates or the major newspapers and television networks.
The obvious example is our illegal and imperialistic enterprise to establish a client oil state in Iraq, under the cover of well-crafted propaganda about democracy and deterring terrorism—aka lies.
In reaction, the Archbishop of Canterbury (England) said in a wide-ranging interview with the London Times published this morning that America is the single worst imperialist power, surpassing even Britain during its imperial apex.
From the (UK) Times online, Abul Taher reports:
The Archbishop of Canterbury has said that the United States wields its power in a way that is worse than Britain during its imperial heyday.
Rowan Williams claimed that America’s attempt to intervene overseas by “clearing the decks” with a “quick burst of violent action” had led to “the worst of all worlds”.
In a wide-ranging interview with a British Muslim magazine, the Anglican leader linked criticism of the United States to one of his most pessimistic declarations about the state of western civilisation.
He said the crisis was caused not just by America’s actions but also by its misguided sense of its own mission. He poured scorn on the “chosen nation myth of America, meaning that what happens in America is very much at the heart of God’s purpose for humanity”. ...
He went on to suggest that the West was fundamentally adrift: “Our modern western definition of humanity is clearly not working very well. There is something about western modernity which really does eat away at the soul.”
Williams suggested American leadership had broken down: “We have only one global hegemonic power. It is not accumulating territory: it is trying to accumulate influence and control. That’s not working.”
Read more at (UK) Times online.
###
Oct 24, 2007
Bush's Corruption Exploding
Among the many betrayals of democracy committed by the Bush administration is the transformation of the U.S. Department of Justice into an appalling political hit-man operation using an agency of the government, the DoJ, to attack, libel and imprison political enemies in programs so audacious that Richard Nixon's dirty tricks operations, government corruption and two criminal attorneys general are comparatively trivial in comparison.
The extent of the Bush/Rove political prosecutions operating under the guise of the government entity responsible for upholding the rule of law is becoming apparent as the House Committee on the Judiciary continues its oversight hearings and its demands for DoJ documents [Much of the Committee's document demands of the DoJ have come from Representatives Conyers, Sánchez, Baldwin, and Davis. See members' follow-up letter.]
And the cooperate press, after a considerable lapse, appears to be somewhat back on the job, though the political prosecutions ought to be screaming from newspaper headlines and becoming the object of saturation coverage that would echo that of the Monica Lewinsky affair.
Taking up the slack with arguably the most incisive analysis and investigative journalism on the DoJ corruption is Scott Horton, contributing writer at Harper's.
Today's column is typical.
A Primer in Political Persecution
###
The extent of the Bush/Rove political prosecutions operating under the guise of the government entity responsible for upholding the rule of law is becoming apparent as the House Committee on the Judiciary continues its oversight hearings and its demands for DoJ documents [Much of the Committee's document demands of the DoJ have come from Representatives Conyers, Sánchez, Baldwin, and Davis. See members' follow-up letter.]
And the cooperate press, after a considerable lapse, appears to be somewhat back on the job, though the political prosecutions ought to be screaming from newspaper headlines and becoming the object of saturation coverage that would echo that of the Monica Lewinsky affair.
Taking up the slack with arguably the most incisive analysis and investigative journalism on the DoJ corruption is Scott Horton, contributing writer at Harper's.
Today's column is typical.
A Primer in Political Persecution
Look back here for coverage on the Bush administration's political prosecutions (in particular Roberts v. U.S., the story of the swiftboating and criminal conviction of an innocent Wisconsin Navy veteran whose criminal appeal is being argued tomorrow morning), and bookmark as a favorite Horton's No Comment column.A United States Attorney, an embittered Republican who has been defeated in a series of election contests, had a meeting with attorneys for a criminal defendant, a prominent Democrat, at the outset of the case. “I know your client thinks he’s innocent. He’s offered to take a lie detector test. I’m not interested in that. In fact, I’m sure he’d pass the lie detector test. And in fact, I don’t have the evidence to make out my case. No matter. I just plan to throw shit at the wall and sit back and watch as some of it drips down on him. We’ll get him.”
This egregious breach of responsibility by a law enforcement officer, who is essentially admitting that he’s using his office for political persecution, is not drawn from a gothic novel. It happened just a few years ago. And the victim was actually convicted and is now sitting in prison–thanks in significant part to the extremely dubious conduct of the federal judge who oversaw the case. A federal judge who, moreover, was openly tantalized with the prospect of a judicial promotion by the Bush Justice Department as the case was running. We’ll hear more details on this story in a later post. But it furnishes a good glimpse into the total depravity of political prosecutions which stains the Bush Justice Department. And it relates to a case which wasn’t discussed in yesterday’s hearings in the House Judiciary Committee… one of many. ...
###
Oct 8, 2007
Human Rights Writer Blasts Bush
There is much to despise in the administration of George W. Bush. Its secret program for inflicting torture certainly leads the counts of the anti-democratic indictment of this reprehensible regime.
Scott Horton, a human rights attorney, writing at Harper's has written among the most incisive commentary on Bush's human rights violations, and has broken much ground uncovering the administration's corruption of the Department of Justice that has often functioned as a political machine using the power of the prosecutor on Republicans' political enemies.
Many agencies of government of been similarly corrupted and used for purposes that can only be labeled as indecent.
For those Americans, and there are tens of millions of them, for whom human rights, liberty and clean and open government remain the foundations of a decent society, acting against this administration is a moral imperative.
What the historian Norman Cohn called the "mood of passive compliance" that enabled the Holocaust and the rise of the NAZIs ought not allow continuation of Bush's atrocities that (though not comparable to the Holocaust) have claimed millions of victims, corrupted the foundations of a society, and functioned with the same levers of citizen disengagement.
Horton latest column can be read at We Do Not Torture.
###
Scott Horton, a human rights attorney, writing at Harper's has written among the most incisive commentary on Bush's human rights violations, and has broken much ground uncovering the administration's corruption of the Department of Justice that has often functioned as a political machine using the power of the prosecutor on Republicans' political enemies.
Many agencies of government of been similarly corrupted and used for purposes that can only be labeled as indecent.
For those Americans, and there are tens of millions of them, for whom human rights, liberty and clean and open government remain the foundations of a decent society, acting against this administration is a moral imperative.
What the historian Norman Cohn called the "mood of passive compliance" that enabled the Holocaust and the rise of the NAZIs ought not allow continuation of Bush's atrocities that (though not comparable to the Holocaust) have claimed millions of victims, corrupted the foundations of a society, and functioned with the same levers of citizen disengagement.
Horton latest column can be read at We Do Not Torture.
###
Oct 6, 2007
Updated - Details Emerging on DOJ Program Targeting Trial Attorneys
Updated: John Edwards fundraiser acquitted on all counts, DOJ political prosecution goes up in flames
Journalists are breaking new ground in the GOP scheme to use the DOJ as a Republican machine to target a major tier of Democratic campaign money: Trial Attorneys.
If sufficiently flushed out and advanced over the next several months, the story, a pattern of at best questionable prosecutions, can be expected to become a major corruption scandal just in time for 2008 elections.
Follow the prosecutions. As in if you know of prosecutions that smell in your area by U.S. Attys, send tips to: scott@harpers.org.
Scott Horton, a human rights atty and writer at Harper’s, has been breaking new ground for months.
Horton’s latest piece, A Minor Injustice: Why Paul Minor?, nails Mississippi and the nexus of a corrupt Mississippi press and a corrupt GOP legal-political machine.
Horton references a July 26, 2004 NYT piece, “DEVELOPING THE STRATEGIES: FUND-RAISING; Edwards Returns $44,000 In Donations” by RICHARD A. OPPEL JR. AND GLEN JUSTICE.
Turns out that the prosecution before our very eyes in 2004 stinks to high heaven. Writes Horton:
"The Times notes that Paul Minor was the tenth largest donor to John Edwards, with donations totaling $129,000, and it also notes that almost every major attorney donor to the Edwards campaign mysteriously became the target of an aggressive Justice Department criminal investigation."
The prosecutions as they happened over the last several years went reported but unnoticed and unlinked to any suggestions of a political program. Now, that the DoJ has been heavily implicated as a politcal arm of the Bush administration, people are looking into the DoJ, and so should we.
Time magazine has a major piece on corrupt DoJ practices in Alabama (that Horton has covered as well), and that was recently featured at Daily Kos.
To no one's surprise, Karl Rove is the corrupt mastermind. See Karl Rove is the corrupt villain.
Let's hope that we see more flushing out of the extent of the DoJ program to target democrats.
Investigations by the Congressional Committees on the Judiciary have been blocked by the DoJ and can be expected to be continued to be obstructed. This story will reach the American people via the press only.
###
Journalists are breaking new ground in the GOP scheme to use the DOJ as a Republican machine to target a major tier of Democratic campaign money: Trial Attorneys.
If sufficiently flushed out and advanced over the next several months, the story, a pattern of at best questionable prosecutions, can be expected to become a major corruption scandal just in time for 2008 elections.
Follow the prosecutions. As in if you know of prosecutions that smell in your area by U.S. Attys, send tips to: scott@harpers.org.
Scott Horton, a human rights atty and writer at Harper’s, has been breaking new ground for months.
Horton’s latest piece, A Minor Injustice: Why Paul Minor?, nails Mississippi and the nexus of a corrupt Mississippi press and a corrupt GOP legal-political machine.
The actual charges filed were almost incomprehensible. Several public integrity prosecutors with whom I conferred told me they were unfamiliar of any similar case raising charges quite like these. They were called “strange,” and “perhaps unique.” Most public corruption cases revolve on a quid pro quo: a public official is asked to do something for some form of compensation or reward. But in these cases there is no quid pro quo, and none is ever alleged.
Horton references a July 26, 2004 NYT piece, “DEVELOPING THE STRATEGIES: FUND-RAISING; Edwards Returns $44,000 In Donations” by RICHARD A. OPPEL JR. AND GLEN JUSTICE.
Senator John Edwards returned $44,000 in campaign contributions on Saturday after learning that the prominent corporate lawyer in Los Angeles who raised the money is facing misdemeanor campaign-finance charges in California.
Turns out that the prosecution before our very eyes in 2004 stinks to high heaven. Writes Horton:
"The Times notes that Paul Minor was the tenth largest donor to John Edwards, with donations totaling $129,000, and it also notes that almost every major attorney donor to the Edwards campaign mysteriously became the target of an aggressive Justice Department criminal investigation."
The prosecutions as they happened over the last several years went reported but unnoticed and unlinked to any suggestions of a political program. Now, that the DoJ has been heavily implicated as a politcal arm of the Bush administration, people are looking into the DoJ, and so should we.
Time magazine has a major piece on corrupt DoJ practices in Alabama (that Horton has covered as well), and that was recently featured at Daily Kos.
To no one's surprise, Karl Rove is the corrupt mastermind. See Karl Rove is the corrupt villain.
Now Karl Rove, the President's top political strategist, has been implicated in the controversy. A longtime Republican lawyer in Alabama swears she heard a top G.O.P. operative in the state say that Rove "had spoken with the Department of Justice" about "pursuing" Siegelman, with help from two of Alabama's U.S. attorneys.
Let's hope that we see more flushing out of the extent of the DoJ program to target democrats.
Investigations by the Congressional Committees on the Judiciary have been blocked by the DoJ and can be expected to be continued to be obstructed. This story will reach the American people via the press only.
###
Sep 7, 2007
Harper’s Scott Horton: Blasts Biskupic’s Prosecutions
Update:
Oral arguments in [U.S. v. Roberts, U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin, Docket 05-CR-118 ; U.S. Court of Appeals for the 7th Circuit, docket number 07-1546.] are scheduled for:
Oct 25, Thursday, (fourth case heard that day) at approximate 9:30 AM
Dirksen Federal Building
Chicago, Illinois
219 South Dearborn
[Corner of Dearborn and Jackson]
The case will be heard by a three-judge panal composed of:
- the Hon. Terence T. Evans
- the Hon. Joel Martin Flaum
- the Hon. Daniel Anthony Manion
Update II:
Scott Horton’s erudite column today in Harper’s takes full aim at US Atty. Stephen Biskupic in Wisconsin.
Harper's has been running a series involving the Don Siegelman case in Alabama that has the fetid reeking of Karl Rove and DoJ corruption.
U.S. Attorneys Scandal–Milwaukee
by Scott Horton
At present the House Judiciary Committee has picked two cases for closer scrutiny. Both are cases in which the taletell signs of political manipulation can be found right at the surface. And, in an amazing comment on the state of justice in America today, both produced convictions of clearly innocent defendants. They are the corruption prosecutions of Georgia Thompson in Wisconsin and Don Siegelman in Alabama. So far, the Justice Department has complied to an extent with the Committee’s document production demands respecting the Thompson case, but is now one month and counting past due on Siegelman.
The exterior facts are these. We know that Steven Biskupic, the U.S. Attorney in Milwaukee was initially put on a list of those to be fired by Karl Rove’s office. Then suddenly Mr. Biskupic got deeply engaged in a series of truly dubious cases, all of which ha a distinctly Rovian political flavor. First, Biskupic became one of the nation’s most enthusiastic participants in the “voting fraud” fraud. He brought an array of insane cases, including one against a grandmother, which were detailed by The New York Times in an acid review of Biskupic’s mercenary political style. These cases generally involved voters who made honest mistakes about registration, but were prosecuted anyway (and many convicted). The targets were always Democrats who were from the major threat communities publicly identified by Rove—minority groups from the inner city. And the prosecutions were transparently pursued for purposes of voter suppression (i.e., an arguably criminal agenda). In the meantime, of course, Biskupic’s prosecutions of serious consumer fraud and similar matters fell, since great resources were diverted to do Rove’s partisan bidding. The Georgia Thompson, was dismissed by an all-Republican panel of Seventh Circuit judges with stinging language, and Thompson was ordered freed immediately at the oral argument, with one judge saying the case which netted her conviction was “less than thin.” That case, of course, bore distinct parallels to the Siegelman case in Alabama. It appears to have been times and pursued to help G.O.P.efforts in the state’s gubernatorial election.
Yesterday, Chairman Conyers released a handful of documents from his preliminary look into the Thompson case. These documents reflect exactly what has been suspected from the beginning: career prosecutors simply couldn’t understand why the prosecution was being pushed. “How in the heck did this case get brought?” asks one career prosecutor at main Justice in an email. That, indeed, is the exact question that the Judiciary Committee will be asking. But in fact the answer is completely apparent from the context of the case. Mr. Biskupic was very eager to save his job, and he knew he needed to do Karl Rove’s bidding to do so. That included bringing a prosecution of a state official, synchronized to match the election campaign, and hyped so as to furnish grist for the Republican party’s effort to retake the Madison statehouse.
In addition to the Thompson case, take a look at another prosecution brought in Wisconsin against a wounded vet, whose claims for benefits was turned into a criminal prosecution for wire fraud. As Wisconsin Public Radio reports, Keith Roberts, a Navy veteran got into the U.S. attorney’s crosshairs by filing a claim for benefits
related to Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) diagnosed as occurring because he witnessed and tried to prevent his friend from being crushed to death by a C-54 airplane while stationed at a Naval air base in Naples, Italy 1969, and unrelated assault by the Navy Shore Patrol—granted and then denied, has not yet been decided by the CAVC.
But the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) after being accused of fraud in 2003 by Roberts ignored the CAVC process and investigated and asked that Roberts be prosecuted for fraud by the US Attorney’s office.
The prosecution smacks of retaliation and a plan to suppress veterans claims—Roberts was prosecuted for tenaciously pursuing a claim for benefits, which VA resisted and which is still in the benefits review process. It may be that the veteran is making claims which shouldn’t be granted, but the decision to resist them by a criminal complaint is very heavy handed. What happens if the Veterans’ Appeals process rules for Roberts? As I read these papers, that seems certainly not a far-fetched possibility. And if it happens, Biskupic will have egg on his face a second time.
In any event, the mystery in Milwaukee continues to be a simple one: how on earth does Biskupic continue to serve as a U.S. Attorney in light of his record of abuse of office for political purposes? The Thompson case indicates much worse than bad judgment. It needs to be the subject of a criminal probe, and a disciplinary inquiry by the Wisconsin bar.
But here’s a first step: Biskupic, Canary and Martin, among the group of U.S. Attorneys who have sold their professional souls, need to be put in a jail cell for thirty days to read Robert H. Jackson’s “The Federal Prosecutor.” It’s still the best statement of the ethical and professional responsibilities of a prosecutor that we have, and this crew make plain from their conduct that they haven’t an inkling of what their obligations to the country are. At this point I don’t know how many rotten eggs are out there, but one thing’s for certain: it’s not the dozen cashiered prosecutors we need to be worried about, but the more than eighty who were retained.
###
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)