Maddow VIDEO mocking Liz Cheney; "From Murrow to Blitzer"

By GottaLaff

Greg Sargent has posted a one-liner that caused me to smile and grimace simultaneously.

That must have looked really weird.

But seriously, I had previously posted a screen grab of the "Dep't. of Jihad" chyron that appeared under Wolf Blitzer as he inadvertently confirmed CNN's adherence to the Peter Principle.

Now check out Greg's mini-post:

Glenn Greenwald stacks Wolf Blitzer up against Edward R. Murrow, and finds the comparison somewhat wanting.

Please follow that link. Here's a snippet:

[M]odern political journalism -- at best the vile McCarthyite campaign was going to be presented in the standard "each-side-says" format which defines modern journalistic "objectivity" [...]

In other words, "some say" serve as legitimate sources, and punditiot panels provide "debate". Facts have very little to do with the news any more. As long as two sides duke it out, and ratings don't drop drastically, hey, we're good.

Below is Rachel Maddow's take. She made me crack up/grimace even more.

Which must have looked even weirder.

From yesterday:

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

Xe-ing the light: Carl Levin asks for DoJ investigation into Blackwater contract

By GottaLaff

Carl Levin is Xe-ing the light:

The Senate’s top Democrat on military matters is pressing the Department of Justice to investigate whether the company formerly known as Blackwater and Raytheon Co. made false or misleading statements when bidding for an Army contract in Afghanistan.

A Senate Armed Services Committee investigation, spurred by chairman Carl Levin (D-Mich.), recently found that Xe Services’ (formerly Blackwater) contractors had no regard for policies and rules in Afghanistan. The panel found multiple irresponsible acts by the contractors and troubling gaps in government oversight.

The State Department needs to cut them off completely. They are currently contracted to be in Afghanistan.

Then DoJ has to nail Blackwater to the wall. Finally.

All the details are here.

DOJ official reportedly clears torture memo authors Yoo and Bybee.

By GottaLaff

I'm sure I'll hear from die-hard Obama supporters about how anti-Obama I am (which is laughable if you read TPC regularly), but this, in a word, sucks:

Newsweek now reports that a senior DOJ official has essentially cleared the two men of misconduct in an upcoming office of Professional Responsibility report:

While the probe is sharply critical of the legal reasoning used to justify waterboarding and other “enhanced” interrogation techniques, NEWSWEEK has learned that a senior Justice official who did the final review of the report softened an earlier OPR finding. Previously, the report concluded that two key authors — Jay Bybee, now a federal appellate court judge, and John Yoo, now a law professor — violated their professional obligations as lawyers when they crafted a crucial 2002 memo approving the use of harsh tactics, say two Justice sources who asked for anonymity discussing an internal matter. 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.

Emptywheel (Marcy Wheeler, who you can see here in Blunt, the Sequel), has more.

I'm heartbroken, angry, frustrated, baffled, you name it. But I pretty much expected this outcome. How depressing.

Apparently, Margolis didn't get "input" from A.G. Holder. Maybe he should have.

I simply don't understand sweeping the entire foundation for legalizing torture under the rug, as it obviously was in a Friday night dump (when it was released).

Don't even bother trying to talk me down. I'm way past that.

Official: Terror case may happen outside Manhattan

I actually understand and think this is good idea, at least on the financial basis.

WASHINGTON – Facing growing opposition to its plans to hold the Sept. 11 terrorist trial in New York City, the Obama administration is considering moving the proceedings elsewhere.

Two administration officials, speaking on the condition of anonymity, said Friday the Justice department is drawing up plans for possible alternate locations to try professed 9/11 mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and four alleged accomplices in case Congress or local officials prevent the trial from being held in Manhattan.

The two officials spoke on condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to discuss the deliberation.

Attorney General Eric Holder announced last year that the trial would be held in Manhattan federal court, generating stiff opposition in Congress and in New York.

Word that the administration is considering a backup plan for its most high-profile terrorism trial comes after President Barack Obama and Holder have spent weeks on the defensive about their handling of terrorism threats.

(snip)

The officials did not say where else the trial might be held, but others have suggested an unpopulated island near Manhattan, or nearby military installations.

New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg, who originally supported the plan, reversed his position this week and called Holder to lobby for moving the trial outside lower Manhattan. The city has claimed it will cost them hundreds of millions of dollars to provide security for a court case that is expected to last at least a year.

Justice Department Intervenes In Gay Rights Suit For First Time In A Decade

By GottaLaff

This is a good example of why it matters who you support/vote for in any election, and why it is vital that you vote, period:

Yesterday, for the first time in a decade, the Justice Department intervened in a gay rights suit. In August, an openly gay 14-year-old student named Jacob — with the help of the ACLU — sued the Mohawk Central School District in upstate New York because officials “did not appropriately respond to relentless harassment, physical abuse and threats of violence” that Jacob received because of his sexual orientation. NPR reported on some of the harassment to which Jacob alleges he was subjected.

The heartbreaking details are here.

So are the heartening ones, including:

Under Obama and Attorney General Eric Holder, the Justice Department has had a dramatically different focus than it did during President Bush’s terms. While the Bush Justice Department was focused on installing political cronies, going after mythical voter fraud cases, and the suppression of minority voters while looking out for the voter disenfranchisement of whites. The Obama Justice Department, by contrast, recently announced that it would also start aggressively going after “banks and mortgage brokers suspected of discriminating against minority applicants in lending.”

"It doesn't matter if I vote. The candidates are interchangeable. Someone else will cancel out my vote anyway." Wrong.

This boy's life was changed because of who Americans elected. He knows the ObamAdministration is looking out for him. He won't feel quite as alone and helpless any more.

He may even feel optimistic that change is in the air, no matter how incrementally, and that there's reason for hope... all because enough people exercised their right to vote.

As frustrated as some of us may be with Obama, this is one time we can come together and unite behind him.

Obama’s DOJ Indicates It May Fight Release Of Cheney’s CIA Leak Transcript

By GottaLaff

A one-two punch by my pal Jason Leopold. First, this major disappointment, now this ObamAdministration backtrack:

The Obama administration indicated in court papers it may appeal a federal judge’s ruling ordering the Justice Department to release portions of the transcribed interview between former Vice President Dick Cheney and Patrick Fitzgerald, the special prosecutor appointed to probe the roles Bush administration officials played in the leak of covert CIA operative Valerie Plame Wilson six years ago.

The resistance from the Obama administration has left some of its supporters shaking their heads. Not only does the obstruction go against President Obama’s pledge of government openness, but it is protecting the reputation of Cheney, one of Obama’s most vocal critics.

Court papers filed by Obama’s Justice Department in July revealed that Bush and Cheney were in contact about the scandal, including what is described as “a confidential conversation” and “an apparent communication between the Vice President and the President.”

That court filing also revealed that Fitzgerald questioned Cheney about his participation in the decision to declassify parts of a 2002 National Intelligence Estimate regarding Iraq’s alleged WMD. It ultimately fell to Bush to clear selected parts of the NIE so they could be leaked as part of the White House campaign to disparage Wilson.

What the CIA hid from Congress

By GottaLaff

Jane Harman (D-Venice) chairs the House Homeland Security subcommittee on intelligence and terrorism risk assessment, and part of the "Gang of Eight" who are " required by law to be briefed on the CIA's "covert" action programs." She'd like to clarify a few things:

[C]omments by Michael Hayden, former director of the National Security Agency and the CIA, that the Gang of Eight was "fully" briefed on the TSP prompt me to disclose, for the first time, what they were like.

In virtually every meeting, Hayden would present PowerPoint "slides," walking us through the operational details of the TSP [Terrorist Surveillance Program]. The program has since been described, in part, as one that intercepted communications to and from the U.S. in an effort to uncover terrorist networks and prevent or disrupt attacks. We were told that the program was the centerpiece of our counter-terrorism efforts, legal and yielding impressive results.

Often present were CIA officials (including then-Director George Tenet) and then-White House counsel Alberto R. Gonzales. Missing was any Justice Department presence -- a tipoff, in retrospect, to the legal limbo under which the program operated. [...]

It is now clear to me that we learned only what the briefers wanted to tell us -- even though they were required by law to keep us "fully and currently informed." Absent the ability to do any independent research, it did not occur to me then that the program was operated wholly outside of the framework Congress created as the exclusive means to conduct such surveillance: the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act.

Nor did I know that the Justice Department was cut out of the process, and that one lawyer, John Yoo, had drafted the internal memo justifying the TSP under the president's Article 2 authorities. A new head of the Office of Legal Counsel repudiated that memo, citing the "shoddiness" of the legal reasoning. [...]

While our country had experienced the worst terrorist attack in our history, the Orwellian solution conjured up by a small group in the Bush administration was to shred our laws and Constitution in order to save us -- a false and unnecessary choice. [...]

The House and Senate intelligence authorization bills would require increased notification, including, in the House bill, information on lawfulness, cost, benefit and risk. The White House has issued a veto threat, citing constitutional concerns. Surely both sides -- and policy -- would profit more from a robust partnership.

Remember, John Yoo was one of the exclusive fraternity that created law, as in "Torture Memos" (all my related posts on torture, detainee mistreatment, military commissions, etc. here).

This sleazy little club would concoct flimsy, tortured legal memos that were binding, and they would do so under the radar, excluding anybody whose input should have been seriously considered, even required. If anybody dared challenge them, they would be loudly and abruptly cut short and/or paid lip service and ignored.

Jane Mayer goes into great detail about this in her book The Dark Side.

I have two words for BushCo: Screw Yoo.

What Constitutional Rights Are Defendants Entitled to in Military Commissions?

By GottaLaff

Military commissions allow coerced testimony and hearsay. Wrong. Couldn't be wronger. That is not justice:

[L]ast month, The Wall Street Journal reported that the acting chief of the Office of Legal Counsel, David Barron, sent a memorandum to the administration’s detainee task force about rights protections that detainees might legally claim. Alas, the memo is confidential.

That typically doesn’t deter the ACLU, and today the civil liberties group filed a suit to obtain Barron’s memo. From a statement:

“The Obama administration’s continued support of the failed military commission system is at the center of much public attention and controversy,” said Jonathan Hafetz, staff attorney with the ACLU National Security Project. “The release of the OLC memo on detainee rights would help to clarify this administration’s position on military commissions and deepen the public’s understanding of this important issue.”

Let's hope the ObamAdministration shapes up on this before too long. It's way too important. It's a must-change.

All my previous posts on this subject matter can be found here; That link includes audio and video interviews with Lt. Col. Wingard, one by David Shuster, one by Ana Marie Cox, and more. My guest commentary at BuzzFlash is here.

If you are inclined to help rectify these injustices: Twitterers, use the hashtag #FreeFayiz. We have organized a team to get these stories out. If you are interested in helping Fayiz out, e-mail me at The Political Carnival, address in sidebar to the right; or tweet me at @GottaLaff.

If you'd like to see other ways you can take action, go here and scroll down to the end of the article.

Then read Jane Mayer's book The Dark Side. You'll have a much greater understanding of why I post endlessly about this, and why I'm all over the CIA deception issues, too.

VIDEO: Chuck Todd's arguments against investigations of Bush torture crimes

By GottaLaff

Chuck Todd/Morning Joe video (relevant segment begins at 2:15):

Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy

Please read this piece by Glenn Greenwald . I won't do it the injustice of butchering it and posting a few excerpts, because Greenwald's responses need to be read in full:

Chuck Todd's arguments against investigations

When you're done, please come back and comment. I'd be interested in your reaction.

All my previous posts on this subject matter can be found here; That link includes audio and video interviews with Lt. Col. Wingard, one by David Shuster, one by Ana Marie Cox, and more. My guest commentary at BuzzFlash is here.

If you are inclined to help rectify these injustices: Twitterers, use the hashtag #FreeFayiz. We have organized a team to get these stories out. If you are interested in helping Fayiz out, e-mail me at The Political Carnival, address in sidebar to the right; or tweet me at @GottaLaff.

If you'd like to see other ways you can take action, go here and scroll down to the end of the article.

Then read Jane Mayer's book The Dark Side. You'll have a much greater understanding of why I post endlessly about this, and why I'm all over the CIA deception issues, too.

H/t: The Joshua Blog

Dear A.G. Holder: Investigate Bush-Era CIA Policies. Love, Russ Feingold

By GottaLaff

(click on image to enlarge)

Dear Russ Feingold, Thank you sincerely. Love, Laffy:

In a letter to Attorney General Eric Holder, the Wisconsin Democrat urged the Department of Justice to launch an investigation into recent revelations about the CIA's Bush-era interrogation program. [...]

This past week, reports have surfaced that Holder is in the process of deciding whether to appoint a special investigator or prosecutor to look into past interrogation policies. New information about these policies was provided to his office in a classified 2004 CIA Inspector General report. The subject matter is different than the covert program that the CIA reportedly kept secret from Congress at the behest of former Vice President Dick Cheney. But for Feingold, it is no less significant.

Key: [I] also to urge you to focus on holding accountable the architects of the CIA's interrogation program. While allegations that individuals may have even gone beyond what was justified by those now-public [Office of Legal Counsel] memos are extremely disturbing, we should not lose sight of the fact that the program itself -- as authorized -- was illegal, not to mention immoral and unwise."

As you know by now, I am passionate about holding those accountable who were responsible for authorizing the torture and brutality. All of them.

All my previous posts on this subject matter can be found here; That link includes audio and video interviews with Lt. Col. Wingard, one by David Shuster, one by Ana Marie Cox, and more. My guest commentary at BuzzFlash is here.

If you are inclined to help rectify these injustices: Twitterers, use the hashtag #FreeFayiz. We have organized a team to get these stories out. If you are interested in helping Fayiz out, e-mail me at The Political Carnival, address in sidebar to the right; or tweet me at @GottaLaff.

If you'd like to see other ways you can take action, go here and scroll down to the end of the article.

Then read Jane Mayer's book The Dark Side. You'll have a much greater understanding of why I post endlessly about this, and why I'm all over the CIA deception issues, too.

"The American people have shown no interest in this issue."

By GottaLaff

My dear Twitter friend and TPC reader FutureDirected forwarded me the following e-mail invitation yesterday:

Hear directly from a Guantanamo lawyer!

Guantanamo attorney and War Criminals Watch Advisor Candace Gorman on a national conference call.

Hear from one of the very brave and self-sacrificing attorneys who are devoting their lives to defending Guantanamo detainees. The interview wil be followed by a Q&A session.

I had to miss the call, but she was kind, and thorough, enough to take the following notes last night.

Here are the notes I took during the call, and a pdf by Candace [Note: Link to html version]:

http://gtmoblog.blogspot.com/

Candace Gorman, Attorney Civil Rights/Human Rights Professional consultant to the Hague: War crimes/Crimes Against Humanity
Algerian client, Al-Jizawe, guilt by association, lived in same guest house as another detainee. Asked for expedited ruling on Habeas Corpus

Two other clients

Letters between client and attorney, read and censored. Redacted version sent. Full version can be read in Washington. Process takes weeks.

Access to evidence: "None." Timex watch, supposedly can be used for detonating a bomb. US will not produce watch.

"Clients have not been charged with a crime, and never will be."

"It has been a mistake, by the Obama administration, to attempt to revise the Military Commissions process." "Take it out of Military hands. I recommend Article III court as the only Constitutional alternative."

Obama & Justice Dept. : "Nothing has changed in the DOJ (I don't like to use the word Justice because there is no Justice there.) .... I had great hope and there have been no changes."

Torture and treatment: Torture yes: solitary confinement. force feeding hunger strikers tube feeding. Being there, solitary, force fed, 'earthed'
Don't know about waterboarding.

Closing gitmo is important, but not just by moving them to another prison. "Most of these men are not guilty of anything."

"Handful of men have committed acts that need attention, we have to set up a process for handling that. We don't lock them up because they might do something."

"The American people have shown no interest in this issue."

"There is something insidious going on this country, with all this secrecy."

Many of the detainees have contracted tuberculosis and are not receiving appropriate care for it.

Does all this sound familiar? It should:

All my previous posts about Gitmo detainee Fayiz al-Kandari, and his military attorney Lt. Col. Barry Wingard, can be found here; That link includes audio and video interviews with Lt. Col. Wingard, one by David Shuster, one by Ana Marie Cox, and more. My guest commentary at BuzzFlash is here.Our system of justice is broken. Military commissions rely on coerced confessions and hearsay, something Jane Mayer covers in great detail in her book..

If you are inclined to help rectify these injustices: Twitterers, use the hashtag #FreeFayiz. We have organized a team to get these stories out. If you are interested in helping Fayiz out, e-mail me at The Political Carnival, address in sidebar to the right; or tweet me at @GottaLaff.

If you'd like to see other ways you can take action, go here and scroll down to the end of the article.

Then read Jane Mayer's book The Dark Side. You'll have a much greater understanding of why I post endlessly about this, and why I'm all over the CIA deception issues, too.

Jane Harman: Release alleged calls, uncensored; "This abuse of power is outrageous"

By GottaLaff

Jane Harman calls their bluff:

Rep. Jane Harman (D) today sent Attorney General Eric Holder a letter demanding that any transcripts of intercepted calls be released -- uncensored -- so that she can verify her claim that she never discussed a quid-pro-quo deal, as has been alleged by CQ and the New Times.

She also wants an investigation into NSA intercepts of members of Congress -- and what she calls "selective leaks."[...]

Here's her letter...

Dear General Holder:

I am outraged to learn from reports leaked to the media over the last several days that the FBI or NSA secretly wiretapped my conversations in 2005 or 2006 while I was Ranking Member on the House Intelligence Committee.

This abuse of power is outrageous and I call on your Department to release all transcripts and other investigative material involving me in an unredacted form. It is my intention to make this material available to the public.

I also urge you to take appropriate steps to investigate possible wiretapping of other Members of Congress and selective leaks of investigative material which can be used for political purposes. As you know, it is entirely appropriate to converse with advocacy organizations and constituent groups, and I am concerned about a chilling effect on other elected officials who may find themselves in my situation.

Let me be absolutely clear: I never contacted the Department of Justice, the White House or anyone else to seek favorable treatment regarding the national security cases on which I was briefed, or any other cases. You may be aware that David Szady, the FBI's former top counterintelligence official, is quoted in the media saying of me "…in all my dealings with her, she was always professional and never tried to intervene or get in the way of any investigation."

Sincerely,
JANE HARMAN

CIA Memo footnotes: There was unnecessary waterboarding

By GottaLaff

We've been told ad nauseam by the Rushpublics that waterboarding was necessary. It was necessary because it produced results, they insist. It produced results, so it was justified, they claim. America is safer because of all that torture, they aver. Oh, and did I mention how necessary they say it was?

Oh, um, except for that (at least) one time when....

We spotted one in footnote #28 on page 31 of a May 30, 2005, memo from the Department of Justice, where the DOJ admits that waterboarding of a detainee may have been used unnecessarily “on at least one occasion.”

The CIA’s inability to figure out which detainees had useful information “may have resulted in what might be deemed in retrospect to have been the unnecessary use of enhanced techniques,” the partially redacted footnote states.

Don'tcha hate when that happens?

In this case, the CIA “reasonably believed” Mr. Zubaydah was withholding important information that might help protect the U.S. against terror attacks, says the memo, so it was acceptable to waterboard him even though the belief was later proved false. The memo is signed by Deputy Assistant Attorney General Steven Bradbury.

I believe I had to kill that guy because I believed it was in self defense because I believed he was carrying a gun and I believed he was thinking about killing me. Never mind that the guy was 7 and didn't have a gun.

I don't believe in BushCo's belief systems. And I don't want my country using their belief system to justify torture.

I believe torturing people is wrong, self-defeating, unreliable, illegal, and immoral. That's what I believe.

Feinstein Launches Probe on NSA Wiretapping

By GottaLaff

Roll Call is subscription only, so this is all I could get:

The Senate Intelligence Committee is launching an investigation into a New York Times report that the National Security Agency overstepped its authority to conduct surveillance of U.S. citizens through the use of domestic wiretaps.

And there's this from the L.A. Times:

Justice curbs NSA over surveillance

The Justice Department has reined in electronic surveillance by the National Security Agency after finding the agency had improperly accessed American phone calls and e-mails. The problems were discovered during a review of intelligence activities, the Justice Department said in a statement.

Now back to our regular wiretapping already in progress.

More torture memos coming

By GottaLaff

We don't have enough oil. We don't have enough water. But we have more than enough torture memos:

Over objections from the U.S. intelligence community, the White House is moving to declassify—and publicly release—three internal memos that will lay out, for the first time, details of the "enhanced" interrogation techniques approved by the Bush administration for use against "high value" Qaeda detainees. The memos, written by Justice Department lawyers in May 2005, provide the legal rationale for waterboarding, head slapping and other rough tactics used by the CIA. One senior Obama official, who like others interviewed for this story requested anonymity because of the issue's sensitivity, said the memos were "ugly" and could embarrass the CIA. Other officials predicted they would fuel demands for a "truth commission" on torture.

Because of an executive order signed by President Obama on Jan. 22 banning such aggressive tactics, deputies to Attorney General Eric Holder Jr. concluded there was no longer any reason to keep the interrogation memos classified. But current and former intel officials pushed back, arguing that any public release might still compromise "sources and methods." According to the administration official, ex-CIA director Michael Hayden was "furious" about the prospect of disclosure and tried to intervene directly with Obama officials. But the White House has sided with Holder.

So much information has been coming out, and we all know there is so much more to come. The question is, what will be done about it?

H/t

Attorney General Holder promises to restore DOJ civil rights

By GottaLaff

I hear music. An "unfinished symphony". Prelude to Justice, maybe? Symphony Number 44 in A Minor(ity)? It doesn't matter. Standing O regardless:

“Under my leadership, the Civil Rights Division will fight discrimination and inequality just as fiercely as the Criminal Division fights crime,” Holder promised in the sanctuary that often served as a local headquarters for civil rights activists in the ’60s. “Under my leadership, in all that it does, the Civil Rights Division will reflect the spirit of the movement that inspired its creation.”

Speaking about law enforcement — seen by some blacks as more foe than friend — Holder said he would strive for the police to “salute the residents of every neighborhood and for every resident to salute them in return.”

“That will require the Justice Department to work hand in hand with police and communities to get neighborhoods engaged in promoting their own protection,” he said. “That won’t happen unless we relentlessly pursue an end to the scourge of racial profiling of African-Americans, Muslims and other Americans that alienates citizens from their own communities.”

Holder, the first African-American ever to serve as the nation’s chief law enforcement officer, hinted at the once-unlikely prospect of a black attorney general standing near where white police officers clubbed young civil rights marchers.

“Few would have predicted, on that dark day 44 years ago, that a black man would become our nation’s 44th president,” Holder said.

Of course, the Politico piece reprises the comments discussed here. Let's not ever let that go, okay? Let's bring it up as often as possible, countering a positive message of progress and civil rights. Let's not allow an opportunity go by without doing that.

Rove/Miers deal: The sequel

By GottaLaff

I'm digging up more details. These are from Newsweek's Michael Isikoff, and I'm not happy with some of them:

Craig at times took a hard line in trying to get both sides to make concessions, the sources said. At one point this week, he even told House Democratic lawyers he would authorize Obama's Justice Department to oppose them in court if they didn't back down from some of their demands to complete access to the material.

But in the end, it would appear, it was Bush's lawyers, represented mainly by former associate White House counsel Emmett Flood and his former boss, Fred Fielding, who made the most concessions. Under the agreement, lawyers for Rep. John Conyers's House Judiciary Committee will get immediate access to most of the White House documents in Craig's office. But four documents that cover direct discussions with President Bush about the U.S. attorney firings will still be withheld. The contents of these documents will be described by the former president's lawyers to the House.

Then, after the documents are reviewed, Rove and Miers will be questioned in private by lawyers for the Judiciary Committee, with a transcript of the interviews made. But their testimony will not be given under oath and it will not be in public—at least not initially. The judiciary panel will have the right to call the witnesses again later to testify in public if they wish, though this seems unlikely in the case of Miers; her former position as White House counsel will allow her to invoke some attorney-client privileges. House lawyers say the fact that the witnesses will not be testifying under oath is not particularly significant because they can still be criminally charged with making false statements to a congressional committee if it can be proved that they lied. [...]

Wednesday's agreement allowed all sides to claim victory. In a statement, Conyers called the deal "a vindication of the search for truth" about the U.S. attorney purge. Craig said in a statement that the agreement was the product of a "tremendous amount of hard work, patience, and flexibility on both sides," and that Obama was "pleased" that the parties were able to resolve their dispute. Bush's lawyers could not be reached, but even Rove's lawyer called the deal "good news" and said his client "looks forward to addressing the committee's concerns."

Rove's lawyer, Robert Luskin, did acknowledge that even he has not been given access to the documents in question, which are believed to include internal emails about the U.S. attorney firings that either mentioning Rove or were sent to him. Whether Rove will still be looking forward to testifying after those emails are turned over to congressional investigators is, at the moment, the biggest question mark hanging over the case.

Of course, this is a step in the right direction, but... well, that there are "buts".

Court of Appeals Denies DOJ Attempt to Hide Evidence of Warrantless Wiretapping

By GottaLaff

An appeals court disagrees with the Obama Department of Justice on the subject of wiretapping:

A U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit in San Francisco today rejected the Obama Justice Department’s attempt to continue to conceal evidence of warrantless wiretapping. [...]

[T]he government filed an emergency appeal last week hoping to halt the release of documents showing that the National Security Agency, under President George W. Bush, had secretly wiretapped the Al-Haramain Islamic Foundation [...] Al-Haramain and its lawyers, who claim they were also wiretapped, need the documents (which they’ve already seen because the government released it accidentally) to proceed with their lawsuit against government officials.

Today, they got a significant step closer. [...]

The Ninth Circuit’s refusal to consider the emergency appeal is significant because it also leaves the district court’s ruling in effect. The lower court had rejected the government’s argument that the “state secrets privilege” allows executive agencies to disregard the requirements of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act.

And now the bad news...

By GottaLaff

The ObamAdministration is defending telecom immunity. On three, everyone express their pissed-offitude: One... Two... Three:

The Obama Justice Department continues to stand behind a Bush era law meant to prevent lawsuits against telecommunications companies accused of illegally sharing private customer information with intelligence agencies.

In a brief filed late Wednesday obtained by Raw Story, the Department of Justice provided its views to Chief U.S. District Judge Vaughn Walker, after the San Francisco federal judge questioned the constitutionality of the wide-sweeping law and whether it gives the U.S. Attorney General too much power in deciding whether a company is immune from lawsuits after it has shared information with federal agents.

Somebody talk me down. Please?

According to the Justice Department, the law requires a judge to dismiss a wiretapping lawsuit against a telecommunications company if the attorney general explains the firm's role to the judge in a confidential statement. [...]

The Department asserts that the "presumption of constitutionality becomes even stronger" when Congress delegates authority to the executive branch in matters of national security or foreign affairs.

Let's concentrate on the good news. There's so little of it these days.

Obama DOJ Delays Responding to Request for Key OLC Memos Re Torture and Interrogation Policies

By GottaLaff

Minor progress:

The Obama administration, under pressure to turn over key memos written by the Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel, has asked the federal judge in New York for another 90 days to consider its position on a Freedom of Information Act case brought by a coalition of civil liberties advocates. But the judge may not be inclined to grant the request.

[T]hree memos at issue were written by then-OLC director Steven Bradbury and reportedly authorized abusive interrogations of suspected terrorists and decided that such extreme tactics would not violate the law. The Bush administration repeatedly refused to turn them over, but given President Obama’s promises to open government and increase disclosure under FOIA, the Justice Department now is under considerable pressure to change its position and release the documents, which could be critical to any future investigations or prosecutions of Bush officials.

[T]he memos provided “explicit authorization to barrage terror suspects with a combination of painful physical and psychological tactics, including head-slapping, simulated drowning and frigid temperatures.” These did not, the memos concluded, amount to “cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment” — which would have been banned by international law, as well as a bill Congress was then considering.

The American Civil Liberties Union, which sued for the memos along with several other organizations, argues the memos don’t fall under an exception to FOIA because they constitute adopted policy, not confidential legal advice. [...T]he ACLU agreed to give the Justice Department some additional time to respond to the request, it argued in court this week that 90 days is too long. The case has already been going on for more than five years.

“The Obama administration deserves credit for its disavowal of torture and for the commitment it has made to transparency, but the public has waited long enough for the disclosure of these memos,” said Jameel Jaffer, Director of the ACLU’s National Security Project, in a statement released today. [...]

On Friday, Judge Hellerstein ordered both sides to appear in his court next Wednesday to discuss how long a delay is warranted. “I take that as a good sign,” Jaffer told me Friday.

I put so much faith in the Obama administration to be the anti-Bushies on torture and transparency. I hope we're not in store for a huge disappointment.