By GottaLaff
As the Stomach Turns:
The Charleston Post and Courier reports the final divorce hearing for South Carolina Gov. Mark Sanford (R) will be televised tomorrow with Jenny Sanford taking the witness stand to explain why her marriage is over.
As many as three television outlets have showed an interest in being in the courtroom Friday, some looking to broadcast live.
By GottaLaff
But there is good news. It comes from Senator Pat Leahy, Chairman of the Senate Judiciary Commitee:
The Senate Judiciary Committee will hold a hearing to examine the Office of Professional Responsibility Report on the Office of Legal Counsel, Chairman Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.) announced today. The report was released to Congress today.
The hearing will be held Friday, February 26, at 10:00 a.m. Witnesses will be announced in the coming days, and the hearing will be webcast live online.
********
All my previous posts on this subject matter can be found here; That link includes one specific to only Fayiz al-Kandari's story here. Here are 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.
Lt. Col. Barry Wingard is a military attorney who represents Fayiz Al-Kandari in the Military Commission process and in no way represents the opinions of his home state. When not on active duty, Colonel Wingard is a public defender in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.
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.
More of Fayiz's story here, at Answers.com.H/t: VNDNBRGBy GottaLaff
That sound you hear is the right side of the aisle screaming "Obstruct!"
A senior defense official says to expect Defense Secretary Robert Gates and Admiral Mike Mullen provide more details about the end of "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" during the Senate Budget hearings next Tuesday and Wednesday. [...]The Joint Chiefs still have not worked out details on how military policy or infrastructure may change if DADT is repealed. One senior defense official said they will examine the need for actual changes in infrastructure -- separate berthing, showers, etc. -- NOT because they believe there needs to be separate facilities, but only to be prepared for critics who have said this could be an issue for the military. [...]
This new, more humane implementation will likely be the interim policy until the U.S. military figures out what needs to be changed for a smooth transition.
For much more, including which questions we should expect to be asked, go here.
By GottaLaff
What we don’t know will hurt us, and quite possibly on a more devastating scale than any Qaeda attack. Americans must be told the full story of how Wall Street gamed and inflated the housing bubble, made out like bandits, and then left millions of households in ruin. Without that reckoning, there will be no public clamor for serious reform of a financial system that was as cunningly breached as airline security at the Amsterdam airport. And without reform, another massive attack on our economic security is guaranteed. Now that it can count on government bailouts, Wall Street has more incentive than ever to pump up its risks — secure that it can keep the bonanzas while we get stuck with the losses. [...]Please read the whole thing here.Why was our money used to make these high-flying gamblers whole while ordinary Americans received no such beneficence? Nothing less than complete transparency will connect the dots. Among the big-name witnesses that the Angelides commission has called for next week is Goldman’s Blankfein. Geithner, Henry Paulson and Ben Bernanke should be next.
If they all skate away yet again by deflecting blame or mouthing pro forma mea culpas, it will be a sign that this inquiry, like so many other promises of reform since 9/15, is likely to leave Wall Street’s status quo largely intact. That’s the ticking-bomb scenario that truly imperils us all.
By GottaLaff
Earlier, I posted Lindsey Graham's inanities at the torture hearings. Here's a short video to further expose his anachronistic Rushpublic wackitude to the whole wide world:
Memo to Graham: Torture doesn't work. See: Soufan, Ali.
By GottaLaff
Watch Soufan (well, behind a partition) as he convincingly reminds us that torture does not work:
Clear? Clear.
By GottaLaff
Now it's becoming a battle of definitions of torture, and whether it works. VERY rough liveblogging, but I did get a lot of it:
David Luban, Georgetown University law professor:
The word torture hadn't mysteriously changed its meaning. The statute were given the word common sense meanings. [Waterboarding] was called torture. It's the same in the 1983 dictionaries as it was in the statutes.Lindsey Graham keeps trying to justify the concept that torture works sometimes, even though he's "against it". [Sorry, I missed who they were referring to, so I substituted with the word "someone"]
If we put a spider in a jail cell, would that be torturing a person?Luban:
If he believed spiders were deadly, yes. Otherwise no.Graham:
Well, we're trying to exploit phobias here... If Bybee held a different view, is that being unethical?Luban:
If he ignored the law, yes.Graham:
So it comes down to your opinion?Luban:
This case is one of many.Graham:
The fact that you didn't tell me about a case, does that mean you were trying to hide something from me?? Did you know about the Ireland case?Luban:
Of course I did.Graham:
Well I'm not calling YOU unethical.Luban:
Well, thank you.Graham:
Can you say there was no good information? Cheney says there was good information obtained. One reason these techniques survived for hundreds of years is because they worked. Your testimony is not a complete repository of what happened during interrogations. (to Soufan)Soufan (interrogator):
I mentioned my own personal experience.Graham:
I have the highest regard for this gentleman, but it's not the whole story. Do you believe it would be wrong for Obama to authorize this outside the field manual if attack was imminent? Is Panetta qualified for his job?Soufan: I believe he is [gets cut off]
"If someone has urgent info.... who could be a ticking time bomb... we should do everything possible within the law to get that info... " Would Obama be wrong to consider a CIA request to engage...?Soufan:
Key word from Panetta's quote: "within the law". No, the field manual is an outline for interrogation.Graham:
Good.Soufan wanted to say more, he kept trying, but time ran out. Soufan firmly believes that torture does not work, that more humane, non-coercive methods do, using relationship-building and deception. He got accurate results, using those techniques, with an hour. "It's about being smarter, not being harsher."
Let's end with some agreement. I generally agree with the Geneva Convention. There's people with a different view. It doesn't make you unethical or a criminal. Waterboarding comes back to bite you. It's not necessary to win the war. But those who devised these techniques were not criminals.. they were Americans who were afraid that the next attack was on its way. If you're gonna be balanced about this, that needs to be told too. We need to look forward. Lincoln suspended habeas corpus. The techniques were shared with members of Congress who somehow can't remember what they were told. People made mistakes out of fear. The British may not have tortured people in N. Ireland, but they turned the people against them. They made a mistake in winning the people over of N. Ireland. If we restrict ourselves to the Army Field Manual, shame on us. It was written for soldiers, not to get intel about the next impending attack! [Yes, he's screaming] If we put it on the line and don't interrogate someone, we're stupid! The net was cast too large... nobody is in jail in Gitmo because Cheney said so. They're there because they're a military threat... not because we hate them, but what they did. That decision will go to the Supreme Court.... We should not unilaterally surrender, treat these people as common criminals... The principal I'm advocating: Hit them before they hit us attitude, find out what they're up to... We can do that without having to go back to the Inquisition. I'm so afraid what we're doing today will chill out future legal advice, ruining reputations of those who tried their best [paraphrased].Now, with your permission, Paddy and I would like to take Lindsey Graham out to the woodshed, and... well, the rest is classified.
By GottaLaff
Here's one quote I just heard on CSPAN. There were so many more, but I just got to the computer, so this is all you get for now:
Phil Zelikow, re: BushCo on dissent...
"The lawyers did not welcome peer reviews"... Would "shut them down."... "We don't want to talk about it."
By GottaLaff
It's a start:
House Judiciary Committee Chairman John Conyers (D-Mich.) on Tuesday announced that he will soon hold hearings on the Bush administration’s legal memos justifying the use of numerous enhanced interrogation techniques. [...]The more public scrutiny of BushCo's illegal activities the better. How effective these hearings will be is another matter, but it seems that every time there is an examination of the slime under the Bush administration rock, another revelation surfaces.
“Recently disclosed legal memoranda from the former Bush Administration raise grave legal, ethical, and constitutional questions,” Conyers said in a statement. “The use of tactics described in these memos runs counter not only to basic notions of decency, but places our own prisoners of war at risk and weakens our national security. And the fact that these memos were authored and approved by senior lawyers of the Department of Justice challenges the very notion that we adhere to the Rule of Law in this country.”
Conyers said he might hold hearings before the White House Office of Professional Responsibility completes its report from concerning the former Justice Department lawyers who wrote the memos.
“Critical questions remain concerning how these memos came into existence and were approved, which our committee is uniquely situated to consider,” Conyers said. [...]
Obama, though, said he preferred for an outside commission, rather than Congress, to lead any investigation.
“I do worry about this getting so politicized that we cannot function effectively and it hampers our ability to carry out critical national security operations,” the president continued, adding that “to the extent that there are independent participants who are above reproach and have credibility, that would probably be a more sensible approach to take.” [...]
Even while calling for his own Congressional hearings, Conyers called the president’s commission comments “exactly right.”
“The President’s comments today on possible approaches to a fuller accounting of these matters are exactly right – further comprehensive review of the Bush Administration anti-terror policies will be most valuable and successful if done in a truly apolitical and bipartisan manner,” the Judiciary Chairman said.
By GottaLaff
First, Chris Matthews smacked Darrell Issa down for using the term "Democrat party". Now Rep. Marcy Kaptur calls out Rep. Jeb Hensarling for using that same intentionally grating term at today's House Budget Committee hearing. Go Marcy!
I love that she came back at him with a word we've used here at TPC: The "Republic" party. Insert Chris Matthews "ha!" here.
By GottaLaff
At a pre-trial hearing in the Minnesota election lawsuit just now, Franken attorney Kevin Hamilton made a striking accusation: That the Coleman campaign has been doctoring evidence.Coleman attorney James Langdon speculated that there may have been a photocopying problem.As an example, Hamilton showed two photocopies of a rejected absentee ballot envelope, one of which he said was the unaltered original, and the other taken from Coleman's legal filings in his attempts to get more of the rejected ballots opened. The Coleman copy was missing the section in which a local election official explained why it was rejected.
Blame the Xerox machine. Yeah, that's credible. It somehow deleted an entire section. Then the dog ate it.
By GottaLaff
Eight months after a federal investigation into a prostitution ring brought about the downfall of Gov. Eliot Spitzer, the question still persists in some circles: Was the federal government out to get Mr. Spitzer?Now why on earth would anyone ever suspect the targeting of someone for political reasons? Why, the very idea! Humph!
No evidence has surfaced to support such an assertion, and the prosecutor in the case has said that politics played no role in the pursuit of Mr. Spitzer, a Democrat. But that has not put to rest suspicions, expressed on left wing blogs, that Mr. Spitzer, a zealous pursuer of Wall Street wrongdoing who some thought could one day be president, had been singled out.Now, a congressional committee is pursuing what would be the first public examination of the events that prompted the initial inquiry into his bank transactions, which showed he was sending money to a front company for Emperor’s Club V.I.P.
The House Financial Services Committee intends to take up the matter early next year and tentatively plans to hold hearings that could include testimony from the United States Treasury’s law enforcement unit, along with Mr. Spitzer’s bank, North Fork, and HSBC, a bank used by a company connected to the Emperor’s Club.
By GottaLaff
[A] group led at least partly by left-leaning bloggers and that staged a big anti-Palin rally during the election - Alaskans for Truth - is calling on the Legislature to run with the Legislative Council's "Troopergate" report, which found Palin abused her power. (As opposed to the conflicting Personnel Board investigation, that cleared her.)Also.The group calls on lawmakers to:
-- Censure Palin.
-- Seek contempt charges against Todd Palin and state officials "who willingly ignored the Legislative Council's subpoenas during the investigation."
-- Hold hearings on whether the governor and Todd Palin committed perjury in their statements to the Personnel Board's investigator.
-- Investigate whether Attorney General Talis Colberg committed witness tampering.
By GottaLaff
Russ Feingold is trying to save our country. A hearing alone can't possibly do that, but it could be a start, or at least an eye-opening reminder of Bush's miserable, criminal, despicable failures. Whether it's a significant start is another story. Let's put it this way: It's better than absolutely nothing, which is exactly what we've endured for the past 8 years:
That would be the very same accountability that was missing right around the time of the Big Crash of Aught Eight.Here’s a radical query: What if the president of the United States were actually required to obey the law? That’s the question Sen. Russ Feingold (D-Wis.) is asking, and tomorrow he’ll hold a hearing to examine just how heavily the Bush administration has trampled on the Constitution over the last seven-plus years — and what steps should be taken to see that it won’t happen again.
In a telephone call with reporters last Friday, Feingold rattled off a host of tactics employed by the Bush White House — everything from warrantless wiretapping to Guantanamo Bay detentions; from questionable invocations of executive privilege to extraordinary rendition — as evidence of the importance of returning some accountability to the executive branch.
Palin/McCain = Bush III, Cheney II.Feingold also called on presidential hopefuls John McCain and Barack Obama to renounce the Bush administration’s power grab and pledge to abandon such tactics should they win November’s contest. That’s not as simple a request as it might sound. After all, who would volunteer to give up their power, particularly when you’re talking about two guys whose singular ambition these days is to become the most powerful person in the world?
Still, Feingold claimed the implications of not reining in the next administration would be severe. “If that’s not done,” Feingold said, “we could have one of the greatest reconfigurations in our constitutional history.”
Who: Senator Russ Feingold, Chairman, Constitution Subcommittee of the Senate Judiciary Committee
What: Hearing on "Restoring the Rule of Law"
When: Tuesday, September 16th - 10:15 a.m. ET
Where: Hart Senate Office Building - Room 216
Witnesses:
Walter Dellinger
Douglas B. Maggs Professor Emeritus of Law, Duke University School of Law
Solicitor General of the United States 1996-1997
Mickey Edwards
Board of Directors, The Constitution Project
Lecturer, Woodrow Wilson School of Public Policy, Princeton University
Former Member of Congress (R-OK), 1977-1993
Harold Koh
Dean and Gerard C. & Bernice Latrobe Smith Professor of International Law
Yale Law School
Elisa Massimino
Chief Executive Officer and Executive Director
Human Rights First
John D. Podesta
President and CEO, Center for American Progress Action Fund
Chief of Staff to President William J. Clinton, 1998-2001
Frederick A.O Schwarz Jr.
Senior Counsel
Brennan Center for Justice at New York University School of Law
Suzanne E. Spaulding
Principal
Bingham Consulting Group
Charles J. Cooper
Partner, Cooper & Kirk, PLLC
Patrick F. Philbin Partner
Kirkland & Ellis LLP
Kyndra Rotunda
Visiting Assistant Professor of Law
Chapman University School of Law
Robert Turner
Professor, General Faculty Associate Director, Center for National Security Law
University of Virginia School of Law
By GottaLaff
It's Q and A time now.
Professor Jeremy Rabkin (George Mason U. law professor) keeps saying the idea of impeachment is demented. The people making these charges are "bitter" and "demented". He's very "animated" himself. One might even call him demented. We're just "construing everything in the worst possible light."
Nadler: Wrong. It's an abuse of power. If the president lied to Congress, and I think he did, to get us to war, and he may have had motivations that he didn't put forth, that's impeachable. Next, we're in a dangerous situation. Bush claims power to point a finger at anyone IN THIS ROOM, and say you're an enemy combatant and you can go to prison. Finally, they've made it impossible to remedy any of this, because of privilege, etc. So we have to figure out a way around all of this. If the admin. has gone so far beyond any interpretation of executive privilege, how does an impeachment inquiry get beyond this?
Fein: Have the inquiry, vote to impeach, do what we did with Nixon. [I hope I got that right] He can't get around that.
Nadler: Should we amend the Constitution about pardon power?
Schwarz: If it's being abused, yes.
But Fein says there are statutes that deter the power, if Bush used it to pardon his administration. Make him exercise the power early, like now, so he can't pardon someone last minute. Congress has power to... [Sound went out]
Nadler: It took the Nixon tape to make impeachment a possibility. What about now? How can we make it a viable option?
Holtzman: We had bipartisan support. It started with the American people, nobody knew what the head count would be in Judiciary. The process had to be fair, so the Dems picked a Republican... no polls, no head count... totally uncharted waters. Ultimately, the fairness of the process persuaded both sides of the aisle. Fairness to the president, too. Allow witnesses for him. Impeachment inquiry, handled fairly, with the full participation of the minority, with the evidence there, can work. Maybe I'm a cockeyed optimist. It worked in 1973. The Clinton impeachment didn't work because it was partisan.
Watch here, listen here. The handsome and articulate Kagro X explains here what will and won't be happening.
A boisterous crowd has already gathered for today's hearing in the House Judiciary Committee on the case for impeaching Presidnent Bush and Vice President Cheney.
Rep. Dennis Kucinich (D-Ohio) has been leading the charge on the issue, and although Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) and Judiciary Committee Chairman John Conyers (D-Mich.) have said there will be no formal impeachment hearings, they've given Kucinich and his allies a session today to make the case.
| |||
| Tomorrow | · Newspaper Articles · John Gizzi, Human Events, Political Editor · Rep. Dennis Kucinich (D-OH) · Richard White, Public Transportation in Emergency Evacuation Cmte., Chairman | ||
10:00 AM EDT
4:00 (est.) LIVEHouse Committee
Constitutional Limits of Executive Power
Judiciary
John Conyers Jr., D-MI
The beginning and end of this live program may be earlier or later than the scheduled times.
 |
By GottaLaff
In a release Thursday, House Judiciary Committee Chairman John Conyers (D-MI) announced he will hold a hearing July 25 examining "the imperial presidency of George W. Bush and possible legal responses."
The word "impeachment" was not mentioned in the announcement, but it appears the hearing is going to examine issues raised by Rep. Dennis Kucinich (D-OH) in his resolution to impeach Bush. A Judiciary Committee spokesman tells RAW STORY Kucinich will testify at the hearing.
We wanted more details, we got a few. Conyers, in part:
"As Chairman of the Judiciary Committee, I believe it is imperative that we pursue a comprehensive review commensurate to this constitutionally dangerous combination of circumstances. Next Friday’s hearings will be an important part of that ongoing effort.”Oh goody! A recap! Will there be a slide show? Gimme a break.
I love a good, long list, don't you? What's that? You don't see "impeachment" on it? Come on, it's not as if there's anything impeachmentworthy there! Grow up.Conyers did not say who would testify at the hearing, but he laid out a variety of abuses that would be examined, including:
(1) improper politicization of the Justice Department and the U.S. Attorneys offices, including potential misuse of authority with regard to election and voting controversies;
(2) misuse of executive branch authority and the adoption and implementation of the so-called unitary executive theory, including in the areas of presidential signing statements and regulatory authority;
(3) misuse of investigatory and detention authority with regard to U.S. citizens and foreign nationals, including questions regarding the legality of the administration’s surveillance, detention, interrogation, and rendition programs;
(4) manipulation of intelligence and misuse of war powers, including possible misrepresentations to Congress related thereto;
(5) improper retaliation against administration critics, including disclosing information concerning CIA operative Valerie Plame, and obstruction of justice related thereto; and
(6) misuse of authority in denying Congress and the American people the ability to oversee and scrutinize conduct within the administration, including through the use of various asserted privileges and immunities.
However, Conyers indicated his unwillingness to actually vote on impeachment, regardless of Kucinich's presentation.It's so very comforting to know the outcome prior to a major event. Pfft, impeachment, imschmeachment. Little Dennis is getting his pat on the head. Now maybe he'll shut up, take his Article (Title: "Deceiving Congress with Fabricated Threats of Iraq WMDs to Fraudulently Obtain Support for an Authorization of the Use of Military Force Against Iraq."), and go home. Or will he....?
He also suggested in an interview with Congressional Quarterly that the Judiciary hearing could serve as a forum for some new revelations.
“I’ve been contacted by representatives of a U.S. ally who are seeking an opportunity to appear before the Judiciary Committee,” he told CQ's Molly K. Hooper.
“Legislative leaders of a foreign capital” have a “new angle that I haven’t thought of before but is relevant,” he said. “This interest in whether we’ve been told the truth has extended to other countries.”
We've discussed this extensively in Comments. Time for Round Two. Imaginary wall, get ready. I have a few more imaginary objects that I haven't thrown yet.
By GottaLaff
Franks: What was your goal, and how did you pursue it?
Ashcroft: Anything within our power and within the law to defend America. We have to think outside the box, I said, but never outside the Constitution. We gotta change. If you don't you've got the same thing you had before. When it comes to national defense, use the legal tools available tous.
Franks: I love you, marry me. Nuclear proliferation makes us look at things differently.
Tammy Baldwin: What is the role of the NSC with regard to authorizing detainee interrogations and mistreatment?
Ashcroft: The AG doesn't meet with them often, so it's beyond my expertise.
Tammy: Since then, did you come across evidence of crimes by govt officials?
Ashcroft: Classified meetings, so I won't comment.
Tammy: Who has ultimate decision? White House, Justice, Defense, CIA... etc.?
Ashcroft: Different agencies made different decisions on techniques and situations. Opinions are limited, relating to interrogation of Al Qaeda outside the U.S., so don't apply to detentions in other settings.
Tammy: Allies in war on terror: Condone or use techniques of torture?
Ashcroft: (stuttering...pause ).. I have not witnessed anything to cause me to have that awareness.
Tammy: And the US turning over detainees to allies for interrogation? Are you aware?
Ashcroft: (pause) I can't say. ...
Gohmert(R-Texas): I love you, marry me. [lots of talk, missed some]
Ashcroft: When Congress wants to verify, not rely on trust, I'm fine with that, but be careful before you accuse someone of a crime. It stuns me when people call others "criminals", and the ones who do are "liberal" and rights oriented. But it was my job to protect their right to do so. We have to be tolerant... but that's [criminal] a term that should be used with great care.
By GottaLaff
Brad Sherman: Did you veto Yoo for the job?
Ashcroft: We need independent, detached advice by Office of Legal Counsel to the president. There were key people who had reservations related to proximity of him to various people in the administration. I had to make sure that these reservations were merited. I raised these issues as a result. I felt that the president and the U.S. would be best served if there would be an OLC chief that would emphasize those characteristics more profoundly. The OLC, as part of DoJ, when they speak, I take it as gospel.
Quote-O'-The-Day by Ashcroft:
"It's a thrill a minute here."
.jpg)
