Truth commission to proceed despite Obama’s wishes

By GottaLaff

It's starting to take on a life of its own:

Senate Judiciary Chairman Patrick Leahy (D-VT) plans to proceed with a special commission to investigate alleged Bush administration abuses of power, despite lacking President Barack Obama’s support, according to a report Tuesday. [...]

But Leahy plans to proceed despite lacking the approval of party leaders, sources familiar with the proposal told Politico’s John Bresnahan Tuesday.

“Leahy plans to move ahead with his proposal anyway,” Bresnahan writes. “While he has not found a GOP co-sponsor for legislation creating a truth commission, Leahy is expected to begin circulating a draft soon.”

In a statement, Leahy said his commission will ultimately jibe with the President’s wishes.

“When I first proposed establishing a nonpartisan commission of inquiry in February, I thought then, as I do now, that it was the best approach to conducting a thorough review of national security policies on detention, interrogation and rendition since Sept. 11,” Leahy said in a statement to Bresnahan. “Whether such a comprehensive review happens immediately or in the weeks and months ahead, the evidence that our country committed torture demands a review of the process by which these flawed policies were developed and implemented. President Obama was correct when he said that any review should be done outside of politics. A nonpartisan commission will accomplish just that.” [...]

Some liberals have critiqued the proposal, asserting that Bush officials shouldn’t be granted immunity from prosecution even if they’re forthcoming in a congressional investigation. Conservatives have attacked the proposed commission as a political witchhunt.

I can't fathom giving any of those thugs immunity. Isn't the whole point of finding out the truth dealing with the truth?

Immunity should not be an option for the likes of Rove, Rumsfeld, Cheney, Addington, or any of the other despicable BushCo war criminals. If I could scream that line, I would, but this isn't that kind of blog, and putting that in all caps would be annoyingly out of character. So, use your imaginations if you are so inclined.

But expect me to ask for a talking down if immunity becomes a reality.

FYI, earlier I posted about John Conyers and Jerry Nadler asking Holder for a special counsel.

The ugly Bush stain: Nursing Home Watchdogs Muted

By GottaLaff

Per Keith Olbermann just now on Countdown:

Another little surprise from BushCo that nobody discovered until yesterday. It involves nursing home state inspectors and Medicare and Medicaid contractors . Guess what they can't do any more? They can't give evidence in federal lawsuits. They can't testify. Bush just took a 144 billion industry and immunized it from civil suits.

And nobody knew about it.

The Bush administration shut off a source of information last fall about abuse and neglect in long- term care facilities that people suing nursing homes consider crucial to their cases.

The change that affects the $144 billion nursing-home industry occurred with no public notice or attention, perhaps because of the array of last-minute rules that President George W. Bush’s appointees rushed out before leaving Washington last month.

“This is pretty stunning,” said Mark Kosieradzki, a plaintiff attorney in Plymouth, Minnesota. “Nobody was told. It was just done.”

The rule designates state inspectors and Medicare and Medicaid contractors as federal employees, a group usually shielded from providing evidence for either side in private litigation.

The restrictions affect about 16,000 nursing facilities in the U.S. and 3 million residents. The practical effect is to force litigants to go to greater lengths, including seeking court orders, to get inspection reports or depositions for cases they are pursuing or defending.

“This change hurts nursing-home residents and their families by allowing bad practices to be kept in secret by nursing homes and inspectors,” said Eric M. Carlson, an attorney with the National Senior Citizens Law Center in Los Angeles. “Government inspectors have the right to go into nursing homes and investigate, and they learn things that residents and families otherwise could never find out.”

More here.

Bush is still damaging this nation, says Keith. What an understatement.

Sen. Leahy says he'd investigate Democrats who backed Bush policies

By GottaLaff

No bias, no bull, fair and balanced, insert other rightie catch phrases here:

In a little noticed one-line remark on Sunday, Senate Judiciary Chairman Patrick Leahy (D-VT) endorsed the investigation of Democrats who approved of President George W. Bush's policies as president that he aims to review as part of a "truth commission."

The veteran Democrat has floated the idea of a "truth commission" to probe and put to rest alleged Bush Administration constitutional abuses, in areas such as wiretapping and harsh interrogation. Those who participated would likely be granted immunity from prosecution so long as their testimony is truthful, mirroring similar venues of public catharsis as were practiced in South Africa and Chile in previous decades.

Speaking to the New York Times' Scott Shane, "Mr. Leahy said he has learned that the temptation to abuse powers in a crisis is bipartisan and the commission’s review should include the role of Democrats in Congress in approving the Bush policies. The work should be done in one year, he added, to avert accusations that it was being dragged out for political gain."

I will personally start an e-mail/phone call campaign to Leahy's office if this immunity idea takes hold. What's the point of finding out the truth about crimes committed if there are no repercussions?

Call me crazy, but I don't see the effectiveness of pointing fingers, discovering criminal behavior, and then accepting it and/or allowing it to continue.

I just spoke to John Conyers' office

By GottaLaff

This is not true:

Rove Trying to Cut Deal, Call Conyers
Governor Don Siegelman has learned that Karl Rove is in some sort of negotiation for immunity or exec priv before he testifies on Feb. 23. He is asking for people to flood Judiciary Chairman John Conyers with calls to make sure he "stays strong," no deal, no immunity.

I got right on the phone to John Conyers' office. It 3 or 4 tries to get through, but I did. I told the person who answered that I didn't want any deals cut, that Rove should not get immunity, that he has done a lot of bad things.

I was told there will be no immunity, that Judiciary isn't budging, and that what I'd heard or read was "rumor."

Ace reporter Laffy off to the next assignment.

True or False: Holder assures GOP on interrogation prosecution and telecom immunity

By GottaLaff

UPDATE: Patrick Leahy and Sheldon Whitehouse dismiss this as bunk.

Original post:

How can one make a decision to prosecute or not prosecute before one investigates and has seen the evidence? Granted, this piece is from the Washington Times, but.... If accurate, this would be politicizing the legal system, which was BushCo's M.O. It better not be Holder's:

Sen. Christopher "Kit" Bond, a Republican from Missouri and the vice chairman of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, said in an interview with The Washington Times that he will support Eric H. Holder Jr.'s nomination for Attorney General because Mr. Holder assured him privately that Mr. Obama's Justice Department will not prosecute former Bush officials involved in the interrogations program.

Mr. Holder's promise apparently was key to moving his nomination forward. [...]

Sen. Bond also said that Mr. Holder told him in a private meeting Tuesday that he will not strip the telecommunications companies that cooperated with the National Security Agency after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks of retroactive legal immunity from civil lawsuits--removing another potential sticking point among GOP senators.

In the interview Wednesday, Mr. Bond said, "I made it clear that trying to prosecute political leaders would generate a political firestorm the Obama administration doesn't need."

He added, "I was concerned about previous statements he made and others had made. He gave me assurances that he would not take those steps that would cause major disruptions in our intelligence system or cause political warfare. We don't need that kind of political warfare. He gave me assurances he is looking forward." [...]

Mr. Holder made a similar point to senators last week in a little-noticed written response to questions from Republican senators Jon Kyl of Arizona and John Cornyn of Texas. Mr. Holder indicated that he would not prosecute any intelligence officers who participated in the interrogation program and who had followed Justice Department guidance.

Prosecutorial and investigative judgments must depend on the facts and no one is above the law, Mr. Holder wrote. But where it is clear that a government agent has acted in 'reasonable and good faith reliance on Justice Department legal opinions' authoritatively permitting his conduct, I would find it difficult to justify commencing a full blown criminal investigation, let alone a prosecution.

The legislative director for the American Civil Liberties Union, Caroline Fredrickson, said Wednesday that she was alarmed by Mr. Bond's statements and was hoping, Kit Bond is not stating this in the way that Mr. Holder stated it to him. She added, We are hoping there will be a clarification. It would be extraordinary if our top prosecutor, before taking office, would have predetermined whether or not to pursue certain cases because of political pressure.[...]

Mr. Specter called "satisfactory" Mr. Holder's statements that interrogation techniques authorized by legal opinions would provide a strong cover from prosecutions. According to Mr. Specter, Mr. Holder could not make any more explicit statements without knowing the facts of specific cases.

According to Ellen Ratner (of Talk Radio News Service) on Thom Hartmann just now, Holder is also caving on the question of Karl Rove's claims of "executive privilege".

Thom Hartmann's reaction to the Rove matter: We have to put the pressure on these guys. Yes, and the pressure better be enormous. This is not acceptable.

H/t: Fernando

Supreme Court to decide Ashcroft, Mueller immunity

By GottaLaff

Somehow I don't think the Supremes will side with a Muslim Pakistani named Iqbal over Ashcroft and Mueller:

The US Supreme Court will hear a case Wednesday on whether cabinet-level officials could be held accountable for controversial tactics President George W. Bush ordered as part of the US-led "war on terror."

Former attorney general John Ashcroft and FBI Director Robert Mueller have sought immunity from the charges in a lawsuit filed by Javaid Iqbal, a Pakistani national.

Iqbal was among more than 700 Arab and South Asian Muslim men from the New York City area rounded up after the September 11, 2001 attacks. While they were all eventually charged with immigration violations or minor crimes, none was linked to terrorism.

In his lawsuit, Iqbal alleges that Ashcroft and Mueller targeted the men for investigation and punitive detention, sidestepping procedural protections usually granted to such detainees.

Iqbal, who was held at a maximum security section of a Brooklyn federal prison, says he was subjected to harsh treatment and discrimination and that federal officials classified him as a "high interest" suspect because he was a Muslim from Pakistan.

A June 2003 report by the Department of Justice inspector general found "significant problems" in the treatment of detainees like Iqbal. [...]

Ashcroft was among those who "willfully and maliciously approved of, endorsed, and/or ordered that these searches take place" and "knew of, condoned, and willfully and maliciously agreed to subject (Iqbal) to unreasonable, unnecessary and extreme strip and body-cavity searches," according to the suit.

Let's not forget about precedents. It's always about setting precedents:

"The government's position will have the practical effect of ensuring that these officials will never be held accountable for unconstitutional conduct," [Alexander Reinert, who will argue for Iqbal,] said in a statement. [...]

Iqbal claims that during his five-month confinement he was held 23 hours a day in a constantly lit cell where the air conditioning was turned on in the winter and the heat was turned in the summer. He says he was also beaten and strip-searched.

When he was released in 2003, he had lost nearly 44 pounds. I'm guessing he also lost more than a little dignity and most of his emotional equilibrium.

Telco immunity faces first court challenge

By GottaLaff

I'm likin' this:

Plaintiffs suing AT&T and other telecommunications companies filed a lengthy motion in court this week arguing the government could not retroactively invalidate their lawsuit because its immunity authority is unconstitutional and destroys the notion of coequal branches of government. [...]

A 61-page filing argues that Congress doesn't have the authority to issue a retroactive immunity statute, that immunity violates separation of powers by improperly inflating executive branch authority, that immunity violates individuals rights to due process, that the secrecy provisions of immunity violate the First Amendment by creating a "chilling effect" on free speech, and that the government has not justified dismissing the telecom lawsuits even if its ability to do so was constitutional. [...]

The Electronic Frontier Foundation and American Civil Liberties Union are representing plaintiffs in the various telecom lawsuits the government is attempting to dismiss. [...]

Plaintiffs hope the courts will reach a similar decision to strike down the FISA Amendments Act.

Stay tuned.