Category Archives: Justice Department

Lindsey Graham is For Our System of Justice…Except When He’s Against It

10 Wednesday Mar 2010

Posted by in Congress, Justice Department, Politics, terrorism, war on terror

≈ 1 Comment

Tags

, , , ,

Senator Lindsey Graham believes suspected terrorists are entitled to legal representation—except when they aren’t. Confused? So is Sen. Graham. On the one hand he condemns the Keep America Scared Safe ad which refers to Justice Department lawyers who defended terrorism suspects as the “al-Qaeda 7”:

“Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., a member of the Senate Armed Services and Judiciary Committees, told The Cable Tuesday that the Cheney-Kristol ad was inappropriate and unfairly demonized DOJ lawyers for doing a noble public service by defending unpopular suspects.

“I’ve been a military lawyer for almost 30 years, I represented people as a defense attorney in the military that were charged with some pretty horrific acts, and I gave them my all,” said Graham. “This system of justice that we’re so proud of in America requires the unpopular to have an advocate and every time a defense lawyer fights to make the government do their job, that defense lawyer has made us all safer.”

On the other hand, Sen. Graham is “looking for a legal framework” by which suspected terrorists can be indefinitely detained:

“There has to be some type of statute– and he’s been clear on that — for indefinite detention,” [Graham spokesman Kevin] Bishop said…Primarily, the system Graham is designing is set up for handling the Obama administration’s so-called “Fifth Category” of detainees that a Justice Department task force recommended against charging and releasing. “What do you do with them? What type of system do you have to hold them indefinitely?” Bishop said. “What type of system do you establish where we can ensure that we’re looking back at their cases; that we are holding them; we still determine that they are enemy combatants; they’re too dangerous to release; but we also aren’t going to try them in either a military or a civilian court.” So there has to be a system for that, and that’s why Senator Graham is looking for a legal framework.”

There are countries where that “type of system” exists, Mr. Bishop. Places named Iran…and China…and North Korea. Are they now our roles models for jurisprudence?

President Obama, Have You No Principles?

06 Saturday Mar 2010

Posted by in Bill of Rights, Constitution, Justice Department, Obama, Politics, war on terror

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , , , , , , , , ,

An open letter to President Obama and Attorney General Holder:

President Obama, have you no principles sir? Is there nothing for which you are willing to take an unwavering stand? Nothing which you are unwilling to sacrifice on the altar of political expediency? Nothing that will deter your quest for the Holy Grail of bi-partisanship? Nothing that is done without a moistened finger in the wind gauging current public opinion? If this story from the Washington Post about the decision not to try Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and the other 9/11 co-conspirators in civilian court is true, sadly the answers to all of the above questions appear to be no, nothing.

Do you remember your Nobel Peace Prize acceptance speech, sir? Let me refresh your memory (emphasis added):

“We lose ourselves when we compromise the very ideals that we fight to defend. And we honor — we honor those ideals by upholding them not when it’s easy, but when it is hard.”

This is one of those times, sir, one of those times when it is hard. This is one of those times when ones true character is tested. When the right thing to do and the popular thing to do are not one and the same, as history has shown us they seldom are.

Our constitutional rights and protections–in which our system of justice is anchored–and the rule of law are not, and should never be, subject to political compromise and deal-making. The Fifth and Sixth Amendments are not bargaining chips to be dealt away in the pursuit of Republican support for the closing of the prison at Guantanamo Bay.

Furthermore, who is prosecuted and how they are prosecuted is not the discretion of the president of the United States, and most assuredly not that of his chief of staff. That duty falls to the man whom you nominated and whom the Senate confirmed as Attorney General, Eric Holder. Once upon a time we had a Justice Department independent from political influence. That line of demarcation was blurred, if not completely erased, by the previous administration. You were elected on the promise of restoring that independence, but apparently that was only campaign rhetoric.

Attorney General Holder, you have a duty here too, sir. By virtue of the position which you hold, you are chief law enforcement official in this country. If you believe strongly that KSM and the others should be tried according to Article III, and if you want to be seen as more than an attorney-on-retainer who does the bidding of the White House, you have the obligation to tell the president to either make this decision yours and your alone, based solely on legal grounds, or resign your office.

One of your predecessors in the office of Attorney General faced a similar situation. He was ordered by the president to do something which went against his principles and was in violation of his duties as AG. Rather than be seen as a puppet of that administration, he resigned on the spot, as did his deputy when given the same order. His name was Elliot Richardson and the president was Richard Nixon, in the constitutional crisis now known as the infamous “Saturday Night Massacre” of the Watergate era.

This is no less a constitutional matter, sir. Your obligation is no less than was Mr. Richardson’s.

The Case of the Vanishing Justice Department E-Mail

27 Saturday Feb 2010

Posted by in Justice Department, Obama, Politics, torture

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , ,

The legacy of Rose Mary Woods is alive and well at the Justice Department:

“Large batches of e-mail records from the Justice Department lawyers who worked on the 2002 legal opinions justifying the Bush administration’s brutal interrogation techniques are missing, and the Justice Department told lawmakers Friday that it would try to trace the disappearance.”

And in a stroke of what I’m sure is pure coincidence, what’s missing just happens to be from a crucial time period:

“The Justice Department’s Office of Professional Responsibility…pushed to get access to a range of e-mail records and other internal documents from the Justice Department to aid in its investigation.

But it discovered that many e-mail messages to and from John Yoo, who wrote the bulk of the legal opinions for the Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel, were missing…Also deleted were a month’s worth of e-mail files from the summer of 2002 for Patrick Philbin, another Justice Department lawyer who worked on the interrogation opinions. Those missing e-mail messages came during a period when two of the critical interrogation memos were being prepared.”

But never fear, the Obama DoJ is on the case. Kinda, sorta, maybe:

“Gary Grindler, the acting deputy attorney general who represented the Justice Department at Friday’s hearing, said he did not think there was “anything nefarious” about the deletion of the e-mail messages, but he could not explain what happened to them.

He said he had directed administrative personnel at the Justice Department to review the situation and determine whether there were problems in the department’s system for automatically archiving internal documents. He said the review would also seek to recover the missing e-mail messages if possible.”

Why do I get the feeling that in the spirit of the cover-up looking forward, not back, recovering the missing messages will be found impossible. Just a hunch.

Democrats Cave on Torture Amendment: So What Else Is New?

26 Friday Feb 2010

Posted by in Constitution, Democrats, Dick Cheney, Justice Department, Obama, Politics, Republicans, terrorism, torture, Uncategorized, war on terror

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , , , , , , , , ,

While all the attention in Washington yesterday was focused on the posturing and pontificating over health care reform, there was something else going on. Democratic Congressman Sylvestre Reyes, chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, proposed an amendment to the 2010 Intelligence Authorization Act. The amendment is called the Cruel, Inhuman, and Degrading Interrogation Prohibition Act of 2010 which, in essence, does nothing more than codify what already exists in Articles 1 and 16 of the United Nations Convention Against Torture. You know that treaty which under Article VI of the Constitution is supposed to be the “supreme Law of the Land,” but was signed and ratified pre-9/11 so is no longer applicable, apparently.

The amendment prohibits such acts as waterboarding, beatings, sleep deprivation, and mock executions among others. In other words, pretty much the chart toppers on the Cheney/Ashcroft/Rumsfeld/Yoo/Bybee hit parade. It applies to any “U.S. national, or any officer, employee, contractor, or subcontractor of the Federal government,” with punishment for violation being “fine or imprisonment for not more than 15 years, or both,” unless death results. Then the imprisonment is “any term of years or for life.”

And right on cue, here came the torture defenders, led by Liz Cheney, playing the predictable “keeping us safe” card:

“Late last night, Democrats in the House of Representatives inserted a provision dubbed “The Cruel, Inhuman, and Degrading Interrogation Act of 2010” into the intelligence authorization bill. This new language targets the US intelligence community with criminal penalties for using methods they have deemed necessary for keeping America safe. These methods have further been found by the Department of Justice to be both legal and in keeping with our international obligations.”

Sorry Liz, but just because they were found legal by the pretzel logic of Daddy’s Justice Department (and sadly, found to be merely “poor judgment” by the current Justice Department) doesn’t mean they are legal. It just means that laws and treaties have become an a la carte menu in post 9/11 America. We now pick and choose which ones to enforce and which ones to ignore. Again, sadly.

According to Marc Ambinder at the Atlantic, the amendment is also not popular at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue (sigh):

“The White House isn’t happy; they’ve already threatened to veto the bill because it, in their mind, it infringes upon the rights of the executive branch by forcing the administration to disclose more about intelligence operations to more members of Congress.”

That sounds a lot like a previous administration to me. (Double sigh).

And speaking of right on cue, all House Republicans had to do was give the insinuation that they would accuse Democrats of being ‘soft on terror’ and ‘coddling terrorists’ and the gutless, spineless, Democratic leadership pulled the bill.

Yoo: The President Could Order the Massacre of a Village

22 Monday Feb 2010

Posted by in Dick Cheney, Justice Department, Politics, torture, Uncategorized, war on terror

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , , , , ,

Michael Isikoff at Newsweek.com has more on the Office of Professional Responsibility (OPR) report in which David Margolis, senior lawyer in the Obstruction of Justice Department, found John Yoo and Jay Bybee guilty of nothing more than “poor judgement” in authoring the torture memos.

The report also contains an excerpt of an investigator’s interview with Yoo on the subject of the expanded powers of the president:

“At the core of the legal arguments were the views of Yoo, strongly backed by David Addington, Vice President Dick Cheney’s legal counsel, that the president’s wartime powers were essentially unlimited and included the authority to override laws passed by Congress, such as a statute banning the use of torture. Pressed on his views in an interview with OPR investigators, Yoo was asked:

“Sure,” said Yoo.”

“What about ordering a village of resistants to be massacred? … Is that a power that the president could legally—”

“Yeah,” Yoo replied, according to a partial transcript included in the report. “Although, let me say this: So, certainly, that would fall within the commander-in-chief’s power over tactical decisions.”

“To order a village of civilians to be [exterminated]?” the OPR investigator asked again.

CarolynC at The Seminal comments on the fallout from Margolis’ decision:

“Because of the actions of men like John Yoo, our country’s moral standing in the world has been eroded. The country of Washington, Lincoln has become a country where legal justifications of torture are now viewed as a matter of “poor judgment,” as the OPR report concluded in its findings.”

One can only conclude that the extermination of an entire village would also fall under the “poor judgment” umbrella as well.

“… But far from being condemned and disgraced, our domestic war criminals live in comfort and ease, their opinions are eagerly sought by our slavish media, and they are treated with the utmost respect in the corridors of power.

…thanks to John Yoo, the President can now commit everything up to and including genocide. Nothing seems to have changed, but everything has changed. Most of us were brought up to consider ourselves citizens of a democratic country; now we are dangerously close to being mere subjects of a monarchical leader, whose powers know no bounds.”

Dick Cheney is so confident that he is in no danger of being held accountable that he triumphantly broadcast his guilt on national television; he admitted last Sunday that he personally ordered the CIA to waterboard detainees. No matter. He will still be treated with deference as an elder statesmen by the Beltway Elite. And John Yoo will continue to practice law, teach, give interviews and write books on the virtues of unlimited executive power, and the books will be greeted with glowing reviews.

Spencer Ackerman’s Open Letter to Liz Cheney

22 Monday Feb 2010

Posted by in Constitution, Dick Cheney, Justice Department, Obama, Politics, torture, Uncategorized

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , ,

Spencer Ackerman at the Washington Independent has an “Open Letter to Liz Cheney on Torture”:

Dear Ms. Cheney,

I don’t know if you saw ‘Meet The Press’ this morning, but a general you may have heard of named David Petraeus — he’s the commander of U.S. forces in the Middle East and South Asia and is the most distinguished Army general since Colin Powell — graced your television. He was asked about whether the U.S. ought to torture Mullah Abdul Ghani Baradar, the deputy commander of the Taliban, recently captured in Pakistan. “I have always been on record, in fact since 2003, with the concept of living our values,” Petraeus replied. Every time the U.S. took what he called “expedient measures” around the Geneva Conventions, those deviations just “turned around and bitten us on our backside.” The effect of torture at Abu Ghraib is “non-biodegradable,” he continued, and boasted that as commander of the 101st Airborne in Iraq, he ordered his men to ignore any instruction to use techniques outside the Army Field Manual on Interrogations. Besides, the non-torture techniques that manual has long instructed? “That works,” he said. “That is our experience.”

But hey. You’re a former deputy assistant secretary of state! You obviously know better than the man who implemented the surge in Iraq. Why don’t you enlighten Gen. Petraeus about all the glories of torture? And since you consider “enhanced interrogation” so necessary to secure the country, perhaps there’s a full page ad you’ll take out in a major newspaper?

Cordially,
Spencer

Would that Ackerman’s letter might get Ms. Cheney’s mind right. But I think the only means to that end would be Papa Dick in his rightful place before a war crimes tribunal. But sadly, the Obama Obstruction of Justice Department and the Look Forward, Not Back Doctrine of the Constitutional Scholar-in-Chief isn’t going to allow that to happen.

Sadly, we will continue to be subjected to the former VP, and by extension his daughter, proudly extolling the virtues of torture, undeterred by any thoughts of being held accountable.

Sadly indeed.

Are We No More The Home of the Brave?

18 Thursday Feb 2010

Posted by in Justice Department, Obama, Politics, terrorism, war on terror

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , , , , , , , , ,

Glenn Greenwald has an interesting contrast in Tuesday’s Salon. How the rest of the world deals with accused terrorists as compared with the United States. A few cases in point:

May 12, 2003:
“DENPASAR, Indonesia — The first suspect charged with the October 12 [2002] Bali bombings, which killed over 200 people, has gone on trial in an Indonesian court.”

February 15, 2007:
“The trial of 29 people accused of involvement in train bombings that killed 191 people in March 2004 has opened in the Spanish capital, Madrid.”

April 11, 2008:
“LONDON — Three British Muslims accused of helping the suicide bombers who carried out the attacks on London’s transportation system in July 2005 went on trial on Thursday, in the first case against people accused of helping plan the attacks.”

July 21, 2009:
“The sole surviving gunman from last year’s Mumbai attacks, a Pakistani national, on Monday pleaded guilty at his trial, admitting for the first time his part in the atrocity that killed 166 people.”

Monday:
“SYDNEY – Five Muslims were sentenced Monday to 23 to 28 years in prison in Australia for stockpiling explosive chemicals and firearms for terrorist attacks on unspecified targets…The men, aged 25 to 44, were found guilty last October on charges linked to preparing a terrorist act between July 2004 and November 2005.”

In contrast, January 22, 2010:
“WASHINGTON — The Obama administration has decided to continue to imprison without trials nearly 50 detainees at the Guantanamo Bay military prison in Cuba because a high-level task force has concluded that they are too difficult to prosecute but too dangerous to release, an administration official said on Thursday.”

And February 1, 2010:
“WASHINGTON — Sen. Lindsey Graham plans to introduce a bipartisan bill Tuesday to block funding for civilian trials of five alleged plotters of the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks who are now being held at the U.S. military prison in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.

Graham, a South Carolina Republican and a military lawyer, said that eight other GOP senators had signed onto his legislation, along with Democrats Jim Webb of Virginia and Blanche Lincoln of Arkansas, and independent Sen. Joe Lieberman of Connecticut.”

Home of the brave?

Why Is This Man Not Facing a War Crimes Tribunal?

16 Tuesday Feb 2010

Posted by in Dick Cheney, Justice Department, Obama, Politics, torture, war on terror

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , , , , , ,

Every time I see former Vice-President Dick Cheney interviewed on any news program, national or otherwise, I think to myself, ‘Why is this man here and not facing a war crimes tribunal?’ Cheney made a remark during an interview with Jonathan Karl Sunday on ABC’s This Week, a remark made almost in passing, that once again brought that question to mind:

KARL: Did you more often win or lose those battles, especially as you got to the second term?

CHENEY: Well, I suppose it depends on which battle you’re talking about. I won some; I lost some. I can’t…

KARL: … waterboarding, clearly, what was your…

CHENEY: I was a big supporter of waterboarding. I was a big supporter of the enhanced interrogation techniques that…

KARL: And you opposed the administration’s actions of doing away with waterboarding?

CHENEY: Yes.

It never ceases to amaze me, although it’s not the first time it has happened and undoubtedly won’t be the last, that a former vice-president of the United States of America can openly and brazenly confess to something which the Geneva Conventions and the United Nations Convention Against Torture recognize as torture, something for which members of the Japanese military were punished after World War II. Torture, a punishable offense under U.S. Code 2340A by imprisonment or death. And he can do so without any fear of reprisal, thanks to the ‘look forward, not back’ policy of the Obama administration.

Shameful.

Andrew Sullivan at the Daily Dish calls on Attorney General Eric Holder to take action or be considered an accessory, also a punishable offense:

“…the attorney general of the United States is legally obliged to prosecute someone who has openly admitted such a war crime or be in violation of the Geneva Conventions and the UN Convention on Torture. For Eric Holder to ignore this duty subjects him too to prosecution. If the US government fails to enforce the provision against torture, the UN or a foreign court can initiate an investigation and prosecution.

Cheney himself just set in motion a chain of events that the civilized world must see to its conclusion or cease to be the civilized world. For such a high official to escape the clear letter of these treaties and conventions, and to openly brag of it, renders such treaties and conventions meaningless.”

These are not my opinions and they are not hyperbole. They are legal facts. Either this country is governed by the rule of law or it isn’t. Cheney’s clear admission of his central role in authorizing waterboarding and the clear evidence that such waterboarding did indeed take place means that prosecution must proceed.

Washington’s Got a Secret—And They Intend to Keep It

14 Sunday Feb 2010

Posted by in Congress, economy, Financial Crisis, George W. Bush, Justice Department, Obama, Politics, Wall Street

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , , , ,

Gretchen Morgenson in yesterday’s New York Times on the lack of action on financial reform from our alleged representatives in the District of Columbia

“As Washington spins its wheels on financial reform, it’s becoming painfully clear that the problem of entities that are too interconnected or “too politically powerful to fail” is also too hard for our policy makers to tackle.”

What Ms. Morgenson calls Washington “spinning its wheels,” is more appropriately named the “appease the peasants” circus. That time-honored D.C. tradition of giving the appearance of doing something while actually, and intentionally, doing nothing. And it’s not that it’s “too hard to tackle,” they have a financial interest in not tackling it.

“As taxpayers, we obviously can’t rely on lawmakers to address the risks we face from the ever-expanding corporate safety net thrown under teetering behemoths. But because we are footing the bills for these rescues — and will do so again if more crises occur — don’t you agree that we should know what these implied federal guarantees will cost us?…If the government won’t reduce the size of the safety net, and it has shown no appetite for doing so, it should at least tell us the price tag.”

To the contrary, “the government”—and not just the Capitol Hill gang but those who give lip service to openness and transparency at the other end of Pennsylvania Avenue—is doing everything in its power to keep us from seeing that “price tag” as well as who received what.

“The Federal Reserve asked a U.S. appeals court to block a ruling that for the first time would force the central bank to reveal secret identities of financial firms that might have collapsed without the largest government bailout in U.S. history.

The U.S. Court of Appeals in Manhattan will decide whether the Fed must release records of the unprecedented $2 trillion U.S. loan program launched after the 2008 collapse of Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc.”

The Obama Justice Department cites the need for secrecy “confidentiality:”

“Confidentiality is essential to the success of the board’s statutory mission to maintain the health of the nation’s financial system and conduct monetary policy,” Assistant U.S. Attorney General Tony West and Fed lawyer Richard Ashton wrote in a legal brief to the appeals court.”

Never mind this:

“The lawsuit, brought under the U.S. Freedom of Information Act, came as President Barack Obama criticized the previous administration’s handling of the $700 billion Troubled Asset Relief Program passed by Congress in October 2008. Obama has said funds were spent by the administration of former President George W. Bush with little accountability or transparency.”

Hypocrisy you can believe in.

Obama DOJ v. Fourth Amendment

13 Saturday Feb 2010

Posted by in Bill of Rights, Constitution, Justice Department, Obama

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , ,

Meet the new boss, same as the old boss:

“The government argued on Friday that it should be allowed access to people’s cell-phone records to help track suspected criminals… A Justice Department attorney urged a federal appeals court to overturn lower court rulings denying it the right to seek information from communications companies about the call activity of specific numbers that authorities believe are associated with criminal activity.”

Believe? What happened to probable cause?

“Law enforcement agencies hope to obtain cell phone location data from cellular providers without first showing probable cause of a crime _ and without the customer’s knowledge. The data comes from cell phone towers, and in densely populated cities can pinpoint a person’s location to within a few hundred yards.

“An individual has no Fourth Amendment-protected privacy interest in business records, such as cell-site usage information, that are kept, maintained and used by a cell phone company,” [Justice Department lawyer Mark] Eckenwiler wrote in his brief.”

One of the judges on the Third Circuit panel hearing the case, Judge Dolores Sloviter, questioned Eckenwiler:

“You know there are governments in the world that would like to know where some of their people are or have been. Can the government assure us that it will never try to find out these things? Don’t we have to be concerned about this? Not this government right now, but a government?”

Yes, Judge Sloviter. This government. Right now.