This ancient place symbolizes for me how important it is to honor the past, know those who came long before us, exhibit craftsmanship, and build for the long haul. I have sought to do all this since 2005. While speaking out of very Progressive political leanings, I still maintain a deep love of the Constitution.
I credit favorite writers and public opinion makers. A lifelong Democrat, my comments on Congress, the judiciary and the presidency are regular features.
My observations and commentary are on people and events in politics that affect the USA or the rest of the world, and stand for the interests of peace, security and justice.
Showing posts with label Investigative journalism. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Investigative journalism. Show all posts
The Republican budget that has just been introduced favors the "One Percent." It would abandon large swaths of vulnerable people. Even though they claim credit for an improving economy, Congress will do nothing to fix the essential infrastructure needed to support and continue that healthy economy. The Keystone Pipeline benefits the Canadian economy. Texas turns farther towards the extreme right as each month passes. And we cannot protect the safety of the POTUS. These realities reinforce my worry about what is happening to the USA in early 2015 .
But there are bright spots that should not be ignored.
Not all Congressional Republicans are stupid or corrupt. Science continues to prevail. Truth continues to have its brave apologists. We can count on our centuries old friend, Europe, to have our back. Some states in the USA are not insane. And optimists tweet.
Where is the rule of law here? “Secret ‘Kill List’ Proves a Test of Obama’s Principles and Will.” This recent New York Times story has left more than a few people very unsettled. The headline poses the dilemma faced by the United States: Under whose law do we wage war? Will it be President Obama’s enforcement of the law, or the more widespread official legal system of U.S. Constitutional law – Common Law going back to the Magna Carta of 1215 AD? It is a terribly slippery slope upon which the so-called “war on terrorism” has embarked.
Stated policy does not have the true force of law. No matter how clearly the current executive branch system articulates the principles under which targeted drone killings occur, the President under our democratic system cannot act as prosecutor, judge and jury. That means either inside or outside of our national borders. The rule of law applies everywhere. The rules of war forbid killing of innocent civilians. No matter how much I politically support this president, plan to vote for him in November, believe in his intellect and skill and see him as my leader, his authority is limited by the Constitution’s separation of powers. I am not alone in this opinion. Many civil libertarians find the current revelations about the drone war deeply troubling.
No man is above the law. Congress represents the people and can speak for them. The courts interpret the law. Andrew Bacevich writes in Mother Jones about “America’s Rising Shadow Wars.” Subtitled, “President Obama has expanded secret military operations worldwide—a policy that carries serious risks,” the author argues that,
From a president's point of view, one of the appealing things about special forces is that he can send them wherever he wants to do whatever he directs. There's no need to ask permission or to explain. Employing USSOCOM as your own private military means never having to say you're sorry . . .
Once in a while, members of Congress even cast votes to indicate approval or disapproval of some military action. With special ops, no such notification or consultation is necessary. The president and his minions have a free hand. Building on the precedents set by Obama, stupid and reckless presidents will enjoy this prerogative no less than shrewd and well-intentioned ones.
The policies of the Obama administration have evolved a great deal since Barack Obama was Illinois’ Senator Obama. Faced with the expectation that our Presidents will keep us safe as seemingly any cost, President Obama has moved a very long way from where he began in his public service. “Drones: the Silent Killers” is from a Newsweek feature story at the Daily Beast. It opens with excerpts from Daniel Klaidman’s new book, Kill or Capture: The War on Terror and the Soul of the Obama Presidency. To quote:
The president's troubled reaction to a botched strike during his first month in office
His uneasy acceptance of "signature strikes" in Pakistan, or the targeting of groups of men who bear characteristics associated with terrorism, but whose identities aren’t known. Obama didn't like the idea of "kill 'em and sort it out later," says one source
The formation of a “special troika on targeted killings” that includes Obama, vice chairman of the Joint Chief James “Hoss” Cartwright, and counterterrorism aide John Brennan
Top State Dept. lawyer Harold Koh wondering, “How did I go from being a law professor to someone involved in killing?"
The president’s having “no qualms” about the fatal strike on American-born cleric Anwar al-Awlaki
Obama’s resistance—and ultimate relenting—to the use “signature strikes” on Yemen’s al Qaeda branch this spring
So when it comes to the rule of law over fighting suspected terrorists, it just depends on to whom you listen. We must listen to our President and his National Security Adviser, John Brennan, to Attorney General Eric Holder at the Justice Department, the Office of General Council, Tom Donilon, Chief of Staff/National Security Council, and others in the administration. And we must also listen to defenders of liberty from the Fourth Estate, the press.
The Obama administration continues to make national security decisions with which I might not agree. For example, Obama attorneys incorrectly argued for warrantless cell phone tracking, according to a Raw Story - 2/14 post. Glenn Greenwald from Salon.com (1/8/10) put his own disagreement even more strongly: "The backfiring of the surveillance state" is how he characterized the failure. To quote:
Every debate over expanded government surveillance power is invariably framed as one of "security v. privacy and civil liberties" -- as though it's a given that increasing the Government's surveillance authorities will "make us safer." But it has long been clear that the opposite is true. As numerous experts (such as Rep. Rush Holt) have attempted, with futility, to explain, expanding the scope of raw intelligence data collected by our national security agencies invariably impedes rather than bolsters efforts to detect terrorist plots. This is true for two reasons:(1) eliminating strict content limits on what can be surveilled (along with enforcement safeguards, such as judicial warrants) means that government agents spend substantial time scrutinizing and sorting through communications and other information that have nothing to do with terrorism; and (2) increasing the quantity of what is collected makes it more difficult to find information relevant to actual terrorism plots. As Rep. Holt put it when arguing against the obliteration of FISA safeguards and massive expansion of warrantless eavesdropping power which a bipartisan Congress effectuated last year:
It has been demonstrated that when officials must establish before a court that they have reason to intercept communications -- that is, that they know what they are doing -- we get better intelligence than through indiscriminate collection and fishing expeditions.
Intelligence gathering is a very hard business in any administration, including that of President Obama. Explaining the failure of the Intel community to detect the Christmas Eve attempt to blow up an airplane over Detroit, a new study financed by Congress, according to the New York Times (2/22/10), has found that hurdles stymie the National Counterterrorism Center. To quote:
. . . the study concludes, is a lack of coordination and communication among the agencies that are supposed to take the lead in planning the fight against terrorism, . . The findings come just weeks after the National Counterterrorism Center was criticized for missing clear warning signs that a 23-year-old Nigerian man was said to be plotting to blow up a Detroit-bound commercial airliner on Dec. 25.
. . . The report found that the center’s planning arm struggled with “systemic impediments” like overlapping statutes, culture clashes with different agencies and tensions with two formidable players: the State Department’s counterterrorism office and the C.I.A.
. . . The study called on Mr. Obama to issue an executive order to define the nation’s counterterrorism architecture in order to address some of the problems and improve coordination. It also recommended giving the center’s director, currently Michael E. Leiter, a say in the choice of counterterrorism officials at other federal agencies, a step the 9/11 Commission had recommended but was not adopted.
With all that, the current intelligence community is willing to try such completely unconventional methods as MCClatchy's (3/29/10) headline revealed: "Feds are thinking outside the box to plug intelligence gaps." Congress will be asked to appropriate funds for this project, as well as oversee it on behalf of the citizens they represent.
We all should be very grateful that intelligence oversight in Congress is no longer in the hands of former House Intelligence Committee chairman, Peter Hoekstra. Read the following little gem by David C. Morrison from CQ Behind the Lines (3/30/10). To quote:
Yemen, brother: “ ‘I’ll lead a preemptive strike on Yemen,’ Rep. Pete Hoekstra, R-Mich., vows, publicly stating his plans for the Michigan National Guard if he wins election as governor this fall,” Glossy News notes. ‘I’ve been leading on national security for the last nine years in Congress, trying to drive this administration in a policy direction that keeps America safe,’ Hoekstra said on ABC’s This Week. ‘Obama hasn’t shown interest in my concerns here, so I intend to strike with the reconstituted Michigan National Guard in Yemen. As the leading national expert, it’s certainly appropriate for me to promote this strike in Yemen. The leaders of that little speck of earth need to see what a ball buster a Michigan strike can be. They won’t know what hit them. I think the unemployed people of the fine state of Michigan can be of help to the safety of the citizens of the United States of America . . . Unemployed Michigan folks can come to the rescue of our dire situation here. And so say all of us.’”
Representative Hoekstra appears to have been completely serious in his above statement. I note that Michigan is where the FBI recently arrested and charged with sedition a group of militant militia members who were allegedly plotting to kill police. This gubernatorial candidate needs to be much more careful with his proposal to take up arms in his own "war on terror." His is a long history of ignoring the rule of law. For example, torture did not seem to bother him when he learned of it from the CIA. But we'll never know for sure because the CIA failed to keep accurate records of Congressional briefings.
The CIA has no idea what it briefed Congress on torture reported "emptywheel" at Firedoglake (3/16/10). The CIA did not keep adequate records of what was briefed to members of Congress in 2003 and 2004 regarding torture. To quote:
The CIA documents released in the latest FOIA batch prove that all the claims that CIA (and Crazy Pete Hoekstra) have made about briefings Congress received on torture are, at best, reconstructions based on years old memors, if not outright fabrications.
The documents appear to have been a summary of torture briefings CIA Office of Congressional Affairs put together on July 11, 2004 in anticipation of CIA’s Congressional briefing in July 2004.
The summary shows that:
CIA OCA didn’t even write up the briefings it gave Porter Goss and Jane Harman in February 2003 or the Gang of Four in September 2003 by July 2004. . . any claims they make about the content of those briefings cannot be said to be accurate. . .
The only MFR that OCA seemed to have completed in July 2004 is the February 4, 2003 briefing, at which Pat Roberts apparently unequivocally approved of destroying the torture tapes (and at which he also agreed to end nascent Congressional attempts at oversight).
In other words, the claims that CIA had detailed records about what Nancy Pelosi or Jane Harman or Jay Rockefeller said about destroying the torture tapes? They appear to be completely fabricated.
There is a related story regarding additional lawmakers'involvement coming out of this month's release of the CIA records, "Ex-Intel Committee Chair Blasts GOP Successor for Killing Torture Probe" is by David Corn from Mother Jones (3/3/10). Former Democratic Senator Bob Graham of Florida was chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee until January of 2003, when he was replaced by Republican Senator Pat Roberts of Kansas. To quote:
. . at the start of the US government's campaign against Al Qaeda [Graham] tells Mother Jones he cannot fathom why his Republican replacement squashed his request for an independent review of the interrogation techniques then being used by the CIA. . . he believes Sen. Roberts neglected his obligations as head of the intel panel by smothering Graham's proposal for a committee assessment of so-called enhanced interrogation practices.
On February 4, 2003, according to a CIA memo released last week, . . . a classified briefing [was presented] . . . to Roberts and an aide to Sen. Jay Rockefeller, the senior Democrat on the committee. Over the course of nearly two hours, the briefers covered the CIA's brutal interrogation (or torture)—including waterboarding—of two detained terrorist suspects, Abu Zubaydah and Abd al-Rahim al-Nashiri, and told Roberts of the agency's plan to destroy videotapes of the Zubaydah sessions. The memo noted that Roberts "posed no objection to what he had heard" and "supported the interrogation effort."
. . . [CIA briefer] Moskowitz told Roberts and the others that the CIA would not allow any additional committee staffers to be briefed on the interrogation program. Nor would the spy service permit any committee staffer to review the interrogations in real time or visit the secret site where these sessions were occurring. Roberts didn't protest. In fact, at that point, according to the CIA memo, Roberts "interjected that he saw no reason for the committee to pursue [Graham's] request and could think of 'ten reasons right off why it is a terrible idea' for the committee to do any such thing as had been proposed." No committee investigation ensued.
That is not the case in 2010. Senator Patrick Leahy (D-VT) held a Judiciary Committee hearing in late February regarding the Justice Department's recently released Office of Professional Responsibility report, which he has condemned. The Hill - 2/22/10 - had the story on the disappointing report that Senator Leahy investigated. To quote:
. . . a report that allowed two Bush administration officials to escape any formal punishment regarding their role in drafting the legal justification for the harsh interrogations of detainees.
Jay Bybee and John Yoo, two former high-level Bush administration officials who drafted the legal basis for the Bush administration’s treatment of overseas terror suspects, escaped any formal punishment . . .
The new report, written by Deputy Associate Attorney General David Margolis, reversed the recommendations of ethics officials within the department’s Office of Professional Responsibility (OPR), which earlier had concluded the state bar committees should decide whether Bybee’s and Yoo’s law licenses should be revoked.
As the previous year has shown, the current administration has not worked to restore privacy and civil liberties, trampled by the Bush administration. The Intel community still has too many elements that cannot analyze and communicate effectively. Few in the previous administration have been held accountable for transgressions of the rule of law. Congress failed to exercise adequate national security oversight, and remains weak in their responsibilities. And many Democrats and Republicans have completely different views of what constitutes adequate national security that operates well within the rule of law.
Additional references from CQ Behind the Lines by David C. Morrison (3/30/10). To quote:
Ways and means: The 2002 death of a suspected Afghan militant in the so-called Salt Pit — the only fatality known to have occurred inside the secret post-9/11 CIA prison network — is a cautionary tale, The Associated Press’s Adam Goldman investigates. “I believe that there is a discrepancy between what most Americans believe is legal and what the government is actually doing under the Patriot Act,” Secrecy News’s Steven Aftergood quotes Sen. Ron Wyden, D-Ore. “How does being watched affect the quality of our lives? You can argue that only terrorists and criminals would protest, but the reality is that none of us has the same privacy we had before,” Jay Fidell argues in The Honolulu Advertiser. “If, God forbid, Americans are ever rounded up in large numbers during a natural or man made disaster, where could they be detained?” Mark Anderson asks in The American Free Press, answering that FEMA surely has it figured out.
Trend analysis: is from a current news roundup by David C. Morrison at CQ Behind the Lines (3/30/10):
“The latest wave of jihadists traveling to Pakistan and elsewhere for training may have been motivated by a sense of jihadi cool*,” NPR’s Dina Temple-Raston leads. “A researcher has found that many terrorist organizations, including Hamas, are using their children’s Web sites in order to recruit girls for terrorist activities,” ANI leads.
ProPublica is a nonprofit investigative news organization that shares its material with all of us, making it available to freely republish. Following are a couple of very good articles. The story of Alhurra has been on their agenda for over a year. The latest piece by Dafna Linzer (9/17/09) reports that Alhurra will now be reviewed by the State Department Inspector General. Alhurra is essentially a propaganda broadcast operation set up by former President George W. Bush to put out information on U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East. The original ProPublica investigation was undertaken jointly with CBS's 60 Minutes. It's investigation, according to Linzer,
revealed serious staff problems, financial mismanagement and long-standing concerns inside the U.S. government and Congress regarding Alhurra's content. Those stories led to congressional inquiries in the House and Senate. The station has cost U.S. taxpayers more than $600 million since it began broadcasting in 2004.
The problems that have plagued this broadcast operation are only part of what is currently on the Obama administration's radar screen. The State I.G. has sent out a questionnaire to all employees to begin its work. Alhurra, which has cost taxpayers $600 million so far, is rated very low in popularity in the Middle East, it has experienced high rates of staff turnover and it was investigated last year by both the House and the Senate. The current administration's intentions are not clear at this point. The article reports that Walter Isaacson will be nominated to head the Broadcasting Board of Governors that oversees international government broadcasting, and believes that no decisions about the controversial broadcasting station will be made before the new BBG chairman is seated. Visit ProPublica's web page for a complete list of links to its previous articles on Alhurra.
**********
ProPublica recently published another very useful article by Emily Witt (9/10/09), titled: "Bush and Obama: A Counterterrorism Comparison." It is a side by side comparison to the two administrations' stances regarding "Interrogation, Rendition and CIA Black Sites, Detention, Military Commissions, Secrecy and Warrantless Wiretapping and Surveillance." Witt summarized by saying,
. . . what exactly has changed? Abusive interrogations have been banned, but renditions to other countries will continue. The prison at Guantanamo Bay has been ordered closed, but that hasn’t proven easy to do. Meanwhile, prisoners at the Bagram air base in Afghanistan — even those detained in other countries -- can still be held without charge. Memos on CIA interrogation practices have been released, but the details of some programs are still smothered In sum, there are clear differences between Bush and Obama, but some policies have stayed the same in the name of national security.
[Post date of original - 4/10/05] This post was reprised in honor of the just completed Netroots Nation convention in Pittsburgh. This organization came about as a direct result of Markos Moulitsas' blogging.
Dialy Kos' founder and host Markos Moulitsas was just interviewed by Brian Lamb on C-SPAN's Q & A program. It was a great conversation that really gave a rather accurate picture of what blogging is all about, for both novices and Nerds-in-the-Know. MM was open, candid and articulate about his motivations and biases. And at one point he talked about how anyone can become a blogger, which is where yours truly comes in.
I am one of the ones who do not have web page design capacities, so it is good that I do not have ambitions to be widely read. So my blog, on its standard template, will not stand out enough to catch many, if any, readers. But what I liked about MM's comments pertaining to bloggers of my type is that it was not a put-down. I did not feel diminished by his description of this type of writing; I felt accepted as one of the many variations of the Blog phenomena.
That talent for authenticity is typical of the great bloggers and why so many of us "go by to say 'hello' " to them every day. Thanks, Kos. What I can promise here is my own authenticity as best I can manage it, derived from many years of climbing up Maslow's "hierarchy of human needs."
After this interview the Daily Kos site was flooded with new visitors, reinforcing the host's willingness to go on television . He generally tries to avoid even watching the tube, feeling it is mostly too shallow. He was also flooded with requests for help from beginner bloggies like me. He referred them to the tool I use, so the sphere will be expanding a bit, with lil' bittie blogs like mine, and some who will turn out to have a real flair for it in the coming years. Talent will out; good luck to all. Just be authentic. That's what gives the satisfaction to both the reader and the writer.
Glenn Greenwald's "Unclaimed Territory" is at Salon.com. (Image at left) He was previously a constitutional lawyer and civil rights litigator in New York. On of a number of collaborators on big investigative stories, he is incredible bright and passionate and tells it like it is without blinking. Here's a recent good post: "John Brennan's dangerous national security advice" (8/14/09).
ACLU Blog of Rights - "Because Freedom Can't Blog Itself" is from the American Civil Liberties Union. Posts are about capital punishment, civil liberties, drug law reform, closing Guantanamo, free speech, government spying, human rights, immigrant rights, LGBT rights, racial justice, religion & belief, reproductive rights, torture and abuse, Supreme Court, voting rights and women's rights.
Secrecy News is a publication of the Federation of American Scientists. The FAS Project on Government Secrecy reports on new developments in government secrecy and provides public access to documentary resources on secrecy, intelligence and national security policy. It is written by Steven Aftergood. Here's a recent good story: "Information Sharing as a Form of Secrecy" (8/17/09).
Emptywheel (Marcy Wheeler) writes at Firedoglake. Marcy is the very best at investigative digging, and is a widely respected member of the collaborators that do the major investigative work in the blogosphere. Here is a typically good piece of work (this time on Dick Cheney): "The crazy man above the garage" (8/18/09).
Spy Talk at CQ Politics is a daily blog by Jeff Stein. His slogan is "Intelligence for Thinking People." His post, "Interrogator:'Intolerance' Led to Torture" (8/11/09) is an example of his investigative work using good contacts.
The Washington Independent's "National Security" section features Spencer Ackerman, one of the most respected sources contributing regularly to the collaborative efforts mentioned above. His story, "U.S. Prepares for Questions of Legitimacy in Afghan Election" (8/18/09) is subtitled, "United States May Push Winner To Incorporate Losing Factions Into Government."
Wired: Threat Level is about privacy, crime and security online. David Kravets often writes the posts. This one by Kim Zetter is titled "Outspoken Privacy Advocate Joins FTC" (8/17/09). It is about Christopher Soghoian, an outspoken privacy advocate.
Suburban Guerilla is by former journalist Susie Madrack. Her slogan is "Keeping a jaundiced eye on corporate media." Featured as a moderator at the recent Netroots Nation Convention, she also writes for Crooks and Liars. Her post on Matt Taibbi's searing article on progressives and health care reform (8/18/09) is worth the read.
Marc Ambinder at The Atlanticis a prolific contributor to Twitter. I follow him. To conclude this post, this is one of his recent important linked articles, from which I quote fairly extensively:
A federal judge dealt a setback yesterday to the administration's ability to use information collected by intelligence agencies in Guantanamo prosecutions. In doing so, Judge John Bates weighed in on one of the core controversies of the cases -- the tension between the protection of intelligence sources versus the ability to make cases in federal courts. Bates told the government that it could not introduce evidence derived from a source whose identity cannot be disclosed unless there's some corrobarating evidence. And even if there is corroborating evidence, it'll be treated with a bit of suspicion.
Still, in this particular case, Bates rejected the habeas petition of detainee Shawali Khan . . .
To understand the ruling, understand this about the process: the government faces the burden of providing sufficient evidence that its initial detention was within the proper sphere of the government's detention authority as defined by Congress and the Supreme Court. If the government meets the burden, then the detainee has to convince the judge that the government is wrong.
. . . The government introduced at least three pieces of classified evidence where the identity of the source was not disclosed. If the court can't assess the reliability of an intelligence report because the source is shadowy, the government can't use the information to justify a detention.
Bates threw out four pieces of evidence out of eight. But the remaining evidence was sufficient to meet the detention burden.
Today's post is a roundup of some of the best investigative resources on the Internet. The way I collected them was by noticing how the authors references each others' work as they posted their stories. There is no better recommendation.
Walter Cronkite passed away on Friday. The voice of the nation for so many years was 92 years old. From the time he was named the "anchor" of the CBS evening news program, he began to build a reputation for honesty and integrity than set a standard for all the major news anchors who were to follow in his footsteps.
His legacy for me was one of congruence. For decades his reports on so many of the key events here and around the world turned out to be congruent with the eventual meaning we all took to be the core significance of the most important events. In both emotional tone and the facts, his reporting was in agreement and coincided with that of most of the rest of us.
As a kid from the country in Wyoming, I did not experience television until I moved to Texas as a nursing student in 1955. From my first black and white, small screen television viewing I was hooked. And I was always drawn to the hard news. Like millions of others I wanted to know what was happening. I has a curiosity and a need to know, so I always watched the evening news. My choices were NBC and CBS. NBC got on the list because that was the network that would come in on our radio growing up. But CBS quickly became a close second as I listened to Edward R. Murrow, and then watched, his weekly broadcast.
Walter Cronkite succeeded Murrow. The managing editor of his own program, he was trained as a print journalist and comfortable on camera, a dynamite combination. And we soon found that he could tell us what was happening in ways that were congruent, clear, unbiased, simple and believable.
It was Walter Cronkite who told me that John F. Kennedy was dead, and showed his own devastated feelings silently and without shame. He was openly angry when his news crewmen were roughed up on the floor of a Democratic Convention in the searing sixties. He went to Vietnam and said out loud the truth of that awful war. President Lyndon Johnson was convinced of the reality of his lost leadership by that broadcast. Walter Cronkite went to the moon's dusty surface with the astronauts with the rest of us. He gaged it as a most significant event for humankind. But he missed by just a few days the 40th anniversary celebration of the moon landing that will be coming up on Monday. I am moved by the congruence of that. Last night the new NASA administrator, Charles Bolden released a lovely and poetic tribute to Walter Cronkite, noting that it was Walter Cronkite who inspired him to want to become an astronaut so many years ago. And I am moved by the congruence of that, as well.
Walter Cronkite, according to a contemporary, was not happy about having to retire. But he did it without public complaint. Acclaimed by most everyone, he popped up every now and then until he was well up in years. He was a sailor and loved to have the wind at his back and the bow of his craft splitting the waves. He lost his beloved wife, Betsy a few years ago. He was one of a kind and I feel grateful that I was able to find much of my truth from his take on the significance of all those momentous life changing events.
News items about national security are emerging more rapidly in recent weeks. Despite the stated preference for "not looking back," the stories have emerged that lead to a buildup of momentum. According to The New York Times, former Vice President Cheney is linked to the concealment of a highly classified CIA program, until it was recently revealed to Congress by CIA Director Leon Panetta. To quote:
Intelligence and Congressional officials have said the unidentified program did not involve the C.I.A. interrogation program and did not involve domestic intelligence activities. They have said the program was started by the counterterrorism center at the C.I.A. shortly after the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, but never became fully operational, involving planning and some training that took place off and on from 2001 until this year.
President Obama is increasingly under pressure to change his mind about investigating the Bush administration's security programs, despite the political risks. Sunday talk shows saw leading Democrats demanding to find out how a highly classified counter terrorism program was kept secret from the Congressional leadership on the orders of Vice President Dick Cheney. The New York Times published a subsequent news analysis that lays out where the investigative push is, and from whom. To quote:
. . . Mr. Obama said this weekend that he had asked his staff members to review the mass killing of prisoners in Afghanistan by local forces allied with the United States as it toppled the Taliban regime there.
Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr. is also close to assigning a prosecutor to look into whether prisoners in the campaign against terrorism were tortured, officials disclosed on Saturday.
And after a report from five inspectors general about the National Security Agency’s domestic eavesdropping said on Friday that there had been a number of undisclosed surveillance programs during the Bush years, Democrats sought more information.
. . . That makes four fronts on which the intelligence apparatus is under siege. It is just the kind of distraction from Mr. Obama’s domestic priorities — repairing the economy, revamping the health care system, and addressing the long-term problems of energy and climate — that the White House wanted to avoid.
Revelations about the CIA and torture, deliberate deception of Congressional Intelligence committees, and emerging Inspectors General reports seem to heading towards formal investigations that the Obama administration, including the Attorney General, and Congress may not be able to resist. Glenn Greenwald's post yesterday provides one of the best overviews of the current climate, along with what others who stay on top of these issues are saying. It seems that this tug of war is far from over. The weight of the law will somehow have its way, if we remain vigilant and have a bit of luck along the way.
Psychologists in the military were deeply involved with programs that utilized harsh interrogation techniques. And they did it with the the full support of the American Psychological Association (APA). The professional organization of psychologists supported the government’s illegal interrogation program. They were in advisory roles, they assisted with implementation and even initiated torture programs that are still being highly criticized, the more we find out. Calls for independent investigation have not diminished. Other prefessionals, such as doctors, psychiatrists and social workers withdrew their support of the government's policies.,"American Psychological Association Sees No Evil," is from ACLU Blog of Rights (6/16/09). To quote from the piece:
The role that psychologists played in the Bush administration’s detention and interrogation policies is slowly being made public.
. . . Meanwhile many, perhaps most, members of the APA were unaware of the policies that were being carried out in their name. I shall briefly describe how the APA aided and abetted the U.S. government in Guantánamo Bay and the CIA black sites, and the steps that a number of psychologists are taking to end this unholy alliance.
The ACLU today launched a major new campaign to impose accountability for torture and related Bush-era crimes. The campaign -- Accountability for Torture -- is devoted principally to a restoration of the rule of law and the appointment by the DOJ of a Special Prosecutor. The website to coordinate these efforts is here, and that site is also now probably the single best resource for all documents and other information relating to torture and accountability efforts. The ACLU has clearly led the way in battling for disclosure of Bush-era war crimes secrets -- so much of what we know is due to their litigation efforts and those of other civil liberties groups (rather than, say, the efforts of the "watchdog" media or the "oversight" Congress). But what has been missing up until now is a coordinated, centralized effort to galvanize public demands for accountability, and this project is intended to provide that.
At the American Civil Liberties Union's new "Accountability for Torture" action center, Executive Director Anthony Romerero suggests that interested people "help submit evidence and demand accountability" of Attorney General Eric Holder. (Democrats.com also offers a petition to Congress and A.G. Holder, that you can sign). To quote further from ACLU,
At this comprehensive and resource-filled new site, you can also view videos that make a powerful case for accountability…see profiles of the main architects of the Bush torture program…and use a search engine to examine the mountains of evidence the ACLU has obtained through Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) litigation.
The harsh interrogation techniques using torture started long before the Office of Legal Counsel gave advice and counsel or rules to those carrying out the interrogationsl. Salon.com's outstanding writer, Glenn Greenwald says what the new Jim Comey torture emails actually reveal, is different than what Bush administration spokesmen claim. To quote :
[regarding] how these DOJ torture memos were actually produced. The key excerpts tell the story as clearly as can be. Comey was vehemently opposed to a draft memo written by Acting OLC Chief Steven Bradbury -- ultimately dated May 10, 2005 (.pdf) -- that legally authorized the simultaneous, combined use of numerous "enhanced interrogation techniques" on detainees. This "combined techniques" memo was crucial because these were the tactics that had already been used on detainees, and -- after the prior OLC memos authorizing those tactics were withdrawn -- the White House was desperate for legal approval for what they had already done and what they wanted to do in the future.
Congressman Robert Wexler (D-Fla) is a fierce fighter for accountability regarding the Bush torture programs. He supports "an investigation into the Bush administration policies" and he has "introduced legislation that would establish a special select House Committee to reexamine our national security after a full investigation. . ." Representative Wexler reminds us that recently General David Petraeus supported President Obama's stance against torture. And General Ricardo Sanchez, "called for a truth commission to investigate the abuses and torture" while he was serving in Iraq, according to Wexler.
Jeff Stein, who writes Spy Talk for The Congressional Quarterly, recently made a very interesting behind the scenes report about the torture photographs that the White House does not want to reveal. His post, "Is the White House calling Tony Taguba a liar?," gives General Anthony Taguba, who officially investigated Abu Ghraib, credit for reportedly hinting at the fact that the torture photographs now in question existed. His very revealing post came as a result of an interview with Taguba as they were attending an off the record conference on torture recently in Florence, Italy. Stein described the meeting: "for three days last week, about 40 scholars, lawyers, government officials and journalists, mostly from the United States, gathered in Florence to talk about torture, among other urgent topics of the post-9/11 era."
Are public opinion polls the only measure of reality? Citing recent polls that "make clear that there are rising concerns about his policies," Congressional Quarterly (6/18/09) declares the honeymoon is over and that "It's on Obama's watch now." The concerns seem to center around spending resulting in big deficits, his interventions with car makers, and closing Guantanamo. Even though these are often the favorite Republican talking points, the story said that "voters view the Republican party unfavorably by a 2-t0-1 margin." The excellent article thoroughly explores the latest polling data from two big recent polls.
It will truly President Obama's watch only when the key members of his administration have been nominated and confirmed by the Senate. Senators are still holding up several nominations, including that of the very crucial head of the Office of Legal Counsel, Dawn Johnsen.
The Department of Homeland Security is also still without an intelligence chief. Jeff Stein, in his (6/5/09) blog Spy Talk, reported that nominee Phil Mudd's name is being withdrawn by the White House. Stein concluded, "Mudd was going to be questioned sharply by the Senate Government Affairs and Homeland Security Committee on his relationship to the CIA's counterterrorism policies and pre-war intelligence on Iraq, committee sources said." Stein wrote previously that "the writing was on the wall," before Mudd withdrew his name from consideration. It seems that Mudd is carrying too much baggage from his service in the Bush administration, according to Yahoo! News (6/5/09).
President Obama's release of the original OLC torture memos is what made all these important Bush administration revelations possible. We all hailed the decision as the correct one. It would seem that the President now, however, is rethinking a number of his commitments to open government and true transparency. Public opinion has not yet been measured on these questions.
Is the Obama administration currently trying to operate in an open and transparent way? There is recent news that the White House is continuing to insist on keeping secret who visits the White House. MSNBC and a nonpartisan watchdog group (CREW) made requests for visitor logs and were denied by the Secret Service, who is subject to the FOIA laws. This is a continuation of the policy of the Bush administration, who claimed in court cases that the records are "presidential," not Secret Service. Federal judges have ruled several times against the administrations' OLC filings and each time the OLC appeals. The current administration has said the the policy is currently under review. This was explained in the MSNBC article with a short transcript of Press Secretary Robert Gibbs' comments when questioned by reporters at a regular briefing.
In a related matter, Steven Aftergood covered President Obama's executive order to review the national security classification policy in Secrecy News (6/1/09). Over classification of government documents has been a growing problem for decades. But there are certainly very good reasons to classify information that relates to national security sources and methods. It is hard to say whether the CIA photos of detainee abuse fall into that category. I tend to think they do present a potential danger to troop safety, by providing incendiary arguments that terror networks can use for recruitment. But there are also very good arguments on the opposite side.
That same day Glenn Greenwald of Salon.composted convincingly against "Obama's support for the new Graham-Lieberman secrecy law," called "The Detainee Photographic Records Protection Act of 2009." The law would allow the government to suppress the remaining detainee abuse photos that President Obama originally intended to release. Greenwald asks,
What kind of a country passes a law that has no purpose other than to empower its leader to suppress evidence of the torture it inflicted on people?
. . . Is there really anyone who wants to argue that defiance of a federal court's order and enacting a new law authorizing suppression of torture evidence -- the disclosure of which is compelled both by courts and FOIA -- are remotely consistent with anything Obama said he would do, or remotely consistent with what a healthy democratic government would do?"
The mixed bag of approval of, or dissaproval for, President Obama's policies will inevitable follow these same trends. That is normal and natural as the Bush administration's influence fades, and as our President governs, rather than campaigns. My list of disappointments grows as the Justice Department appears to take on Bush's Constitutional assaults as their own in court case after court case. The trend seems to be that of never giving back an ounce of the unitary executive power grabbed by Mr. Bush and his cronies. The same stance is not becoming to AG Holder and to President Obama, fine men who should know better.
[regarding] how these DOJ torture memos were actually produced. The key excerpts tell the story as clearly as can be. Comey was vehemently opposed to a draft memo written by Acting OLC Chief Steven Bradbury -- ultimately dated May 10, 2005 (.pdf) -- that legally authorized the simultaneous, combined use of numerous "enhanced interrogation techniques" on detainees. This "combined techniques" memo was crucial because these were the tactics that had already been used on detainees, and -- after the prior OLC memos authorizing those tactics were withdrawn -- the White House was desperate for legal approval for what they had already done and what they wanted to do in the future.
The American Civil Liberties Union has established a new "Accountability for Torture" action center. Executive Director Anthony Romerero suggests that interested people "help submit evidence and demand accountability" of Attorney General Eric Holder. (Democrats.com also offers a petition to Congress and A.G. Holder, that you can sign). To quote further from ACLU,
At this comprehensive and resource-filled new site, you can also view videos that make a powerful case for accountability…see profiles of the main architects of the Bush torture program…and use a search engine to examine the mountains of evidence the ACLU has obtained through Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) litigation.
Congressman Robert Wexler (D-Fla) is a fierce fighter for accountability regarding the Bush torture programs. He supports "an investigation into the Bush administration policies" and he has "introduced legislation that would establish a special select House Committee to reexamine our national security after a full investigation. . ." Representative Wexler reminds us that recently General David Petraeus supported President Obama's stance against torture. And General Ricardo Sanchez, "called for a truth commission to investigate the abuses and torture" while he was serving in Iraq, according to Wexler.
Jeff Stein, who writes Spy Talk for The Congressional Quarterly, recently made a very interesting behind the scenes report about the torture photographs that the White House does not want to reveal. His post, "Is the White House calling Tony Taguba a liar?," gives General Anthony Taguba, who officially investigated Abu Ghraib, credit for reportedly hinting at the fact that the torture photographs now in question existed. His very revealing post came as a result of an interview with Taguba as they were attending an off the record conference on torture recently in Florence, Italy. Stein described the meeting: "for three days last week, about 40 scholars, lawyers, government officials and journalists, mostly from the United States, gathered in Florence to talk about torture, among other urgent topics of the post-9/11 era."
No blanket protection for the government -- This ACLU Blog of Rights post (6/5/09) elaborates on "the long-overdue State Secret Protection Act of 2009 (H.R. 984)." To quote further:
. . . now the tide is finally turning. In April, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals overturned a lower court’s ruling on the Jeppesen case, noting, in Mr. Wizner’s words, that “the state secrets privilege should be applied to discrete pieces of evidence instead of entire cases.” And at yesterday’s hearing, most of the members and witnesses agreed with Mr. Nadler’s statement that “the Executive cannot be its own judge.”
. . . We fully agree with witness Asa Hutchinson’s assertion that the executive branch should “not be immune to checks and balances,” as well as Hon. Patricia Wald’s statement that this “legislation is long overdue.” The three branches of government are supposed to be co-equal, and Congress is completely justified in creating legislation that balances the Executive’s power.
President Jimmy Carter "disagrees with President Obama's decision to block the release of photographs that depict U.S. use of torture and other harsh interrogation methods under the Bush administration." The story is from the ACLU Blog of Rights (6/2/09).
House Hearing held in June -- The Constitution, Civil Rights and Civil Liberties subcommittee of the House Judiciary committee, chaired by Rep. Jerry Nadler (D-NY), held a hearing Thursday "to examine how to curb abuse of the privilege, while protecting true state secrets. . . Testifying at Nadler's hearings will be Patricia Wald, a retired federal judge; Asa Hutchinson, the former GOP congressman from Arkansas; Ben Wizner of the ACLU; and Andrew Grossman of the Heritage Foundation." The report comes from TPM Muckraker (6/1/09).
President Obama has ordered two reviews of government secrecy, one examining whether too much information is classified and another examining whether the system for protecting other sensitive information needs to be streamlined.
He set a deadline of 90 days to complete the recommendations. National security adviser James L. Jones would lead the review of classified information, which would consider ideas such as establishing a center to conduct classification reviews and restoring the “presumption against classification” that was suspended by President George W. Bush .
The reviews would include recommendations on building a National Declassification Center, a proposal Obama made on the campaign trail. Obama’s memo, released Wednesday, said the reviews are a reflection of an administration that “is committed to operating with an unprecedented level of openness.”
A new government-wide policy on “controlled unclassified information”(CUI) is still more than a year away from implementation, but not because of any lack of attention or interest. To the contrary, it is the subject of rather intensive policy deliberation, officials say, and is not “languishing” as Secrecy News stated on May 11.
CUI refers generally to information that is restricted in some way other than by national security classification. Because such restrictions have taken many different forms and names — such as sensitive but unclassified, official use only, limited official use, and more than a hundred others — they have also become a disruptive barrier to communication and a source of confusion inside and outside of government.
A federal court last week rejected most of the objections raised by the Federal Bureau of Investigation to publication of a 500-page manuscript critical of the FBI counterterrorism program that was written by retired FBI Special Agent Robert G. Wright. The manuscript had been submitted for pre-publication review in October 2001.
Democrats are not the only ones who are upset with the executive -- "Republicans press for greater disclosure," is by Steven Aftergood from Secrecy News (5/7/09). To quote:
"Questions of secrecy and disclosure are increasingly prominent in congressional interactions with the executive branch, particularly on the part of Republican members of Congress.
House Republicans wrote (pdf) to Defense Secretary Gates this week to complain about what they called “a disturbing trend of restricting budget and inspection information within the Department of Defense.”
Which federal documents are most sought?"Various Resources" is by Steven Aftergood at Secrecy News (3/26/09). He reports that,
A survey of the “most wanted” government documents that should be publicly available but are not was recently conducted by OpenTheGovernment.org and the Center for Democracy and Technology. They reported their findings in “Show Us the Data: Most Wanted Federal Documents” (pdf), March 2009.
“Where once we [the United States] were seen as the world’s leader in intellectual discourse and debate, we are now viewed as withdrawn and unconcerned with any views other than our own,” wrote Senator Richard Lugar in the introduction to a new Senate Foreign Relations Committee report that advocates renewed engagement in public diplomacy and outreach to foreign audiences. See “U.S. Public Diplomacy — Time to Get Back in the Game” (pdf), February 13, 2009.
Congress, the CIA and Torture -- A Reprise: Congress has the responsibility to provide formal oversight to the Central Intelligence Agency. The CIA is all about the business of national intelligence, which means that much is secret. But it is not supposed to be kept secret from the Congress. Over the month of May Congress and the CIA have been in a bit of a battle. Here are the main milestones.
"After reviewing CIA records, lawmakers still divided on interrogation briefings," is from the Washington Post (5/23/09). To quote: ". . . rather than emerging with clear agreement on what the memos reveal about the CIA briefing House Speaker Nancy Pelosi received in 2002, and whether she was aware that aggressive interrogation methods were being used on terrorism suspects, lawmakers remain as divided as ever about the story they tell."
“I have made the statement that I’m going to make on this,” she added. “I’m not going to have anything more to say about it. I stand by my comments.”
Asked about Republican attacks on her statements, Pelosi said she would not be distracted from the priorities of the Obama administration and the Democratic-controlled Congress.
The House on Thursday rejected a Republican resolution to investigate Speaker Nancy Pelosi's assertions that the CIA misled her during a 2002 classified briefing on interrogation techniques. . . The debate over the resolution followed weeks of partisan antagonism over Pelosi’s statements about the briefings. Republicans have seized on the issue to try to undercut Democrats’ claim that the George W. Bush administration’s interrogation practices, which some have labeled torture, violated international treaties."
"Obama defends his decision to close Guantanamo," is from CQ Politics (5/21/09). To quote: "President Obama on Thursday delivered a blistering critique of both his predecessor’s counterterrorism policies and Republican attacks on his own national security decisions, in a wide-ranging speech at the National Archives in Washington?"
"Obama should rethink Gitmo closing, GOP leaders say," comes out of the CQ Politics news of 5/17/09. To quote: "President Obama may have to readjust his deadline to close the Guantánamo military prison since both Democratic and Republican lawmakers oppose bringing any detainees to the United States. . . Senate Minority Leader, Mitch McConnell . . . Rep. Peter King of New York"
"Graham: They claimed to have briefed before torture, did not," is by emptywheel (5/15/09). To quote: ". . . about Bob Graham . . . CIA . . . gave erroneous dates for three briefings. . . the CIA tried to claim it had briefed Graham on torture in April 2002, which would have put it in compliance with the National Security Act. But Graham, by consulting his trusty notebooks, proved that claim to be false."
"Pelosi: CIA told us waterboarding 'was not being employed'," is by emptywheel (5/14/09). Marcy opens, "Pelosi has confirmed something I've been pointing out for weeks. When the CIA briefed Pelosi and Goss on September 4, 2002, it told them that waterboarding was not being employed."
"Senator Bob Graham: The CIA made up two briefing sessions," is by emptywheel (5/14/09). To quote Marcy's intro: "Bob Graham just appeared on WNYC's Brian Lehrer Show. In addition to repeating earlier reports that he was never briefed on waterboarding, Graham revealed that the first time he asked the CIA when he was briefed on torture, it claimed it had briefed him on two dates when no briefing took place."
Here in D.C. we’ve had back-to-back hearings touching on the use of torture. Yesterday, the Senate Judiciary subcommittee held a hearing on torture that featured testimony from former FBI agent Ali Soufan, former State Department advisor and executive director of the 9/11 Commission Philip Zelikow, and several legal experts. . . . Next up was Attorney General Eric Holder who faced off with the House Judiciary Committee today in a general Department of Justice (DOJ) oversight hearing.
To assess whether interrogators complied with the department's guidance, Senate intelligence committee investigators are interviewing those involved, examining hundreds of CIA e-mails and reviewing a classified 2005 study by the agency's lawyers of dozens of interrogation videotapes, according to government officials who said they were not authorized to be quoted by name. Officials familiar with the Justice Department's inquiries into policymaking on detainees during the Bush administration said Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr. has not ruled out conducting a similar investigation."
"Democrats Seek More Interrogation Documents," comes from The Washington Post (5/4/09). To quote: "Fallout from the Bush administration's detainee interrogation practices persisted yesterday, with House Democrats requesting documents that reportedly challenged the decision to use methods critics have likened to torture."
"Reyes backs Pelosi on intel briefings," is the post from The Hill (5/1/09). To quote: "House Intelligence Committee chairman Silvestre Reyes said he agrees with House Speaker Nancy Pelosi that members of Congress have been too limited in how they can respond to briefings about intelligence policies they oppose."
Today's post summarizes the key milestones in the battle between the CIA and Congressional overseers. It will be useful as a reminder and a reference regarding just how hard fought it has been for both the protagonists.
![Reblog this post [with Zemanta]](http://img.zemanta.com/reblog_e.png?x-id=07841818-b205-8ed5-bc00-956db32b55b2)
![Reblog this post [with Zemanta]](http://img.zemanta.com/reblog_e.png?x-id=7cdd064b-e702-4520-86d9-7568289907c9)
![Reblog this post [with Zemanta]](http://img.zemanta.com/reblog_e.png?x-id=f0bb9587-1a11-4a73-ab58-75f1e3809b05)