Morning all. Rainy Friday here. But I had to share my smile at this one with everyone.

About. Damned. Time.

Morning Christy. Getting Goss to testify would be wonderful. If we started now maybe he could take the stand before the 2016 election. Have we heard from KKKarl yet?

How long before Obama shuts down this grand jury in the interest of moving on?

According to the new DOJ guidelines, he can’t — its an ongoing investigation and the WH can’t interfere in it absent a very specific criteria.

Oy, Jonah Goldberg is next guest on WJ. I’m outta here before I through up.

Well, that’s good news.

Typed this before, but it’s worth repeating. I’m halfway thru Horne’s Savage War of Peace, the classic about the Algerian war of independence. The difference between the French public and the U.S. public is that the French, when they found out about the torture in Algeria (which didn’t become public for quite a number of years), were outraged. In the U.S. torture is a yawn.

How about adding perjury to Porter’s list list of indiscretions?

On March 18, 2005, Reuters reported that Porter Goss “defended his spy agency’s current interrogation practices but could not say all methods used as recently as last December conformed to U.S. law.
“U.S. officials do not view torture as a method for gaining vital intelligence, Goss said. But he acknowledged some CIA operatives may have been uncertain about approved interrogation techniques in the past.”
Goss told the Senate Armed Services Committee “‘The United States does not engage in or condone torture, … I know for a fact that torture is not productive. That’s not professional interrogation. We don’t torture.’”

Excellent book. Too bad none of our civilian or military leadership never read it. Figured they got all they needed to know from the film The Battle of Algiers.

Perjury is a given but what about witness tampering I bet everyone else at the CIA when he ran it all had stories just like their bosses.
And no I do not believe in Coincidence, Supply side economics or the toothfairy.
( ok I only have doubts about the toothfairy)

Here’s a link to my piece on the new DOJ guidelines that are designed to prevent political interference in day to day operations. Just in case anyone needed a refresher on that one…

Loyal Bushies watch a foreign film from France?

The list of history books that were not read and contemplated before the craptastic policy decisions of the last few years would fill the entire Library of Congress, I fear. They could have started with the British in Afghanistan in the 1800s and moved forward from there, for starters.

In calling for a special counsel, Biden questioned whether Mukasey was suited to oversee the Justice Department investigation, given his ambivalence during his confirmation hearing over what constitutes torture.

“He’s the same guy who couldn’t decide whether or not waterboarding was torture, and he’s going to be doing this investigation,” Biden said.

http://articles.latimes.com/20…..errogate10

What is it when a prosecutor like Mukasey refuses to investigate a crime?

Wait, that’s a trick question, right?

Malpractice?

Obstruction, breach of fiduciary obligation to the public and a crappy job?

anything that comes with possible subtitles would definitely NOT be on their list.

Maybe we should put together a reading list for a month on the economy war law torture submit books and vote.
Then lets challenge the righty blogs lets see what they pick.
To bad they are sooo politically correct otherwise Mein Kampf would be G.W’s pick.
Rove would pick something by Gobbels and Bush’s Generals something by the German general who got stuck attacking Russia in the winter time.

Is doing a crappy job punishable?

W would pick The Bible. Better PR value for him. Of course, reading it a little more closely and contemplating ALL of its lessons instead of the cherry-picked convenient ones? Might be even more valuable, but I’m not holding my breath.

Ahh but do we have a shot at getting him to trial on that cause if we do I’m sure he will squeal on Bush Prosecutor’s know what jail is like.

Because if doing a crappy job is punishable, I’d like to nominate the entire New York State Legislature. I’d also nominate Gov. Paterson except that we don’t have a Lt. Gov. now so that would leave whoever is the head of the Senate..today (it seems to devolve to whoever has gone to the bathroom).

Depends on the intent of the doing. And that’s always tough to prove absent written documentation or a stooge in the higher rankings.

I think you are forgetting ‘My Pet Goat”.

Do you need to prove intent when its obvious? War Crimes and Torture have been settled law there is no question its illegal.
If Mukasey knew no legal opinion from Jon Yoo should save him. At the very least him and Yoo should be Disbarred.
Any move by lawyers on that front?

Dunno. Ask Rush Limbaugh re his job.

BWAHAHAHA! (Church Lady Saturday Nite Live Voice) Isn’t…. SATAN a Goat?

“Mon Animal de Chèvre”

Destruction of evidence is not something you should just forgive and forget.

Of course not, unless you are of the sort that is uninterested in looking backward when it comes to prosecution of perpetrators of officially sanctioned torture. BTW, that sort is ever too eager to prosecute the victims of such torture with the very confessions that were tortured out of them, “involuntary statements” is the euphemism du jour.

Which brings us full circle to “crappy job.”

Suppose a lawyer at a firm is aware of another lawyer stealing from a client he should report that lawyer right.
What happens if he does not report that lawyer? Torture I am assuming is worse than stealing.

Even when you don’t like the person in question, you still have to prove your elements in a court of law in order to win your case and sustain a verdict. You don’t get a pass because the person in question is a jerk.

If so, my job as a prosecutor would have been a whole lot easier back in the day.

In terms of the political arena, though? The standard of proof isn’t so high. Which is why I bring this up again. Because public shaming cannot happen enough for what was done to the rule of law.

Christy, your link to people in White House who watched videos brings me to a post of yours about coffee….???

In his book, Barry and the Boys (2001), Daniel Hopsicker published a photograph given to him by the wife of Barry Seal. Hopsicker claims that the picture “was taken at a night-club in Mexico City on January 22, 1963″ and includes members of Operation 40. It has also been suggested that one of the men in the photograph is Porter Goss. According to Don Bohning, Goss claimed he had “never heard of Operation 40,” but declared with some vehemence the man identified in the nightclub photo “categorically, decisively and completely was not me.”

We need to send at least one high profile Bushy to jail for torture and then the rest will either rush to make a deal or call for a truth commission.
Now who is the easiest fish to catch?

Dang it — it should have been one of Marcy’s – hold on…

Operation 40?

Rummy

From the Times piece:

Mr. Durham has shrouded his investigation in a level of secrecy rare even by the normally tight-lipped standards of special prosecutors, and after 18 months it is still difficult to assess either the direction or the targets of his investigation.

On one end of the scale is Patrick Fitzgerald, and at the other is Ken Starr.

Durham is no Ken Starr.

(Oh, and does it both anyone else that this story is filled with passive voice constructions like “so-and-so is said to have . . .”?)

Jane has a new post up…

“No idea why, but this just makes me smile”

Eventually, true motivations reveal themselves. As I have said all along, this is all about a blood thirst for revenge, not an insatiable quest for justice. There is a huge difference.

History Rhymes.

On 11th December, 1959, Colonel J. C. King, chief of CIA’s Western Hemisphere Division, sent a confidential memorandum to Allen W. Dulles, the director of the Central Intelligence Agency. King argued that in Cuba there existed a “far-left dictatorship, which if allowed to remain will encourage similar actions against U.S. holdings in other Latin American countries.” (1)

As a result of this memorandum Dulles established Operation 40. It obtained this name because originally there were 40 agents involved in the operation. Later this was expanded to 70 agents. The group was presided over by Richard Nixon. Tracy Barnes became operating officer of what was also called the Cuban Task Force. The first meeting chaired by Barnes took place in his office on 18th January, 1960, and was attended by David Atlee Phillips, E. Howard Hunt, Jack Esterline, and Frank Bender.

According to Fabian Escalante, a senior officer of the Cuban Department of State Security (G-2), in 1960 Richard Nixon recruited an “important group of businessmen headed by George Bush (Snr.) and Jack Crichton, both Texas oilmen, to gather the necessary funds for the operation”. (2) This suggests that Operation 40 agents were involved in freelance work.

It is known that at this time that George Bush and Jack Crichton were involved in covert right-wing activities. In 1990 The Common Cause magazine argued that: “The CIA put millionaire and agent George Bush in charge of recruiting exiled Cubans for the CIA’s invading army; Bush was working with another Texan oil magnate, Jack Crichton, who helped him in terms of the invasion.” (3) This story was linked to the release of “a memorandum in that context addressed to FBI chief J. Edward Hoover and signed November 1963, which reads: Mr. George Bush of the CIA” (4)

We just have to prove that Mukasey knew about the WH torturing people and since he is the prosecutor either he a underling or a special prosecutor should have investigated.
Not investigating a crime he was aware of I think is the easy thing to prove. We need to get a high level Bushy on something that involves prison time.
I am open to any suggestions.

If Mukasey knew no legal opinion from Jon Yoo should save him. At the very least him and Yoo should be Disbarred

Per yesterday’s LA Tiimes:

[…]

White wrote: “Like any other government official, government lawyers are responsible for the foreseeable consequences of their conduct.” True. But offering a legal interpretation, even a flawed or foolish one, isn’t conduct; it’s an intellectual enterprise. Conscientious lawyers shouldn’t have to fear that their judgment of what the law allows will implicate them in policies they may abhor — or in abuses that go beyond what the policies allow.

The exception to that principle occurs when a lawyer deliberately distorts the law in order to further a preferred policy goal or flatter a political patron. Whether Yoo or Bybee breached legal ethics in that way has been the subject of an investigation by the Justice Department’s Office of Professional Responsibility, which can recommend discipline to state bar associations. That process, not a civil suit for damages, is the best way to hold lawyers accountable for malpractice.

IMNSHO, “a lawyer deliberately distorts the law in order to further a [criminal] policy goal” is party to a conspiracy and should be prosecuted accordingly.

Should be fixed now. Refresh your screen — I screwed up the link. Sorry about that.

Excuse me? No, it’s about Porter Goss finally having an accountability moment on this. Since he was CIA director at the time that the tape destruction occurred, he ought to have at least one moment of accountability for destruction of evidence, don’t you think?

This has nothing to do with bloodlust. It has everything to do with the rules applying to everyone equally — even the folks who used to hold the reins of power.

Cool I can’t wait to hear their decision:)

Thank You:)

We still haven’t seen the OPR report on that, either. I know both Whitehouse and Leahy have been asking for it, along with Feingold as well. But no one has gotten a copy as yet — it’s gotten stuck somewhere and no one knows why.

I would expect, at the very least, some discussion of referral to bar associations for disciplinary action if there is evidence of deliberately shoddy legal work to maintain whatever fiction of an outcome they wanted rather than doing the thorough review of the full law as required by the OLC mandate. Not including Youngstown in any of the analysis is a humongous flaw in the legal work…but the question is, will OPR be able to find evidence of deliberate intent in the writing of it that way in order to skew the law toward a predetermined outcome? My bet is yes, but it will depend on interviews with others in OLC and elsewhere in DOJ.

As I have said all along, this is all about a blood thirst for revenge, not an insatiable quest for justice.

The main reason for accountability and punishment is to serve as a deterrent to others, i.e., to serve notice to members of future administrations that our laws will be enforced even on them.

Thanks, Christy … Unfortunately we’re not talking about negligence or incompetence here. I’m half way through Philippe Sands’ Lawless World, and Cheney’s intention was fully realized from falsified intelligence to the outing of Valerie Plame to destruction of evidence to secret rendition, prisons and torture. This was a triumph of state secrets and political manipulation at the expense of our Constitution and the rule of law.

Without a critical mass of citizen outrage and demands for accountability, these crimes will remain buried in plain sight.

We can respectfully disagree then. It’s my very considered and thoughtful opinion that you are wrong. I have spent countless hours reading and participating in discussions with people who are on the far-left ideologically when it comes to foreign policy.

There is not a shadow of a doubt in my opinion that this very “Johnny come lately” love of the rule of law is inconsistent with what the far-left has always believed. They always embraced being soft on crime, being understanding of criminal behavior and consistently embraced a “don’t prosecute” mentality. With great validity in my opinion I might add.

I believe that this manic pursuit of Bush-Cheney administration worker bees is motivated by revenge and hate, not by a sincere desire for justice. That one would take glee at all of this, . . . “I had to share my smile at this one with everyone” . . . to me is indicative of what I contend.

This is about Bush v. Gore 2000, it’s about Ohio 2004, it’s about screaming and punching back to let go of some of the eotional frustrations that built up during Bush-Cheney. It’s not about doing what is best for this country in 2009, it’s not about intentionally choosing to rip this country to shreds at a time when it needs to come together.

Barack Obama realizes that discretion is the better part of valor. That is why he is a statesman, that is why he is President.

Seriously?!? I used to put murderers in prison for life for a living. Soft on crime, my ass.

You can have your own warped perspective all you like, but the absolute last thing you can honestly call me is soft on crime. Nor can you say that I’m a Johnny come lately to the rule of law — it’s been the focus of what I’ve done with my professional life for years, both as a defense lawyer and as a prosecutor.

That was just plain insulting and utterly false.

No need to personalize this, I was not referring to any one person I was commenting generally on what I perceive. I don’t know your background and if you have always been totally and consistently committed to the rule of law, then I applaud you.

I stand by my commentary on the far-left as a whole as regards thi issue.

There is not a shadow of a doubt in my opinion that this very “Johnny come lately” love of the rule of law is inconsistent with what the far-left has always believed. They always embraced being soft on crime, being understanding of criminal behavior and consistently embraced a “don’t prosecute” mentality. With great validity in my opinion I might add.

You are operating from some distorted stereotypes.

Christy was a prosecutor for many years. And the call for enforcement of the laws against war crimes, which were sponsored and passed by Republican, spans the political spectrum. For example, many libertarians and even former Reagan and Nixon officials, e.g., Ron Paul, Justin Raimondo, Bruce Fein believe that these laws should be enforced.

The fact of the matter is that it is the right, specifically the neoconservatives, has recently embraced this notion that government officials should be above the law. You won’t read much of that in the American Conservative.

Hey, I believe that most conservatives hate the fact that America ended slavery.

-G

And of course we see conservatives like Rush “I hope Obama Fails” Limbuagh, Glenn “Let’s Foment a Revolution” Beck, Dick “I hope we get attacked by Al Qaida” Cheney and the rest of the reprobate right are hoping for America to collapse to satisfy their childish egos and vile ideals.

Did you get some stimulus money for your strawman factory?

-G

I was not referring to any single person nor was I referring to neocons. I was commenting on the left historically and what I perceive/believe is the real reason for the far-left’s insatiable thirst for revenge. It’s ok to disagree with me, I would expect nothing else here.

Bottom line to me and seemingly, also to Barack Obama, is that now is not the time to intentionally rip this country apart. There are far too many conservatives, Republicans and moderate Democrats both amongst the public and in Congress who would go ballistic should this happen now. The result would be a bloodbath and a completely divided country. Nothing else would get done, no health care reform, nada. The Democrats would lose control of Congress and the Presidency. It would be a disaster.

If you think the average Joe American cares about this right now you are sadly mistaken. They care about jobs, health care, security, education, etc. In the words of Grace Slick, “it doesn’t mean shit to a tree.

There are far too many conservatives, Republicans and moderate Democrats both amongst the public and in Congress who would go ballistic should this happen now.

Sure, and maybe they’d hold their breath and stamp their feet and vote against everything the Democrats propose. The fact of the matter is that they are already ballistic. So, holding themselve hostage simply won’t work this time.

The result would be a bloodbath and a completely divided country.

The country is already divided. The “party of ‘no’” will not cooperate on anything, and if they get more violent, we have the forces to deal with them.

Nothing else would get done, no health care reform, nada. The Democrats would lose control of Congress and the Presidency.

It’s called “multi-tasking.” Prosecutors prosecute, while legislators legislate. These activities can easily proceed in parallel. Perhaps, covering both would over-stretch the mainstream media, but that’s their problem.

I respect your opinion. I just disagree. I think you underestimate the severity of the backlash and push back that would occur. It would be the only headline, there would be no political will to do anything.

I also do not think some are taking into account the emotional bent of many average Americans. The American people just do not care that much about a handful of terrorists getting water boarded, especially KSM. Yes, there are many more less prominent people who were tortured, but the reality is KSM is the pneumonic poster child for the entire matter. The public knows him as the man who masterminded 9-11 and had Daniel Pearl beheaded. Doesn’t make that perspective right – but anyone that doesn’t think that the public’s emotional response isn’t relevant is not living in the real world.

I am just giving my interpretation of how I see the reality out there. What I wrote above is not my opinion, just my perspective, so save your nitroglycerin pills.

Been in and out this morning working in the yard. Wigwam, don’t waste your breath responding to the troll. ‘It’ is not interested in furthering any solutions, it is only interested in putting forth the argument that the ‘far-left’ (I’m not sure who this ‘far-left’ group actually is) is only interested in revenge. ‘It’ tries to say it is not referring to a single person, yet tries to lump all of the ‘far-left’ together as one homogeneous group.

I would argue that history demonstrates that the left has a thirst for justice rather than revenge – especially social and individual justice. It is the actions of the left – suffragettes, union organizers, civil rights organizers – that have led to many of the laws we now have. It has always been those who strive for social justice (call them ‘left’ or ‘far-left’ if you will – I just call them people with a moral compass), whose actions it has taken to move the middle of society, and our nation, towards that “more perfect union” that we have always heard about.

I wonder if the troll goes to any of the wingnut sites and talks about the hate and fear-mongering of the right and far-right. I sincerely doubt it.

That’s right – call me a troll because I happen to politely disagree with you. I am interested in solutions. I am interested in furthering traditionally liberal and democratic policy without a historical chance to succeed being derailed by extremist fringe activists on the far left. You and yours do great harm to this country and I resent it. I value liberal supreme court justices and countless other liberal policy initiatives designed to improve the lives of working people in this country.

I realize that staying in power, keeping Obama as president and Democrats in control of congress is what is in this country’s best interest.

In response to SouthernDragon @ 8 (show text)
Loyal Bushies watch a foreign film from France?

About French colonialism, but was an Italian film, thus OK for Murkins to watch.

It seems ‘it’ responded to my comment, even though I was only advising Wigwam to ignore it. I’m not sure who these ‘extremist fringe activists on the far left’ are, again the term is (purposely) undefined, and as far as me and mine doing harm to this country, if working for justice is harm, then I’m guilty. As I stated earlier, my primary concern is with social and individual justice, not just for Americans, for people everywhere (even those ‘evildoers’ who we illegally tortured). A little social justice will certainly improve the lives of working people like me, even if it’s only from the standpoint of achieving a little moral satisfaction.

I am interested in getting more progressive Democrats in Congress, the rest of them can go to hell as far as I’m concerned. I worked to get Obama elected, I canvassed in-state and out of state for him. I have taken a wait-and-see approach in these early months, but what I’m seeing so far is not encouraging.

So far the actions have not matched the words – that was one tell-tale sign that the Bush administration were total liars, and it was evident early on; the actions were 180 degrees opposite from the words. I’ve found that with politicians, it’s always best to take a view through a teenager’s eyes – they can spot bullshit a mile away. Like the old sying goes, actions talk, bullshit walks. Anyone with kids knows this. And if a politician’s actions start straying from the flowery words, you’ve got to poke them a bit.

What you fail to realize sir is that this is not a far-left country. A recent Gallup poll found that 75% of all Americans described themselves as conservative or moderate, while 23% described themselves as liberal.

You say, ” I am interested in getting more progressive Democrats in Congress, the rest of them can go to hell”. Who are you to tell the people of Louisiana that they can’t elect Mary Landrieu to represent their values in congress? Or suggest they go to hell?

The extreme left these days is not my democratic liberal party. It is hateful, rude, vulgar and completely outside of the mainstream of political thought in this country.

the far-left’s insatiable thirst for revenge
…
this very “Johnny come lately” love of the rule of law is inconsistent with what the far-left has always believed

Back this up. Quotes and citations.

Where has anyone at Firedoglake not been for the Rule of Law?

And what’s this baloney about a “thirst for revenge” ?

They are “my” opinions. I do not have to back up opinions that are based on my life experiences and observations. I have been actively involved in politics and activism since the Vietnam War and am well acquainted with what the prevailing sensibilities of liberals and democrats has been historically. I have never seen a more hateful, vengeful far-left than now.

Oh no you don’t. You say we are “johnny come latelys’ to the Rule of Law” That’s not an opinion, it’s an accusation.

Not true. You won’t back it up because you can’t.

Right. Liberals have always been for Law and Order, please! You’re not going to use your Sean Hannity tactics on me. The left has always been anti-police, anti-FBI, anti-CIA. Public defenders have been overwhelmingly liberal. Liberals have always been anti-death penalty, for lesser sentences for drug offenders, for treatment programs instead of incarceration, rehabilitation not punishment, rights for accused over victims, anti owning and using firearms for self defense.

I happen to support liberal positions on crime – but that’s not the issue here. Honesty and not hypocrisy is. Don’t tell me that liberals have always been for law and order. That’s a joke.

lame-O

you got nothin’

I just gave you a plethora of liberal positions on crime over the years. You just don’t like it when someone calls you on your hypocrisy and proves it.