What She Said

A case was just decided in the Supreme Court 5-4 to the effect that a judge must recuse himself from hearing a case a party to which has given that judge a large campaign contribution. That seems like a no-brainer, but to this late date, it had not yet been carved in the stone of our laws.

The case in this case came out of West Virginia where, as I understand it, Massey Energy, with a $3 million campaign contribution, essentially bought a judge to put on the bench before a multi-million dollar lawsuit against the company went to appeal. Apparently four of the Supreme Court justices took issue with barring a judge to be bought for favors.

WIIIAI explains Chief Justice Roberts' reasoning.

Roberts argued that “sometimes the cure is worse than the disease.” The “disease” which he complacently suggests we just live with is judicial corruption. The lawsuits that will arise from this ruling, according to Roberts, “will do far more to erode public confidence in judicial impartiality than an isolated failure to recuse in a particular case.” This is the culture of secrecy; it is the language used by the Bush and, now, the Obama administrations to justify suppressing pictures of prisoner abuse. Roberts, like Obama, is unwilling to expose corruption because it would make the system look bad, and he thinks the exposure is the problem, not the corruption.

....but hey, do what you want....you will anyway.

That Dog Won't Hunt

Obama didn't need Bo. He already had a dog: a wide ranging call for national security secrets.

CIA director Leon Panetta argued in a statement that releasing the material "could be expected to result in exceptionally grave damage to the national security by informing our enemies of what we knew about them, and when, and in some instances, how we obtained the intelligence we possessed."

Panetta wrote that the "disclosure of explicit details of specific interrogations" would give al-Qaeda "propaganda it could use to recruit and raise funds." He called it "ready-made ammunition."

An ACLU lawyer told the Post that Panetta is in effect arguing: "The greater the abuse, the more important it is that it should remain secret."

  TPM

It was my understanding that the government is free to redact any specific language that would be a national security problem when releasing documents. I would think redacting specifics of how we obtained intelligence would be acceptable – unless the “how” was torture, in which case, “our enemies” are already well aware of that, so there's no need for redaction there.

....but hey, do what you want....you will anyway.

Hmmmm...

The puzzling crash of Air France’s Flight 447 killed two of the world’s “most prominent” illegal arms trade and international drug trafficking foes, according to a little-noticed report.

  Raw Story

Well, that’s interesting, is it not? They probably shouldn’t have been traveling together.

Though the cause of the crash has not been conclusively determined, most experts have focused on speed sensors that may have affected the plane’s course when it was caught in severe thunderstorms.

And I’m sure that two prominent anti-drug/illegal arms trade guys were on it is just a coincidence.

We Have a Ticking Time Bomb

“I know there are many other similar events planned around the country as long as abortion remains legal,” [accused murderer of abortion doctor Tiller] Roeder said. When asked by the AP what he meant and if he was referring to another shooting, he refused to elaborate further.

  WaPo

[W]hen do we get to start waterboarding this guy? Does he have any children whose testicles can be crushed? Will we keep him up for weeks on end in stress positions in extremely cold rooms to get him to break? Beat him? All the right made a very good show of how shocked and appalled they were when this man killed Dr. Tiller, so surely they will not object. So when do we get to start torturing this guy?

  Balloon Juice

In Re Boumediene

Those who voted for the Military Commissions Act of 2006 -- all GOP Senators (except Chafee) and Democrats Jay Rockefeller, Ken Salazar, Tom Carper, Mark Pryor, Tim Johnson, Bob Menendez, Frank Lautenberg, Ben and Bill Nelson, Debbie Stabenow, and Joe Lieberman, plus 219 GOP and 34 Democratic House members -- were in favor of keeping people like Boumediene at Guantanamo indefinitely without any right of judicial review. The only reason Boumediene was released is because the Supreme Court (by a 5-4 vote) ruled that law unconstitutional and he was thus able to have a court review the evidence (i.e., the lack thereof) against him.

Does anyone object to the term "moral depravity" being applied to those in Congress who voted to keep completely innocent people in cages for life without any opportunity to have a court review the accusations against them? If these members of Congress had their way, these completely innocent individuals would still be encaged at Guantanamo.

[...]

If Boumediene had been shipped from Bosnia to Bagram rather than to Guantanamo, then -- according to the Obama administration -- he would not have had any rights at all to any judicial review. As disgraceful as his plight is -- 7 1/2 years in a cage for no reason -- his case is actually one of the better ones when compared to those who have been shipped from far away places to be imprisoned in Afghanistan, where the Obama administration continues to argue they have no habeas rights of any kind.

  Glenn Greenwald

....but hey, do what you want....you will anyway.

One Small Step

But a very important one.

According to sources on the Hill, the Lieberman-Graham detainee photo suppression amendment is out of the conference report of the supplemental.

For everyone who made phone calls -- pat yourself on the back.

   FireDogLake

....but hey, do what you want....you will anyway.

More of That "Change We Can Believe In"

The Washington Post reports today that the Obama administration is now urging a federal court to keep concealed all evidence relating to the CIA's (almost certainly illegal) destruction of interrogation videotapes -- including documents showing who ordered the tapes destroyed, what the tapes revealed, the reasons why those decisions were made, etc. The administration's rationale for that concealment is exactly the same as for concealment of the torture photos: namely, the administration is "arguing to a federal judge that [disclosure] would endanger national security and benefit al-Qaeda's recruitment efforts."

  Glenn Greenwald

Jesus, they use that argument for everything. I bet they have it on a rubber stamp. Okay, the Bush Administration had it on a rubber stamp. Obama’s people have it recorded as a macro.

....but hey, do what you want....you will anyway.

Please, and Good Riddance

Bishop Nicholas A. DiMarzio of Brooklyn is reportedly threatening dire consequences for both legislators and the Church if New York lifts the statute of limitations to allow victims of child sex-abuse to sue. The one-year suspension will, according to the Bishop, bankrupt the Church and lead to social and political backlash for legislators.

  Jonathan Turley

Ah yes, there’s the Catholic Church of yore. We knew she was still there. Money and politics right out front for all to see.

The Bishop has suggested that, if forced to bear the cost of all of its abuse of children in the past, the Church would have to close parishes, suspend social programs, and risk bankruptcy.

Good! Close down that global pedophile ring. Put social programs back on the shoulders of the entire country via state and federal governments where they properly belong. There ought to be prison sentences, too. And they ought to include the Bishop of Rome and anyone else who covered for these SOBs and moved them to new places to abuse again rather than face their crimes.

From the comments section of the article:

mespo727272 1, June 7, 2009 at 11:33 am

LeVerdad:

“The truth of the matter is that Trial lawyers across the country are pushing for this bill because they get a 33% cut of the millions that “victims” receive.”

**********

Actually, we charge a third plus the costs just to be clear. I fail to see why that matters but maybe in your demagogical world it does to some. My point is that you hate both the victims and their advocates because it threatens your strongly held beliefs that somehow the Church was innocent of this criminal conspiracy. It wasn’t — as deposition after settlement after mea culpa has proven to those not blinded by the faith. And it wasn’t limited to the Country either — ask the Irish. My problem with folks like you is that you would damn to Hell anyone else who engaged in this type of behavior based on verse after verse of Christian holy text, but when it roosts at home, well, the victims are exaggerating or their lawyers are putting them up to it. Hypocrisy is truly the world’s largest religion. Lest you believe I am making this up, ask your parish priest what sort of punishment the Holy Church meted out to Boston Cardinal Bernard Law. You know the churchman who admitted he protected priests who engaged in raping children. Here’s a hint: he’s living in Rome at the Vatican in much nicer accommodations that the Church afforded Galileo.

Indentured Servant 1, June 7, 2009 at 11:38 am

why dosent the RCC remove these men and women when they commit these acts? They could send them to a convent or monestary and keep them away from the public.

Put them to good use brewing beer, pass that damn recipe from the Trappists in Belgium around so the rest of us can have some good bier.

mespo727272 1, June 7, 2009 at 11:42 am

Indentured:

“why dosent the RCC remove these men and women when they commit these acts? They could send them to a convent or monestary and keep them away from the public.”

***********

They tried that by sending them to the New Mexico diocese. It resulted in the highest incidence of child sexual abuse being exported out west.

But North Korea Actually Has Nukes

U.S. reporters Laura Ling and Euna Lee have been sentenced to 12 years hard labor in North Korea after being captured while covering the misery of defectors along the China-North Korea border.

They were sentenced for the “grave crime they committed against the Korean nation and their illegal border crossing.” The grave crime included reporting on the conditions of the last Stalinistic regime in the World with its rampant starvation and abuses.

  Jonathan Turley

At a similar point in the Iranian arrest of journalist/spy Roxana Saberi freedom was negotiated within days. How long will these two actual reporters remain imprisoned?

....but hey, do what you want....you will anyway.

Seven Years in Gitmo

In 2001, [Lakhdar] Boumediene, his wife and two young daughters lived in Sarajevo, Bosnia. He worked for the Red Crescent Society, having done stints for the organization in Pakistan and Albania.

He was arrested by Bosnian police in October 2001 and charged with conspiring to blow up the U.S. and British Embassies. He called the charges false and ludicrous.

"They search my car, my office, nothing. Cell phone, nothing. Nothing. Nothing," he said.

The charges were dropped, and the Bosnian courts ordered him and five others freed. But under pressure from the Bush administration, the Bosnian government handed him over to the U.S. military.

And his luck ran out.

Boumediene said the interrogations began within one week of his arrival at [Guantanamo]. But he thought that his cooperation, and trust in the United States, would serve him well and quicken his release.

"I thought America, the big country, they have CIA, FBI. Maybe one week, two weeks, they know I am innocent. I can go back to my home, to my home," he said.

But what he got instead was 7 -1/2 years of brutality.

As for Boumediene's allegations of abuse, the Pentagon said, "Any abuse of detainees is unacceptable. It is against our values, endangers our security and is not tolerated. All credible allegations of abuse are thoroughly investigated and, when substantiated, individuals are held accountable for their actions."

Yes, we’ve noticed.

....but hey, do what you want....you will anyway.

As If the Iraqi Police Don't Have Enough on Their Hands

Iraqi security forces arrested five U.S. contractors suspected of playing a role in last month's slaying of an American in Baghdad's Green Zone, Iraqi security officials said Sunday.

[...]

"An investigation unit at the Interior Ministry investigated the murder and reached the conclusion that the Americans who worked with [the victim] . . . are suspected of killing him," [Maj. Gen. Hussein Kamal, Deputy Minister of Interior] said. "These people are under arrest and will be interrogated according to a judicial order."

[...]

[Jim] Kitterman, a 60-year-old Texan who owned a construction company, was found dead May 22. He had reportedly been stabbed, blindfolded and bound, and left inside his car.

  LA Times

Interior Minister Jawad al-Bolani, who supervises Iraqi police, said it appeared that Kitterman was killed because of an undisclosed "financial situation."

[...]

[An] official of Corporate Training Unlimited, a Fayetteville, N.C.-based security company, said the five included Donald Feeney Jr., 55, who founded the company in 1986, his son Donald Feeney III, 31, and three other employees.

"I think everybody is devastated by the loss, including the Feeneys. And they're cooperating fully with the investigation," company spokeswoman Sarah Smith said. "They've not been charged with anything. And we suspect that they won't be charged with anything."

[...]

CTU trains corporate officials on how to avoid terrorists while they are overseas.

[...]

Kitterman had also been working in Iraq since 2003 and founded a small construction company that operates from the Green Zone.The Iraqis have begun removing some of the protective blast falls around the Green Zone — part of a campaign to restore a sense of normalcy as violence in the city has waned.

Violence, however, continues.

  Yahoo

Kamal, who declined to release the names of the detainees, said Iraqi forces also uncovered unregistered weapons and drugs during their raid of the compound.

An FBI official told FOX News on Sunday that the bureau is assisting with evidence collection and other investigative procedures. Iraqi forces asked the FBI for help, the official said.

  Fox

The Iraqis have begun removing some of the protective blast falls around the Green Zone — part of a campaign to restore a sense of normalcy as violence in the city has waned.

Violence, however, continues.

  Yahoo

That story is just chock full of irony.

Torture: More Leakage, More Spin

James Comey emails have been “leaked” to the NYT.

As Marcy Wheeler documents, the leak to the NYT was clearly from someone eager to defend Bush officials by suggesting that Comey's emails prove that all DOJ lawyers --- even those opposed to torture on policy grounds -- agreed these techniques were legal, and the NYT reporters, Scott Shane and David Johnston, dutifully do the leakers' bidding by misleadingly depicting the Comey emails as vindication for Bush/Cheney (Headline: "U.S. Lawyers Agreed on the Legality of Brutal Tactic"; First Paragraph: "When Justice Department lawyers engaged in a sharp internal debate in 2005 over brutal interrogation techniques, even some who believed that using tough tactics was a serious mistake agreed on a basic point: the methods themselves were legal").

I defy anyone to read Comey's 3 emails and walk away with that conclusion.

[...]

The primary argument against prosecutions for Bush officials who ordered torture is that DOJ lawyers told the White House that these tactics were legal, and White House officials therefore had the right to rely on those legal opinions.

[...]

Dick Cheney, David Addington and George Bush himself continuously exerted extreme pressure on DOJ lawyers to produce memos authorizing them to do what they wanted to do -- not because they were interested in knowing in good faith what the law did and did not allow, but because they wanted DOJ memos as cover -- legal immunity -- for the torture they had already ordered and were continuing to order. Though one won't find this in the NYT article, that is, far and away, the most important revelation from the Comey emails.

[...]

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.

Comey begins by noting that OLC lawyer Patrick Philbin had expressed numerous objections to the Bradbury memo -- all of which were being ignored in the rush to give the White House what it wanted.

[...]

Comey then noted that he, too, had "grave reservations" about the DOJ legal opinion:

[...]

”I expressed my concerns, saying the analysis was flawed and that I had grave reservations about the [...] opinion.”

Does that sound to you like there was unanimity in the DOJ about the legality of these methods?

[...]

The following day, Comey noted that the loyalty of DOJ lawyers lay with the White House, not with the Justice Department, and they were thus willing to comply with the demands of Cheney and Addington even at the expense of their duties as DOJ lawyers.

[...]

”I had just said things to [AG Gonzalez’s] chief of staff that would have lit the prior AG’s COS’s hair on fire. [...E]veryone seemed to be thinking as if they still work at the White House and not the United States Department of Justice.

[...]

[My] job was to protect the Department and the AG and [...] I could not agree to this because it was wrong.”

  Glenn Greenwald

James Comey was the one Bush Administration official in the spotlight who showed some courage and integrity. Of all the Bush officials that Obama has seen fit to include in or nominate for his administration, James Comey stands out glaringly as the one passed over.

[T] those memos -- just like the pre-war CIA reports about The Threat of Saddam -- were coerced by White House officials eager for bureaucratic cover for what they had already ordered. This was done precisely so that once this all became public, they could point to those memos and have the political and media establishment excuse what they did. [...] That is the critical point proven by the Comey emails, and it is completely obscured by the NYT article, which instead trumpets the opposite point ("Unanimity at DOJ that these tactics were legal") because that's the story their leakers wanted them to promote.

[...]

Other journalists, too slothful to read the Comey emails themselves, will get the message and go forth and repeat it, and it will soon be conventional wisdom that "everyone" at the DOJ agreed these torture techniques were legal.

[...]

But that's how our media works: anonymous government officials tell them what to say; they write it down uncritically; and it then becomes conventional wisdom regardless of how false it is.

We call it propaganda. When other countries do it.

Now, Greenwald assumes that the leaker wanted the NYT to put this angle on the emails. I suppose it could be just as likely that the leaker wanted to make the points that Greenwald is making, but the NYT reporters themselves (and the NYT editors) decided to minimize the damage of the leak to the Bush Administration by painting it otherwise.

At any rate, here are the emails. Very interesting. Please read.

....but hey, do what you want....you will anyway.