Outrage, Hope and Action

« June 2008 | Main | August 2008 »

July 30, 2008

Prohibition of sanity

So, do you ever drink a glass of Cabernet to relax? You know, kick back in the most comfortable chair on your deck, put your feet up, raise some Dead music on your iPod, and just take a break from it all? Or maybe a double shot of Jack Black and spring water over ice. Or two of those. Okay, maybe several. Whatever. The object is not to get slobbering drunk or feed an urge to binge on alcohol. The object is relaxation, some quiet time, reflection maybe, an attempt to shake free from all the hideous shit that seems to be seeping from every corner of existence right now. Just a break, for god's sake.

Now, what if in drinking an alcoholic beverage you were violating the law? There was a time in this country, about 90 years ago (a time initiated by, yes, religious right-wing nuts and their Fascist cohorts in government) when having a drink, buying alcohol, manufacturing it, transporting it, in fact anything to do with alcohol that didn't involve using it as an antiseptic could result in a jail sentence or a prison term. The era of Prohibition that lasted for 12 years in the U.S. not only made criminals of countless numbers of ordinary people, but also gave birth to a crime wave of such tsunami-like proportions we are still - nearly a century later - dealing with the aftermath.

How about reefer? Instead of a reticent yet mildly saucy Cabernet, how about a nice fat doobie? Kick back on the deck with one of those and a couple of hours of The Dead and everything just sort of mellows out, right? Add a nice, friendly bag of Cheetos, an ice-cold liter bottle of sugar-free lemonade and, mmm-mmmmm, bliss.

Of course, if you do that, you are breaking some ridiculous, goddam law encouraged by - yup - religious right-wing nuts and their Fascist cohorts in government. And, of course, this is not a joke. Marijuana laws are responsible, in part, for the fact that we in the U.S. now imprison more of our own citizens (both in terms of percentage of population and actual raw numbers) than any other nation on earth. By this one measure, we have, as a nation, gone crazy and truly are living in an asylum.

The families that have been destroyed by the prison time that results from violation of marijuana laws are innumerable. Who keeps track? Who cares? The anguish of children separated from parents who are sentenced to decades in a lock-up for growing or selling or just smoking reefer is horrific and from which the kids may never recover. And the parents who see their children jailed for having dope in the car, in their pocket, in their back-pack? How do you recover from that? And that is not to suggest smoking dope is a permissible activity for kids. It is not. Neither is smoking death-dealing cigarettes, or drinking alcohol, or any other behavior that might put a young person's physical, emotional, or psychological development at risk.

Marijuana laws - all marijuana laws - are utter bullshit and most rational people understand that. And yet we continue to allow them to exist. Well, maybe not too much longer. Maybe we should stop allowing the arrest of "responsible marijuana users," Rep. Barney Frank said today, announcing a proposal to end federal penalties for Americans carrying fewer than 100 grams of the substance.

As reported by CNN, Frank said during a Capitol Hill news conference, "The vast amount of human activity ought to be none of the government's business. I don't think it is the government's business to tell you how to spend your leisure time."

Allen St. Pierre, spokesman for the National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws (NORML) likened Frank's proposal to current laws dealing with alcohol consumption. Alcohol use is permitted and the government focuses its law enforcement efforts on those who abuse booze or drive under its influence. "We do not arrest and jail responsible alcohol drinkers," he said. (The complete CNN article is here.)

Bill Piper of the Drug Policy Alliance Network adds, "The U.S. stance on marijuana is one of the most destructive criminal justice policies in America today."

Frank's legislation is titled HR 5843. It is not a cure for the reefer madness that is now rampant in our criminal justice system. But, it may be a start in an effort to stop the right-wing religious freaks and the Fascist wannabees who now infest our government in their century-long effort to prohibit activity that is simply none of their business.

Posted by doctormatt at 8:44 PM

Recommendation for Karl Rove Contempt of Congress charges

. A resolution and report finding Karl Rove in contempt for failure to appear pursuant to subpoena and recommending to the House of Representatives that Mr. Rove be cited for contempt of Congress

A. Overview

The Committee is scheduled to consider and vote on a report titled "Resolution Recommending That the House of Representatives Find Karl Rove in Contempt of Congress for Refusal to Comply With a Subpoena Duly Issued by the Committee on the Judiciary." A draft of the report, which includes a resolution to be recommended to the House of Representatives providing that Mr. Rove be cited for contempt of Congress and that the House pursue other legal remedies to enforce the outstanding subpoena as appropriate, has been provided to all Members. This memorandum provides additional background to assist Committee Members in considering the report and resolution.

Despite extensive efforts to secure voluntary cooperation, and despite the issuance of a compulsory subpoena, Mr. Rove has refused to appear before and provide sworn testimony necessary for the Committee's continuing investigation into the apparent politicization of the Department of Justice, including the termination of U.S. Attorneys in 2006, allegations of selective prosecution, and related issues. Mr. Rove has refused even to appear before the Committee and assert whatever privileges that he believes may apply to his testimony, relying on excessively broad and legally insufficient claims of "absolute immunity" - never recognized by any court - in declining to appear. The "accommodations" or compromises that he has offered are almost entirely illusory, and would substantially compromise the Committee's ability to investigate these matters. Today's vote is thus necessary to preserve the prerogatives of this Committee and the House and to ensure that our process remains a meaningful investigative tool in the future.

B. Factual Background Regarding Mr. Rove's Alleged Role in the Politicization of the Department of Justice

Since January 2007, the Committee has investigated allegations regarding the politicization of the Department of Justice, including the firing of U.S. Attorneys, allegations of selective prosecution, and related matters. New evidence continually surfaces in this investigation, such as a report this week from the Department's Offices of the Inspector General and Professional Responsibility that, among other things, indicates that Mr. Rove and other Administration personnel worked to have a childhood friend of Mr. Rove appointed as an immigration judge.

The harms of this alleged politicization are readily apparent. Respected former Deputy Attorney General Jim Comey testified before the Commercial and Administrative Law Subcommittee last year about the fragility of the Department's reservoir of credibility, and the difficulty of earning back the trust of the American people once the Department's reputation for honesty and impartial justice has been tarnished. Just last week, Attorney General Mukasey testified before the full Committee that he was "well aware of the allegations that politics has played an inappropriate role at the Justice Department' and agreed that "[t]oo many of those allegations were borne out" in a recent Department watchdog report. Prior to that, Mr. Mukasey had acknowledged that, if true, the allegations regarding selective prosecution in the Siegelman case "would be stunning."

The U.S. Attorney firings have raised particular alarm from commentators across the political spectrum. Republican former Attorney General Thornburgh testified before a joint hearing of the Commercial and Administrative Law and Crime, Terrorism, and Homeland Security Subcommittees that, in his view, the investigation had shown that the Department 'fired U.S. Attorneys not for performance-based reasons, but for political ones." Similarly, the nonpartisan American Judicature Society wrote last year that "on the basis of the facts as we know them today, the dismissals are indefensible." And, as noted above, two recent joint Inspector General/Office of Professional Responsibility reports describe pervasive politicization of Department functions that violated federal law, civil service rules, and the Department's own policies.

As the investigation has continued, Mr. Rove has emerged as an important figure.

1. Forced Resignations of U.S. Attorneys

Last year, reports appeared in the news media that a group of U.S. Attorneys had been told to resign by the Justice Department. Ultimately it was learned that seven U.S. Attorneys were forced to resign on December 7, 2006, an eighth U.S. Attorney had been asked to resign in June 2006, and a ninth U.S. Attorney had been asked to resign in January 2006.

The plan appears to have emerged at the outset of President Bush's second term in response to questions by Karl Rove and then-White House Counsel Harriet Miers as to whether sitting U.S. Attorneys would be allowed to retain their positions. Mr. Rove himself appears to have asked if the Administration would consider replacing all 93 U.S. Attorneys or "selectively replace" at least some of them. According to one report, Mr. Rove's desire to fire all 93 U.S. Attorneys "was seen as a way to get political cover for firing the small number of U.S. Attorneys the White House actually wanted to get rid of." This targeted list reportedly included U.S. Attorney Patrick Fitzgerald, who at the time was investigating Mr. Rove's role in the leaking of CIA agent Valerie Plame's covert identity. When Mr. Rove made the suggestion to fire all of the U.S. Attorneys, he had already been before the grand jury several times in the Plame case. In addition, recent reports indicate that, just weeks earlier, an Illinois Republican political operative had told an associate he was working with Karl Rove to have Mr. Fitzgerald replaced.

Mr. Rove's request was presented to Kyle Sampson, then a deputy Chief of Staff to Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, who responded that most U.S. Attorneys "are doing a great job, are loyal Bushies, etc." and that even "piecemeal" replacement of U.S. Attorneys would cause political upheaval. "That said," Mr. Sampson wrote, "if Karl thinks there would be political will to do it, then so do I." The idea for a wholesale replacement was thus rejected as too disruptive, and because it would have meant the replacement of some U.S. Attorneys who were good performers or who were "loyal Bushies." Instead, a narrower plan under which a subset of the U.S. Attorneys were to be replaced was put in motion. Kyle Sampson ran the plan over a period of just under two years, during which he maintained and revised various lists of U.S. Attorneys to be fired or retained, and repeatedly circulated these drafts to the White House.

While the Committee has interviewed Mr. Sampson in detail, and has spoken with most of the significant players inside the Justice Department, the reasons why most of the fired U.S. Attorneys were selected for removal, and who identified them as candidates for Mr. Sampson's list, remain unclear. However, in addition to his overall role, evidence suggests that Mr. Rove had a role in at least the following cases:

a. David Iglesias (D. N.M.)

A primary reason David Iglesias appears to have been targeted for replacement is because he had drawn the ire of New Mexico state Republicans for his vote fraud enforcement decisions and for failing to bring a particular matter that they wanted pursued. New Mexico Republican party Chief Allen Weh reportedly pressed Karl Rove through an aide to have Mr. Iglesias replaced in 2005 because he was dissatisfied by Mr. Iglesias' charging decisions in vote fraud matters. That issue was apparently important enough to Mr. Weh that he raised his complaints about Mr. Iglesias again directly with Mr. Rove in December 2006 and was told by Mr. Rove at that time, apparently just one day after the firing calls were made, that "he's gone." Two other New Mexico Republicans, Mickey Barnett and Pat Rogers, came to Washington, D.C., in the Summer of 2006 and met with an aide to Karl Rove, Scott Jennings, as well as Monica Goodling and Counselor to the Attorney General Matthew Friedrich. Mr. Friedrich testified that Mr. Rogers and Mr. Barnett were concerned about Mr. Iglesias failing to bring a particular vote fraud case against the ACORN community organization - he stated that "they were not happy with Dave Iglesias." Mr. Friedrich also testified that he met a second time with Mr. Barnett and Mr. Rogers over Thanksgiving 2006, and they informed him that they "were working towards" having Mr. Iglesias removed and that they had communicated with Karl Rove and Senator Domenici on that subject.

In failing to satisfy state Republican concerns about the need for vigorous enforcement of alleged vote fraud cases, David Iglesias appears to have run up against a powerful political force. The evidence indicates that Karl Rove monitored this issue and heard complaints about some U.S. Attorneys on the subject, again including David Iglesias. Mr. Rove's interest in this subject was so acute that, in April 2006, he spoke about the issue to the Republican National Lawyers Association and named a number of jurisdictions that supposedly posed heightened vote fraud risks, including New Mexico, Wisconsin, and Washington, as well as other politically important states such as Florida and Missouri, where U.S. Attorneys were at one point or another on the firing list.

b. Steven Biskupic (E.D. Wisc.)

No Justice Department witness has explained why Milwaukee U.S. Attorney Steven Biskupic appeared on the March 2005 firing list. Kyle Sampson recalled only that Mr. Biskupic was not a "prominent" U.S. Attorney. On the other hand, the Administration did produce documents describing vote fraud issues in Mr. Biskupic's district during the 2004 elections that Karl Rove appears to have printed and viewed just weeks before Mr. Biskupic was placed on the firing list, and which contain the handwritten notation "Discuss w/Harriet." The record also contains a lengthy catalog of Republican complaints about Mr. Biskupic's failure to bring more vote fraud cases during this time, some of which reached Mr. Rove, and some of which Mr. Rove may have passed on to Kyle Sampson.

c. Bud Cummins (E.D. of Ark.)

Regarding Bud Cummins, the Administration has equivocated, sometimes suggesting that he was forced out for performance reasons and other times stating it was simply to make room for Karl Rove's former aide Tim Griffin to serve as U.S. Attorney. On February 23, 2007, the Justice Department sent a letter to several Senators on the Tim Griffin appointment, incorrectly stating that Karl Rove did not have any role in the decision to appoint Tim Griffin as interim U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of Arkansas. That inaccurate letter, which the Department was subsequently forced to disavow, was drafted by Kyle Sampson and apparently approved by Christopher Oprison in the White House Counsel's office, despite the fact that each had extensive knowledge of the Tim Griffin situation at the time. Mr. Sampson had previously written that "getting [Mr. Griffin] appointed was important to Harriet, Karl, etc." And just a week before he signed off on this letter, Mr. Oprison had received an email from Tim Griffin discussing the appointment controversy that also was addressed to Karl Rove, suggesting Mr. Rove's awareness of the matter.

1. Alleged Selective Prosecution of Former Alabama Governor Don Siegelman

Concerns that politics may have played a role in the investigation and prosecution of former Alabama Governor Don Siegelman have been widely aired in the press, culminating in a petition urging the Committee to open an inquiry that was signed by 44 former state Attorneys General, both Democrats and Republicans, and received by the Committee in July 2007. Republican former Attorney General of Arizona Grant Woods recently stated that he believes Mr. Siegelman was selected for prosecution to further the political interests of the Alabama Republican party: "I personally believe that what happened here is that they targeted Don Siegelman because they could not beat him fair and square. This was a Republican state and he was the one Democrat they could never get rid of."

a. Background

Don Siegelman was governor of Alabama from 1998 to 2002, and previously had held numerous state offices. Mr. Siegelman lost his bid for re-election in 2002 to Republican Bob Riley by just several thousand votes, and was expected to run again in 2006. He was at the time a "major political force" in Alabama and early polls indicated that he would defeat Governor Riley in a rematch.

In May 2004, Mr. Siegelman was indicted by the U. S. Attorney for the Northern District of Alabama, Alice Martin, on charges related to alleged bid rigging in state contracts. Those charges were dismissed before trial, however, when the prosecution could not produce evidence connecting Mr. Siegelman to the alleged misconduct.

Several months later, a new indictment based on entirely different charges was brought under seal against Mr. Siegelman by the U.S. Attorney for the Middle District of Alabama, Leura Canary. That indictment was made public in October 2005 and, after a June 2006 trial, Mr. Siegelman was acquitted of 25 of the 32 filed charges, and was convicted on 7 counts of corruption or obstruction of justice related charges. In June 2007, Mr. Siegelman was sentenced to 7 years, 4 months in prison (the prosecutors had requested 30 years).

On March 27, 2008, the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals granted Mr. Siegelman's motion for release on bond pending appeal, finding that Mr. Siegelman had "met his burden of showing that his appeal raises substantial questions of law or fact" that might ultimately lead to reversal of the conviction.

b. Allegations Regarding Political Interference and Karl Rove

In May 2007, a Republican attorney from Northern Alabama named Jill Simpson wrote an affidavit stating that, in November 2002, she heard a prominent Alabama Republican operative named Bill Canary say that Karl Rove had contacted the Justice Department about bringing a prosecution of Don Siegelman. Mr. Canary is married to the U.S. Attorney in the Middle District of Alabama, Leura Canary, and Ms. Simpson states in the affidavit that Mr. Canary also said that "my girls would take care of" Mr. Siegelman. Ms. Simpson asked Mr. Canary who "his girls" were and Mr. Canary said they were his wife and Alice Martin, the U.S. Attorney for the Northern District of the state.

On September 14, 2007, Committee staff conducted a sworn, on-the-record interview of Ms. Simpson in which she reaffirmed the statements in her affidavit and offered additional information. Most significantly, Ms. Simpson described a conversation in early 2005 in which Governor Riley's son Rob, a colleague and friend of Ms. Simpson, told her that his father and Mr. Canary had again spoken to Karl Rove who had in turn communicated with the head of the Department's Public Integrity Section about bringing a second indictment against Don Siegelman since the first case in Birmingham had been dismissed. According to Ms. Simpson, Mr. Riley also told her that Mr. Rove had asked the Department to mobilize additional resources to assist in the prosecution effort. Mr. Riley also said that the case would be in the Middle District of Alabama and would be heard by Chief Judge Mark Fuller, a judge who Mr. Riley stated could be trusted to "hang Don Siegelman." And Mr. Riley claimed that the prosecution would try Mr. Siegelman and Mr. Scrushy together, in the hopes that Mr. Scrushy's unpopularity in the state would affect the proceedings against Mr. Siegelman.

Ms. Simpson's statements have been denied by Bill Canary, Rob Riley, and the other figures involved. Mr. Rove himself made a brief, and limited, comment on the matter in June 2007, stating "I know nothing about any phone call," but not addressing the underlying allegations. (It has never been alleged that Mr. Rove was on the phone call described by Jill Simpson; the question is whether Mr. Rove directly or indirectly discussed the possibility of prosecuting Don Siegelman with either the Justice Department or Alabama Republicans.) More recently, appearing on Fox News in February 2008, Mr. Rove denied knowing Jill Simpson and challenged ancillary assertions she had made, but again did not address the main charge that he had pressed the Justice Department to prosecute Mr. Siegelman. More recently still, Mr. Rove has elaborated by asserting to a reporter for GQ Magazine that Ms. Simpson is a "complete lunatic" who cannot be trusted and by presenting a statement in some form to 60 Minutes (though it is not clear whether he spoke directly to 60 Minutes or used a spokesman as Mr. Rove does not appear on camera) declaring that he never "never talked to the Department of Justice" about Mr. Siegelman. Finally, in recent answers provided by his lawyer to questions posed by Ranking Member Smith, Mr. Rove reiterated his denials that he attempted to influence the Siegelman prosecution. Available evidence raises questions about these denials, however.

First, Mr. Rove's written answers to the questions posed by ranking Member Smith do not appear to resolve the questions about his possible role in the matter. For example, Mr. Rove was asked if he ever communicated with "any Department of Justice officials, State of Alabama officials, or any individual" about the investigation or prosecution of Governor Siegelman. He answered only that he had not communicated with "Justice Department or Alabama officials" about the matter. The failure to address whether he communicated with any other "individual" suggests that Mr. Rove may have communicated with political operatives such as Bill Canary, the Governor's son Rob Riley, non-Department of Justice Executive Branch officials such as his White House colleagues, or even members of the federal Judicial branch.

While other aspects of the denial appear broader on their face, such as the assertion that Mr. Rove "never attempted either directly or indirectly, to influence these matters," it is impossible to fully evaluate Mr. Rove's statement without follow up questioning that would reveal exactly what he means by terms such as "influence" and "these matters" or whether there are any other ambiguities or gaps in his denials. Without such questioning the Committee cannot know, for example, whether Mr. Rove took steps related to the prosecution of Governor Siegelman that he does not believe rise to the level of "influencing" the case or whether members of his staff may have taken actions regarding this matter that Mr. Rove did not specifically direct them to take. In addition, Mr. Rove never denies having any relevant knowledge about the Siegelman prosecution; he only denies having taken certain actions himself. The Committee's subpoena demands that he testify as to any relevant knowledge that he may possess.

As to the strong denials by Rob Riley and others that there was a phone call with Ms. Simpson on November 18, 2002, as she testified, Ms. Simpson provided cell phone records to the Committee that reflect an eleven minute call to Mr. Riley's number on that very morning. Those denials thus appear to be in at least some sense inaccurate.

Further evidence on the question whether Karl Rove or other senior figures played some role in the Siegelman prosecution was revealed at a joint hearing of the Crime, Terrorism, and Homeland Securtiy Subcommittee and the Commercial and Administrative Law Subcommittee on October 23, 2007. At that hearing, former U.S. Attorney Doug Jones, who represented Mr. Siegelman from 2003 until early 2006, described a number of troubling facts regarding the Siegelman prosecution - for example, the statement by investigators that they "hoped" their work would implicate the Governor and that prosecutors engaged in discussions that Mr. Jones believes were not in good faith because the prosecutors had already obtained a sealed indictment against the Governor but did not disclose that key fact. The heart of Mr. Jones' testimony, however, involved a series of events in late 2004 indicating that high-level Washington officials were driving the prosecution effort.

Mr. Jones testified that, by mid 2004, he and his team had been told by the federal prosecutors in Alabama that most of the issues under investigation had been "written off" and were not expected to lead to charges. While certain issues required some further investigation, including the donation to the lottery fund by Mr. Scrushy, the prosecutors acknowledged there were significant gaps in the relevant evidence. Mr. Jones testified that, based on his discussions with the prosecutors at this time, he and his colleagues "felt like [the] case was coming to a close." In late fall, however, the lead Alabama prosecutor substantially changed his message, telling Mr. Jones that "there had been a meeting in Washington and that the lawyers in Washington had asked him to go back and look at the case, review the case top to bottom."

After this word came down from Washington, Mr. Jones explained that the case transformed into a much more focused and aggressive effort to find charges on which to indict Mr. Siegelman:

"What we saw beginning in early 2005 was much more than simply a top to bottom review. Instead it was as if the investigation had new life from top to bottom and beyond. Whereas in the past it had appeared that the investigation was being driven by investigators in the [state] Attorney General's office, the FBI and the feds now seemed to be taking control and they were casting a wider net than ever before. The charges that we were told had been 'written off' were obviously now back on the table and for the first time it appeared that agents were not investigating any allegations of a crime, but were fishing around for anything they could find against an individual."

This testimony is especially troubling when considered in light of Ms. Simpson's testimony regarding her conversations with Rob Riley. Ms. Simpson testified that Rob Riley told her that, in the latter part of 2004, Karl Rove had approached the head of the Public Integrity Section of the Department about bringing another case against Mr. Siegelman and giving more resources to the prosecution. Thus, according to the sworn testimony of two different witnesses - who did not know each other and who were not aware of the other's testimony when they spoke - at the same time that Karl Rove was allegedly pressing Justice Department leadership to indict Don Siegelman, Washington officials informed the line prosecutors working the case, who had just recently expressed real doubts about bringing charges, to go back over the entire matter. And as a result of that direction from Washington, the prosecution did in fact launch an aggressive new effort to find indictable charges against Mr. Siegelman.

Lead Siegelman prosecutor Steve Feaga has made press statements denying that he ever told Doug Jones that Washington officials had directed his team to go back over the case. Similarly, the Acting U.S. Attorney for this matter Louis Franklin has said that Mr. Jones' statements are "absolutely not true." But other evidence strongly corroborates Mr. Jones' testimony on this point. For example, an Alabama attorney named Mark White, who represented several witnesses related to the Siegelman matter and is currently President-Elect of the Alabama State Bar, has stated that, like Mr. Jones, he had been advised by the prosecution in 2004 that the investigation was coming to a conclusion and that he was later told by Mr. Feaga that "'Washington' had asked that another look be taken at the entire investigation." Art Leach, a former federal prosecutor and counsel to Mr. Scrushy in this matter, has informed the Committee that, in 2004, "for a variety of reasons it was my opinion that the matter was closed." In mid-2005, however, "the case came back to life."

C. Prior Efforts to Obtain Mr. Rove's testimony

Because Mr. Rove is an important witness who could provide information that is unavailable through any other source, Chairman Conyers sought Mr. Rove's voluntary compliance with the Committee's investigation. In response, White House Counsel Fred Fielding explained that he was prepared to make Mr. Rove and other White House officials available for interviews with the House and Senate Judiciary Committees on a joint basis, but his offer was conditioned on unreasonably limiting preconditions and scope restrictions.

Mr. Fielding's offer required that the interviews be confined to "the subject of (a) communications between the White House and persons outside the White House concerning the request for resignations of the U.S. Attorneys in question; and (b) communications between the White House and members of Congress concerning those requests." Questioning on internal White House discussions of any kind and by personnel at any level would not be allowed. In addition, Mr. Fielding required that the interviews "be private and conducted without the need for an oath, transcript, subsequent testimony, or the subsequent issuance of subpoenas." In other words, no matter what was revealed, no other testimony or documents could be requested from the White House.

Given Mr. Fielding's unreasonably restrictive offer, on March 21, 2007, the Commercial and Administrative Law Subcommittee authorized Chairman Conyers to issue subpoenas to Karl Rove and other White House personnel with relevant knowledge or documents. Both before and after March 21, letters were exchanged between the Committee and the White House to seek to resolve voluntarily the Committee's requests for information from the White House, but those efforts were not successful. Committee letters (some of which were sent by Chairman Conyers and Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Leahy) included letters of March 9, March 22, March 28, and May 21, 2007.

On July 26, 2007, Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Patrick Leahy issued a subpoena for Mr. Rove to testify on August 2 and produce documents related to the U.S. Attorneys investigation. Mr. Fielding sent an August 1 letter to Senators Leahy and Specter informing them that the President would invoke executive privilege to direct Mr. Rove not to produce responsive documents or testify about the firings. In addition, the letter cited attached documents from the Department of Justice to assert that Mr. Rove was "immune from compelled congressional testimony" as an "immediate presidential advisor" and would not even appear in response to the Senate Judiciary Committee's subpoena. On November 29, 2007, Senator Leahy issued a ruling that the White House's claims of executive privilege and immunity were not legally valid. On December 13, 2007, the Senate Judiciary Committee approved a contempt citation for Mr. Rove on a 12 to 7 vote, rejecting the White House positions on executive privilege and immunity.

As the Committee's investigation proceeded and as additional allegations and information emerged regarding Mr. Rove, Chairman Conyers, Commercial and Administrative Law Subcommittee Chair Sбnchez, and Committee members Artur Davis and Tammy Baldwin wrote directly to Mr. Rove, requesting that he voluntarily testify regarding the politicization of the Justice Department, including the termination of U.S. Attorneys, the Siegelman matter, and related issues. On April 29, 2008, Robert Luskin, who represents Karl Rove, offered to make Mr. Rove available for an interview only regarding the Siegelman matter and that would be neither under oath nor transcribed. Committee members responded on May 1 by rejecting Mr. Luskin's offer on the grounds that such an informal procedure would not generate a useable record and would only confuse matters further, and in particular pointing out that artificially limiting the inquiry to the Siegelman matter would frustrate the Committee's ability to get needed information on the entire subject of politicization. On May 9, Mr. Luskin offered that Mr. Rove respond to written questions, but again only with respect to the Siegelman prosecution. Committee members responded in a May 14 letter rejecting that offer as obviously unacceptable both because of the subject matter limitation and because a written exchange would not allow for the give and take and follow up questioning that is crucial to getting to the truth. In an effort to avoid the need for a subpoena, Committee members did suggest further accommodations to Mr. Rove, such as offering to provide a written initial list of questions that would be posed to him at a hearing. But on May 21, Mr. Luskin responded by merely restating his prior offers and declining to accept the offers accommodations. Because of Mr. Rove's refusal to testify voluntarily, Chairman Conyers on May 22, 2008, issued a subpoena calling for Mr. Rove to appear before the Subcommittee on July 10.

Subsequently, Committee staff had several discussions with Mr. Luskin whereby Mr. Luskin offered to have Mr. Rove interviewed without a transcript or oath, but at least without prejudice to the Committee's right to pursue its subpoena for sworn testimony. However, Mr. Luskin again insisted that such an interview be limited only to questions concerning the Siegelman prosecution. Chairman Conyers and Subcommittee Chair Sбnchez wrote to Mr. Luskin to express their encouragement about the offer to be interviewed without prejudice, but reiterated that Mr. Rove must answer questions about the entire subject of politicization, including the U.S. Attorney firings and the Siegelman case, and was expected to appear on July 10 to do so. On July 1, Mr. Luskin indicated that Mr. Rove would decline to appear. On July 3, Chairman Conyers and Subcommittee Chair Sбnchez wrote to Mr. Luskin urging Mr. Rove to reconsider his position and to appear pursuant to his legal obligations.

On July 9, Mr. Luskin again stated that Mr. Rove would not appear and attached a July 9 letter from White House Counsel Fred Fielding, and two Office of Legal Counsel letters - one regarding Mr. Rove dated August 1, 2007, and another regarding Ms. Miers dated July 10, 2007. No more recent DOJ analysis of Mr. Rove's right to ignore the Committee subpoena was offered. Mr. Fielding asserted that Mr. Rove had "constitutional immunity . . . because Mr. Rove was an immediate presidential adviser and because the Committee seeks to question him regarding matters that arose during his tenure and relate to his official duties in that capacity." Mr. Fielding did not explain what aspects of the U.S. Attorney firings or the Siegelman prosecution relate to Mr. Rove's official duties as a White House aide.

On July 10, 2008, the Commercial and Administrative Law Subcommittee met as scheduled but Mr. Rove failed to appear. Ms. Sбnchez ruled that Mr. Rove's claims of Executive Privilege-based immunity from Congressional subpoena were not valid. That ruling was upheld by a 7-1 vote of the Subcommittee. A copy of the ruling was mailed to Mr. Rove's attorney on July 10, along with a warning about the possibility of contempt and a request for a response by July 16, 2008, as to whether Mr. Rove would comply with the subpoena. No response was received until July 29, 2008, when Mr. Rove's attorney again indicated that Mr. Rove would not comply with the subpoena but urged the Committee not to recommend contempt against Mr. Rove.

D. Testimony From Mr. Rove Is Essential For the Committee to Conduct Meaningful Oversight and to Consider Possible Legislation

The Committee clearly has authority under the Constitution, as reflected in Supreme Court decisions and Rules of the House of Representatives, to investigate and expose possible violations of law and abuses of executive power. As the Supreme Court ruled in the Watkins case fifty years ago, Congress has "broad" power to investigate "the administration of existing laws" and to "expose corruption, inefficiency or waste," or similar problems in the Executive Branch. The Committee also needs more complete information on the issue of the politicization of the Department of Justice to consider whether to modify or enact federal laws and to obtain support for any such necessary legislation within the Congress, the Executive, and the public at large. This is a well-recognized basis for authorizing Congress to conduct investigations and obtain executive branch information, as the Supreme Court stated in McGrain v. Daugherty.

E. Mr. Rove's Claim of Executive Privilege Based Immunity From Subpoena Is Not Legally Valid

According to the letters received from Mr. Rove's counsel, particularly his letters of July 1 and July 9, 2008, Mr. Rove's refusal to appear and testify before the Subcommittee on July 10 as required by subpoena was based on claims that "Executive Privilege confers upon him immunity" from even appearing to testify, and that "as a [former] close advisor to the President, whose testimony is sought in connection with his official duties in that capacity, he is immune from compelled Congressional testimony."

These claim were rejected by Subcommittee Chair Sбnchez in a ruling that was upheld by a 7-1 vote of the Subcommittee on July 10, 2008. For several reasons, as explained in Chair Sбnchez' ruling and below, those claims are legally invalid.

First, the claims were not properly asserted. The Subcommittee did not receive a written statement directly from the President, let alone anyone at the White House on the President's behalf, asserting Executive Privilege, or claiming that Mr. Rove is immune in this instance from testifying before us. Nor did any member of the White House attend the July 10, 2008, hearing to raise those claims on behalf of the President. The most recent letter from Mr. Rove's lawyer simply relies on a July 9, 2008, letter to him from the current White House counsel directing that Mr. Rove should disobey the subpoena and refuse to appear at the Subcommittee hearing.

The July 9, 2008, letter from White House Counsel Fred Fielding claims that Mr. Rove "is constitutionally immune from compelled congressional testimony about matters that arose during his or her tenure as a presidential aide and that relate to his or her official duties." As discussed in greater detail below, no general freestanding immunity exists for former presidential advisers and thus the proper course is to recognize claims of privilege only when properly asserted in response to specific questions during a particular hearing.

The courts have stated that a personal assertion of Executive Privilege by the President is legally required for the privilege claim to be valid. For instance, the District Court of the District of Columbia made clear in the Shultz case that even a statement from a White House counsel that he is authorized to invoke executive privilege is "wholly insufficient to activate a formal claim of executive privilege," and that such a claim must be made by the "President, as head of the 'agency,' the White House."

It should also be noted that even a formal claim of privilege, by itself, is not enough to prevent a private party from complying with a Congressional subpoena. In cases where a Congressional committee rules that asserted claims of Executive Privilege are invalid, the Executive Branch's only recourse beyond further negotiation is to seek a court order to prevent the private party from testifying (or producing documents). This is because neither the Constitution nor any federal statute confers authority upon the President to order private citizens not to comply with Congressional subpoenas.

The Executive Branch recognized this in United States v. AT&T, where the Ford Administration sued to enjoin AT&T, a private party, from complying with a subpoena from a House committee. AT&T recognized that despite the White House's adamant requests that it not comply with its subpoena, it nevertheless was "obligated to disregard those instructions and to comply with the subpoena." The President had no freestanding authority to prevent AT&T from complying. The same is true here.

Second, there is no proper legal basis for Mr. Rove's refusal even to appear before the Subcommittee as required by subpoena. No court has ever held that presidential advisers are immune from compulsory process - in any setting. In fact, the Supreme Court has expressly recognized that presidential advisers, and even members of the President's cabinet, do not enjoy the same protections as the President himself. Moreover, since 1974, when the Supreme Court rejected President Nixon's claim of absolute presidential privilege in United States v. Nixon, it has been clear that Executive Privilege is merely qualified, and not absolute. Neither Mr. Rove's lawyer nor Mr. Fielding nor the Office of Legal Counsel (OLC) at the Justice Department has cited a single court decision to undermine these well-settled principles. Therefore, the proper course of action for Mr. Rove is to attend the hearing pursuant to subpoena, at which time he may, if expressly authorized by the President, assert Executive Privilege in response to specific questions posed by the Subcommittee.

Assuming that Mr. Fielding's July 9, 2008 letter to Mr. Luskin - and its attached materials from the Justice Department's OLC - sets out the case for Mr. Rove's claim for immunity before this Subcommittee, the arguments presented therein are wholly without merit. Most notably, both the letter and its accompanying materials from OLC fail to cite a single court decision nor could they, in support of Mr. Rove's contention that a former White House employee or other witness under federal subpoena may simply refuse to show up to a congressional hearing.

To the contrary, the courts have made clear that no present or former government official is so above the law that he or she may completely disregard a legal directive such as the Committee's subpoena. As the Supreme Court explained more than a century ago, "[n]o man in this country is so high that he is above the law," and "[a]ll the officers of the government, from the highest to the lowest, are creatures of the law and are bound to obey it."

Even beyond the case law, the reasoning utilized in the OLC materials, authored by Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General Steven G. Bradbury, has no application to former presidential advisers. Each of the prior OLC opinions on which Mr. Bradbury relies, including the 1999 Opinion issued by Attorney General Janet Reno, covers only current White House advisers, not former advisers like Mr. Rove. This distinction is crucial, as all of the arguments purportedly supporting absolute immunity for current presidential advisers simply do not apply to former advisers. For example, the primary OLC memorandum from which all subsequent adviser-immunity opinions have been derived, authored by Chief Justice and then-OLC head William H. Rehnquist, reaches only the "tentative and sketchy" conclusion that current advisers are "absolutely immune from testimonial compulsion by congressional committee[s]" because they must be "presumptively available to the President 24 hours a day, and the necessity of [appearing before Congress or a court] could impair that ability." The same rationale on its face does not apply to former advisers, and thus there is no support for Mr. Bradbury's claim that former advisers are immune from Congressional process. And even Mr. Rehnquist himself acknowledged that when White House advisers wish to assert executive privilege, they must first appear before Congress and then assert the privilege.

The 1999 Reno Opinion also reflects doubt about the matter, expressly noting that a court might not agree with the arguments for immunity and suggesting that the matter might in fact be resolved through some sort of balancing. Those doubts are most obviously demonstrated by the fact that, in the end, the Clinton White House did not stand upon the immunity argument made in this opinion but instead, on several occasions, allowed its current and former White House Counsel to testify.

Moreover, the fact that OLC has opined that former advisers are absolutely immune from testimonial compulsion by Congress, is not entitled to any deference. Such an opinion, unlike that issued by a court, is not an authoritative formulation of the law. Rather, it is only the Executive Branch's view of the law, and is entitled only to the weight that its inherent merit warrants. In this instance, it is clear that Mr. Bradbury's memorandum was ill-conceived and its conclusions were properly rejected by the Subcommittee.

The White House's argument in favor of absolute immunity for Mr. Rove on these matters is remarkable for an additional reason. According to Mr. Fielding's July 9, 2008, letter, the White House believes that the matters covered by the subpoena relate to Mr. Rove's "official duties." If that assertion is to be credited, then apparently this Administration believes that Mr. Rove's official duties included the alleged pressuring of the Justice Department to criminally prosecute a political opponent of the President's party and also included ensuring the political loyalty of the U.S. Attorney corps and forcing politically unhelpful U.S. Attorneys to resign. While it is true that Mr. Rove denies at least some of these allegations, the White House claim that these alleged actions would fall within his "official duties" is disturbing. On the other hand, if the White House does not believe that such interference in the Department of Justice's prosecution function was an official duty of Mr. Rove, then either the claim of immunity fails on the Administration's own terms (because they claim the immunity applies only where official duties are involved) or they are actually asserting a total immunity from compelled testimony for Presidential aides on any subject and regardless of any nexus to the individual's White House responsibilities. That form of immunity, of course, would be even greater than that held by the President, as the Clinton v. Jones case makes clear, and should be rejected as legally unsupportable.

Third, the claims of absolute immunity directly contradict the conduct of this and past Administrations with respect to White House officials appearing before Congress. Only recently, current Vice-Presidential chief of staff David Addington appeared and testified before the House Judiciary Committee pursuant to subpoena, and former White House Press Secretary Scott McClellan appeared and testified without even receiving a subpoena. In 2007, former White House officials Sara Taylor and Scott Jennings testified concerning the U.S. Attorney firings before the Senate Judiciary Committee pursuant to subpoena. Prior to this Administration, both present and former White House officials have testified before Congress numerous times; a Congressional Research Service study documents some 74 instances where White House advisers have testified before Congress since World War II, many of them pursuant to a subpoena.

This White House's asserted right to secrecy goes beyond even the claims of Richard Nixon, who initially refused to allow his White House Counsel, John Dean, to testify before Congress, on almost exactly the same grounds being asserted now, but then agreed that Mr. Dean and other White House officials could testify.

Fourth, the claims of absolute immunity and the refusal to appear pursuant to subpoena and to answer questions from the Subcommittee directly contradict the behavior of Mr. Rove and his attorney themselves. When Mr. Rove's attorney was asked earlier this year by a media representative whether Mr. Rove would testify before Congress in response to a subpoena on the Siegelman matter, he responded "sure" by e-mail. In addition, unlike Harriet Miers, Mr. Rove has spoken extensively in the media on the very subject the Subcommittee seeks to question him about: allegations regarding his role in the alleged politicization of the Justice Department during this Administration, including the prosecution of prominent Democrats like former Governor Don Siegelman and the unprecedented forced resignations of nine U.S. Attorneys in 2006. In addition, if Mr. Rove and his attorney are willing to submit written answers to questions, as they have when asked by Representative Smith, Mr. Rove should also be willing to answer oral questions with a transcript. It is inappropriate for former White House personnel to speak publicly about matters and answer written questions as they choose but then to refuse to testify before Congress under oath and subject to cross-examination on the very same matters, relying on claims of alleged confidentiality.

Fifth, and finally, especially to the extent that Executive Privilege is the basis for the claim of immunity as to Mr. Rove, the White House has failed to demonstrate that the information the Committee seeks from him under the subpoena is covered by that privilege. There is no expectation that Mr. Rove would reveal any communications to or from the President himself, which is at the heart of the presidential communications privilege.

In fact, on June 28, 2007, a senior White House official at an authorized background briefing specifically stated that the President had "no personal involvement" in receiving advice about the forced resignations of the U.S. Attorneys or in approving or adjusting the list containing their names. The Committee seeks information from Mr. Rove about his own communications and his own involvement in the process of the forced resignations of U.S. Attorneys and related aspects of the politicization of the Justice Department.

Mr. Rove nevertheless apparently claims that Executive Privilege applies or confers immunity upon him, asserting that the privilege also covers testimony by White House staff who advise the President, apparently based on the Espy decision.

The Espy court, however, made clear that while the presidential communications privilege may cover "communications made by presidential advisers," such communications are only within the realm of Executive Privilege when they are undertaken "in the course of preparing advice for the President." But the White House has maintained that the President never received any advice on, and was not himself involved in, the forced resignations of the U.S. Attorneys. And there has been no suggestion that the President was personally involved in the Siegelman matter. Thus, the presidential communications privilege would not seem to apply here.

Moreover, whether such communications would even fall under the presidential communications privilege in the context of a Congressional inquiry is far from certain. The Supreme Court in Nixon and the Court of Appeals in Espy both expressly noted that different balancing considerations would apply when the communications at issue were sought by Congress on behalf of the American people. It seems odd that these courts would rule that a congressional investigation, authorized under the Constitution, carries less weight than a civil or criminal trial. More appropriately, such an investigation should be entitled to the greatest deference by the courts, as Congress is tasked specifically with overseeing and legislating on matters concerning the workings of the Executive Branch, and specifically the Justice Department.

For all the foregoing reasons, Mr. Rove's claims of immunity are not legally valid and his refusal to comply with the subpoena and appear at this hearing to answer questions cannot be properly justified.

F. Conclusion

The Committee should approve the Report on the refusal of Karl Rove to comply with a subpoena by the House Judiciary Committee, which includes a resolution to be recommended to the House of Representatives providing that Mr. Rove be cited for contempt of Congress and that the House pursue other legal remedies to enforce the outstanding subpoena as appropriate.

Posted by doctormatt at 7:38 PM

July 28, 2008

Highlights from the non-impeachment hearing

What follows is an attempt keep up live with the pace of the action over the nearly six hour hearing. I am not a stenographer and so many of the issues discussed required a certain amount of background info to contextualize that the quotes are few and the summaries many. However since the chances are good mainstream media may never present much coverage of this hearing historic hearing, here's my best shot:

http://www.opednews.com/maxwrite/print_friendly.php?p=Notes-from-the-Non-Impeach-by-mikel-weisser-080726-259.html

Posted by doctormatt at 7:01 PM

Did A Culture of Right-Wing Hate Lead to Church Shootings?

KNOXVILLE, Tenn. -- An out-of-work truck driver accused of opening fire at a Unitarian church, killing two people, left behind a note suggesting that he targeted the congregation out of hatred for its liberal policies, including its acceptance of gays, authorities said Monday.

A four-page letter found in Jim D. Adkisson's small SUV indicated he intentionally targeted the Tennessee Valley Unitarian Universalist Church because, the police chief said, "he hated the liberal movement" and was upset with "liberals in general as well as gays."

Adkisson, a 58-year-old truck driver on the verge of losing his food stamps, had 76 rounds with him when he entered the church and pulled a shotgun from a guitar case during a children's performance of the musical "Annie."

The Knoxville News Sentinel reported Monday that Adkisson may also have chosen the church because his ex-wife was a former longtime member of the congregation.

..............................................

By MARC McDONALD

A man who is accused of shooting and killing two at a Tennessee church apparently targeted the congregation "out of hatred for its support of liberal social policies," police said Monday.

One might ask: where would such extreme hatred of Liberals come from?

To get the answer, turn on Right-Wing talk radio any day.

There, on a daily basis, you'll hear the most amazingly vicious bashing of Liberals imaginable.

From Savage to Limbaugh to Hannity to the rest of HateWing radio, every day, one hears the most extraordinary demonization of Liberals and Democrats. If you get all your news and views from HateWing radio (as many Dittoheads do), you'll be convinced that Liberals are traitors who are working hand-in-hand with Al Qaeda to undermine the American nation.

Along with the hate, there's a hefty of dose of violent threats against Liberals on the AM radio dial these days.

Take right-wing nutcase Michael Graham, for example. In June 2007, he said he wanted to see someone "whack" the Clintons in a Sopranos spoof. And in 2003, Graham said of Hillary Clinton: "I wanted to bludgeon her with a tire iron."

Such inflammatory language is nothing new for the right-wing. Recall how Ann Coulter once wrote that the debate over Bill Clinton should be about "whether to impeach or assassinate."

Such seething hatred and threats of violence have ricocheted around the GOP echo chamber for at least the past couple of decades. And it hasn't been limited to right-wing talk radio.

Recall the comment by Jesse Helms in 1994: "Mr. Clinton better watch out if he comes down here. He'd better have a bodyguard."

Or G. Gordon Liddy's comment in 1995, when discussing how he'd used stick figures of the Clintons for target practice. "Thought it might improve my aim," he said.

Given this toxic stew of hatred and violent threats that poisons our nation's political discourse, we really shouldn't be surprised that there are many people out there who harbor extreme hatred toward Liberals.

.....................

Right Wing Blogosphere Completely Ignores Domestic Terrorism In Knoxville
By: Blue Texan

Some wingnut crazy shot up a Unitarian church in Tennessee, killing 2 and wounding 7. His hatred of liberals and gays was the motive.

What's notable about this is the complete radio silence on the right.

Almost exactly two years ago, there was another tragic shooting at a place of worship -- and they were all over it.

The difference? The shooter in 2006 was a Muslim.

..........................

Courtesy of Young Turks -

Over the weekend, years of conservative hate speech reached a deadly crescendo when Jim D. Adkisson walked into Tennessee Valley Unitarian Universalist Church and opened fire. His reason?

Adkisson claimed he couldn't find a job and expressing a profound "hatred for the liberal movement" and further ranting that "liberals and gays" were taking jobs and had prevented him from finding work. Adkisson acted on what the conservative talk radio has been advocating for years.

There is no dissent if you kill the dissenters.

Figuratively, by character assassination, misinformation and outright lies and now...literally. We've all heard it. Coulter's "satire" about murdering liberals, G Gordon Liddys "head shot" show, Limbaugh's disinformation and veiled threats and invocations of political violence against all those who disagree with him, O Reilly, Savage, the list goes on.

Even on these pages we have "conservatives" who relish violence against any diversity of opinion, in all its forms. We have all read the misogynistic hate and misguided machismo of these posts. One even advocated the "hanging" of Cenk , myself and others who opposed the Iraq war. Other "conservatives" have advocated violence in various forms against, among others, homeless, gays and the poor. Consider this gem of tolerence from conservative "pastor" Jerry Falwell:

But these things speak evil of those things, verse 10 [reading from Jude] which they know not: but what they know naturally, as brute beasts, in those things they corrupt themselves. Look at the Metropolitan Community Church today, the gay church, almost accepted into the World Council of Churches. Almost, the vote was against them. But they will try again and again until they get in, and the tragedy is that they would get one vote. Because they are spoken of here in Jude as being brute beasts, that is going to the baser lust of the flesh to live immorally, and so Jude describes this as apostasy. But thank God this vile and satanic system will one day be utterly annihilated and there'll be a celebration in heaven.

Adkisson as it turns out was an out-of-work mechanical engineer. Obviously not an uneducated man, he left a four-page letter in his car that was abandoned in the church parking lot in which he railed against liberals and the fact that he had been unable to get a job since 2006.

Adkisson was also angry that his food stamps were about to be reduced or eliminated.

Like most "conservatives" he was clueless about who was really impacting his life, namely his job being outsourced and the anger at his cut in benefits and the disappearance of those conservative boot straps we hear so much about.

As it turns out the cuts were at the hands of Republican "conservatives" being more "fiscally responsible" to pay for additional state tax cuts and Bush Administration's compassionate plan to cut food stamp benefits to about 185,000 people in the U.S. for 2007-2008.

Well buck up Ditto-heads ,things arent all bad. The consevatives can look on the bright side, if the parishioners had been packing heat...

.......

RJ Eskow blogs:

I'd say that Unitarians were God's thoughtful people, but they make no particular claims about God. In some parts of the country that takes real courage.

My first wife and I joined a Unitarian church in suburban DC and raised our kids there. She and I were from different religious backgrounds - in a way, I was from different religious backgrounds, raised in Judaism but with Catholic and Southern Baptist relatives. We both practiced Buddhist meditation (and found others there that did the same.)

Unitarians tend to be intellectual, verbal, literate, thoughtful, and from a variety of backgrounds. Some are atheist, some are agnostic, others believe in God in a variety of Eastern and Western forms. Some would describe themselves as "ethically Christian," although others would not - and it is not an exclusively Christian group. The running joke among Unitarians was that the name "Jesus" is only heard when someone falls down the stairs, and that the only sacrament is the black coffee brewed after services.

The Unitarian Universalist (or UU) denomination is the product of a merger between Unitarianism and Universalism, two centuries-old Christian denominations. Unitarianism was founded on the belief that the Trinity was illogical and that there could only be one divinity. Universalists believed that God was too merciful to condemn anyone to an eternity in hell, and that even the most evil person would get out of there eventually (after fifty thousand years or so). Eventually they merged and abandoned all dogma. (You can read the Knoxville church's website for a summary of beliefs.)

When my work sent me to Hungary, I arrived in the only nation on earth that ever had a Unitarian state (during the reign of King John Sigismund, who decreed religious tolerance in 1568). Ralph Waldo Emerson is the closest thing to a saint that UU's have. An ordained minister in the church, his Harvard Divinity School address was revolutionary in its day.

Emerson rejected all claims of the supernatural in the Bible. He said that miracles were "monster," in the original meaning of that word as "against nature." In a characteristically striking turn of phrase, he said they were "not one with the blowing clover and the falling rain." Emerson was telling us that the beauty of the manifest world should be enough.

Is it worth killing a person for believing that?

My current (and future) wife and I were married by the Rev. Forrest Church at All Souls Unitarian in Manhattan. (Dr. Church is now teaching us how to face death.) When at several points in my career jobs came up in the Deep South, I always checked to see if there was a Unitarian Church nearby. One of those job possibilities, which I chose not to pursue, was in Knoxville.

Jim Adkisson of Powell, Tennessee was the man with his finger on the trigger. He had mental health problems, and a hard and bitter life. He apparently left a letter explaining that he hated the church for its liberal beliefs and opinions. And the church had a sign outside indicating it welcomed gays and lesbians.

Who really killed those Unitarians? Was it the preachers who spread hatred and intolerance? The politicians who court and flatter them instead of condemning their hate speech? The media machine that attacks liberals, calls them "traitors" and suggests you speak to them "with a baseball bat"? The economic system that batters people like Jim Adkisson until they snap, then tells them their real enemies are gays and liberals and secular humanists?

If you ask me, it was all of the above.

You killed them, Pat Robertson. You killed them, Pastor Hagee. You killed them, Ann Coulter. You killed them, Dick Morris and Sean Hannity and the rest of you at Fox News.

The shooting began while the children of the church were putting on a musical based on "Annie." One broad-shouldered church member blocked the bullets from hitting other people, and died. You don't need to believe in dogma to be a hero. Remember that song from "Annie"? It probably got on your nerves like it got on mine. "The sun'll come out tomorrow."

The sun coming out. That's natural. It's one with the blowing clover and the falling rain. But a man driven insane, then programmed by society to kill people just because they're loving and tolerant?

That's monster.

....................................

Posted by doctormatt at 6:26 PM

July 27, 2008

WTC building 7 - BBC video "The third tower"

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/7485331.stm

http://video.google.co.uk/videoplay?docid=-4576154575407650292

http://www.thedossier.ukonline.co.uk/video_september11.htm

Posted by doctormatt at 10:39 PM

July 26, 2008

House hearing on abuses of executive branch - Opinion: Michael Collins

WASHINGTON, DC - Today's hearing on the abuse of presidential powers before the House Committee on the Judiciary turned into a devastating political ambush by Chairman John Conyers (D-MI), committee Democrats, and the extraordinary panel of witnesses.. At least 12 Democratic Committee members were present plus the Chairman while only four Republicans bothered to show up.

Belying their casual appearance in the committee chambers, the Democrats presented a well coordinated, hard hitting case against President George W. Bush. This lead to a double climax in the form of surgically erudite testimony by conservative legal scholar Bruce Fein, a former Reagan administration official, and former Los Angeles District Attorney Vincent Bugliosi's stunning summary statement. The best the Republicans could offer was inappropriate humor by Rep. Don Lundgren (D-CA) and a request to clear the chambers when the audience cheered Mr. Bugliosi's remarks.

The hearing resulted from the non stop campaign for the impeachment of President George W. Bush by Rep. Dennis Kucinich (D-OH). That effort received an overwhelming endorsement last week with the votes of a 238 majority in the U.S. House of Representatives. The 229 Democrats and 9 Republicans voted to refer the single count impeachment bill to the House or Representatives Committee on the Judiciary chaired by Rep. John Conyers (D-MI).

The Kucinich Resolution - H.R. 1345 outlines the case for the impeachment of President Bush. Specifically, as president, Bush:

"Deceived Congress with fabricated threats of Iraq Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD) to fraudulently obtain support for an authorization for the use of force against Iraq and used that fraudulently obtained authorization, and then acting in his capacity under Article II, Section II of the Constitution as Commander in Chief, to commit US troops to combat in Iraq."

There was speculation prior to the hearings that the Republicans might scuttle the entire process due to House rules that prevent disparaging comments about the president. Apparently they failed to read the entirety of House Practice, Sec. 25 which lists a number of negative comments that House members have used in the past and makes clear they're available in the present.

"Few issues more important"

Chairman Conyers opened the hearing by noting that there are "few issues more important" than the actions of Congress to curtail the abuse of presidential powers. As a member of the House committee that heard the Nixon Impeachment case, he speaks with a certain authority. He listed the various abuses of presidential power by Bush laying out the case that his fellow Democrats would elaborate. The senior member of the committee, Republican Lamar Smith (R-TX) responded that he'd seen a lot from this committee but today's hearing was like "hosting an anger management class."

Rep. Robert Wexler (D-FL), a strong advocate for the hearings, responded by pointing out that given the evidence of high crimes, this isn't a Democratic or Republican issue, it's an American issue. The Democrats continued the theme of gravity with Cong. Zoe Lofgren (D-CA) referring to Bush as "the worst president our country has ever suffered"

Cong. Sheila Jackson Lee (D-X) returned to what would lead to the most devastating and startling charges of the hearing - the basis for the invasion of Iraq and the disregard for civil liberties through the torture of foreigners and the domestic assault on privacy. Rep. Trent Franks (R-AZ) responded that the hearing was nothing but "a do-over that amuses our terrorist friends."

"If lying about casual sex" is an impeachment issue, "then certainly lying to the American people about invading Iraq" is, responded Rep. Hank Johnson (D-GA). Rep. Tammy Baldwin (D-WI), another strong supporter of impeachment, continued the hard hitting attack

The Republicans were still not taking the hearing seriously when Cong. Don Lundgren resorted to nothing more than wise cracks in response.

Murder & Tyranny

The peroration came from conservative legal scholar Bruce Fein's testimony about the Bush administration's descent into tyranny. Had Bush showed up at the Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia, he would have been barred at the door by George Washington, Fein said with confidence. He made the comment in a fashion that betrayed contempt for any defense of the Bush administration's behavior. Bush was labeled a tyrant from one of the best and brightest of the United States' legal establishment.

The finale was the testimony of former Los Angeles District Attorney, Vincent Bugliosi. As DA, Bugliosi tired and convicted Charles Manson of first degree murder gaining a death sentence even though the state admitted that Manson was never at the seen of the murders. In the past, Bugliosi has said that preparation is the key to winning cases and that he knows that he's won after the opening statement. With only five minutes, he had a tall task but the syllogism he established was air tight.

On October 1, 2002, President Bush was told that Iraq had no weapons of mass destruction (WMD). On October 7th, Bush clamed that Iraq was a threat to the United States due to the possession of WMD. He then used this claim to justify the war in Iraq making him guilty for the death of over four thousand U.S. soldiers and over 100,000 documented deaths of Iraqi civilians.

There were other members of the witness panel, including the author of today's hearings Dennis Kucinich (D-O), Republican Rep. Walter Jones of North Carolina, Rep. Maurice Hinchey (D-NY), and Rep. Brad Miller (D-NC). But it was the patient and cagey Chairman of the Judiciary Committee, his supporting cast of Democrats and the two star witnesses, Fein and Bugliosi who made charges of rule by tyranny and murder - charges that will not be easily forgotten no matter how much the mainstream media and politicians choose to ignore this issue.

Posted by doctormatt at 7:06 PM

July 22, 2008

Bush admin to place barriers on contraception

The Bush administration is up to its old tricks again, quietly putting ideology before science and women's health. The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services is poised to put in place new barriers to accessing common forms of contraception like birth control pills, emergency contraception and IUDs by labeling them "abortion." These proposed regulations set to be released next week will allow healthcare providers to refuse to provide contraception to women who need it. We can't let them get away with this underhanded move to undermine women's health -
Read More:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/hillary-clinton/an-outrageous-attempt-by_b_114064.html

Posted by doctormatt at 12:52 AM

July 19, 2008

Conyers to hold hearings July 25

In a release Thursday, House Judiciary Committee Chairman John Conyers (D-MI) announced he will hold a hearing July 25 examining "the imperial presidency of George W. Bush and possible legal responses."

The word "impeachment" was not mentioned in the announcement, but it appears the hearing is going to examine issues raised by Rep. Dennis Kucinich (D-OH) in his resolution to impeach Bush.

"Over the last seven plus years, there have been numerous credible allegations of serious misconduct by officials in the Bush Administration," Conyers said in a news release. "At the same time, the administration has adopted what many would describe as a radical view of its own powers and authorities. As Chairman of the Judiciary Committee, I believe it is imperative that we pursue a comprehensive review commensurate to this constitutionally dangerous combination of circumstances. Next Friday's hearings will be an important part of that ongoing effort."

Conyers did not say who would testify at the hearing, but he laid out a variety of abuses that would be examined, including:

(1) improper politicization of the Justice Department and the U.S. Attorneys offices, including potential misuse of authority with regard to election and voting controversies;

(2) misuse of executive branch authority and the adoption and implementation of the so-called unitary executive theory, including in the areas of presidential signing statements and regulatory authority;

(3) misuse of investigatory and detention authority with regard to U.S. citizens and foreign nationals, including questions regarding the legality of the administration's surveillance, detention, interrogation, and rendition programs;

(4) manipulation of intelligence and misuse of war powers, including possible misrepresentations to Congress related thereto;

(5) improper retaliation against administration critics, including disclosing information concerning CIA operative Valerie Plame, and obstruction of justice related thereto; and

(6) misuse of authority in denying Congress and the American people the ability to oversee and scrutinize conduct within the administration, including through the use of various asserted privileges and immunities.

After the committee ignored Kucinich's first impeachment attempt last month, the former Democratic presidential candidate re-introduced a single article on Tuesday. In response, Conyers promised a hearing that would accumulate "all the things that constitute an imperial presidency."

However, Conyers indicated his unwillingness to actually vote on impeachment, regardless of Kucinich's presentation.

While no one has really asked lately, the White House has previously brushed off questions about impeachment in the past.

"I'm not going to comment on something as ridiculous as that," Bush spokeswoman Dana Perino said last year when asked about impeachment.

Kucinich has been relentless in his push to impeach Bush. On Tuesday, the House formally sent his latest impeachment resolution to the Judiciary Committee. Its title: "Deceiving Congress with Fabricated Threats of Iraq WMDs to Fraudulently Obtain Support for an Authorization of the Use of Military Force Against Iraq."

Posted by doctormatt at 12:40 AM

Impeachment Hearings: A Win Is a Win

http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2008/07/17/10422/

Posted by doctormatt at 12:18 AM

July 16, 2008

Congressional Panel To Review Kucinich's Call to Impeach Bush

http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2008/07/15/10391/

Posted by doctormatt at 11:20 PM

July 13, 2008

Bush backs Israeli plan for strike on Iran

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/middle_east/article4322508.ece

Abdalla Salem El-Badri, secretary-general of Opec, the oil producers' consortium, said last week that a military conflict involving Iran would see an "unlimited" rise in prices because any loss of Iranian production -- or constriction of shipments through the Strait of Hormuz -- could not be replaced. Iran is Opec's second-largest producer after Saudi Arabia.

Posted by doctormatt at 10:53 PM

July 10, 2008

Kucinich introduces 1 article of impeachment

Statement by US Congressman Dennis J. Kucinich Presenting an Article of Impeachment of the President
Thursday, July 10, 2008

WASHINGTON - July 10 - Yesterday in the House, we had a moment of silence for the troops. Today it is time to speak out on behalf of those troops who will be in Iraq for at least another year, courageously representing our nation while their Commander in Chief sent them on a mission that was based on falsehoods about the threat of WMDs from Iraq.

Throughout the summer and fall of 2002, the Congress, the media and the American people heard the terrifying drumbeat of fear from the Bush White House in the form of loud, well-advertised and orchestrated chanting by the President and his Administration about "Weapons of Mass Destruction," "Nuclear Threats," "Biological Weapons," "Chemical Weapons," "Threats of Imminent Attack," all calculated to gain media attention, public support and Congressional support for a war against Iraq.

This afternoon I will introduce a single Article of Impeachment of the President.

The Article is entitled: "Deceiving Congress with Fabricated Threats of Iraq WMDs to Fraudulently Obtain Support for an Authorization of the Use of Military Force Against Iraq." The Impeachment resolution focuses narrowly on what the President presented to Congress in the Authorization of the Use of Military Force. It does not address the voluminous evidence of orchestrated deceptions which have been well documented by various governmental, non-governmental and media sources.

I understand that many members of Congress voted in good faith to authorize the use of force against Iraq. And I understand that many in the media supported that action. When the President of the United States makes representations on matters of life and death, we all want to believe him and give him the benefit of the doubt. Trust is the glue which holds the fabric of our nation together.

Those in Congress and in the media who acted on the President's representations of the threat of Iraq WMDs did so trusting that those representations were honest. Unfortunately, they were not. We all know the consequences of the war, the loss of lives and injury to our troops, the deaths of innocent Iraqis, the cost to the American taxpayers. There has been another consequence: Great damage to our Constitution through an unnecessary, illegal war and the destruction of the superior role of Congress in the life of this nation.

Congress must, in the name of the American people, use the one remedy which the Founders provided for an Executive who gravely abused his power: Impeachment. Congress must reassert itself as a co-equal branch of government; bring this President to an accounting, and in doing so reestablish the people's trust in Congress and in our United States system of government. We must not let this President's conduct go unchallenged and thereby create a precedent which undermines the Constitution.

In the final analysis this is about our Constitution and whether a President can be held accountable for his actions and his deceptions, especially when the effects of those actions have been so calamitous for America, Iraq and the world. Unless Congress reasserts itself as the power branch of government which the Founders intended, our experiment with a republican form of Government may be nearing an end. But when Congress acts to hold this President accountable it will be redeeming the faith that the Founders had in the power of a system of checks and balances which preserves our republic.

DRAFT

AN ARTICLE OF IMPEACHMENT OF PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH

INTRODUCED BY CONGRESSMAN DENNIS J. KUCINICH

JULY 10, 2008

Resolved, that President George W. Bush be impeached for high crimes and misdemeanors, and that the following Article of Impeachment be exhibited to the United States Senate:

An Article of Impeachment exhibited by the House of Representatives of the United States of America in the name of itself and of the people of the United States of America, in maintenance and support of its impeachment against President George W. Bush for high crimes and misdemeanors.

ARTICLE ONE

DECEIVING CONGRESS WITH FABRICATED THREATS OF IRAQ WMDs TO FRAUDULENTLY OBTAIN SUPPORT FOR AN AUTHORIZATION OF THE USE OF MILITARY FORCE AGAINST IRAQ.

In his conduct while President of the United States, George W. Bush, in violation of his constitutional oath to faithfully execute the office of President of the United States and, to the best of his ability, preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States, and in violation of his constitutional duty under Article II, Section 3 of the Constitution "to take care that the laws be faithfully executed," deceived Congress with fabricated threats of Iraq Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD) to fraudulently obtain support for an authorization for the use of force against Iraq and used that fraudulently obtained authorization, then acting in his capacity under Article II, Section II of the Constitution as Commander in Chief, to commit US troops to combat in Iraq.

To gain Congressional support for passage of the Joint Resolution to Authorize the Use of United States Armed Forces Against Iraq, the President made the following material representations to the Congress in SJ Res 45:

That Iraq was "continuing to possess and develop a significant chemical and biological weapons capability...."
That Iraq was "actively seeking a nuclear weapons capability. . . ."
That Iraq was "continuing to threaten the national security interests of the United States and international peace and security."
That Iraq has demonstrated a "willingness to attack, the United States...."
That "members of Al Qaida, an organization bearing responsibility for attacks on the United States, its citizens and interests, including the attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, are known to be in Iraq.. . ."
The "attacks on the United States of September 11, 2001, underscored the gravity of the threat that Iraq will transfer weapons of mass destruction to international terrorist organizations. . ."
That Iraq "will either employ those weapons to launch a surprise attack against the United States or its Armed Forces or provide them to international terrorists who would do so, . . ."
That an "extreme magnitude of harm that would result to the United States and its citizens from such an attack,. .. ."
That the aforementioned threats "justify action by the United States to defend itself; . . ."
The enactment clause of Section 2 of SJ Res 45, the Authorization of the Use of the United States Armed Forces authorizes the President to "defend the national security interests of the United States against the threat posed by Iraq. . ."
Each consequential representation made by the President to the Congress in SJ Res 45, in subsequent iterations and the final version was unsupported by evidence which was in the control of the White House.

1. Iraq was not "continuing to possess and develop a significant chemical and biological weapons capability. . ."

"A substantial amount of Iraq's chemical warfare agents, precursors, munitions and production equipment were destroyed between 1991 and 1998 as a result of Operation Desert Storm and United Nations Special Commission (UNSCOM) actions. . . . There is no reliable information on whether Iraq is producing and stockpiling chemical weapons or whether Iraq has--or will--establish its chemical warfare agent production facilities." Defense Intelligence Agency. Iraq--Key WMD Facilities--An Operational Support Study. September 2002. Available: http://www.fas.org/irp/news/2003/06/dod060703.pdf

"Statements by the President and Vice President prior to the October 2002 National Intelligence Estimate regarding Iraq's chemical weapons production capability and activities did not reflect the intelligence community's uncertainties as to whether such production was ongoing." Senate Select Committee on Intelligence. Report on Whether Public Statements Regarding Iraq By U.S. Government Officials Were Substantiated By Intelligence Information. June 5, 2008. Available: http://intelligence.senate.gov/080605/phase2a.pdf

"In April and early May 2003, military forces found mobile trailers in Iraq. Although intelligence experts disputed the purpose of the trailers, Administration officials repeatedly asserted that they were mobile biological weapons laboratories. In total, President Bush, Vice President Cheney, Secretary Rumsfeld, Secretary Powell, and National Security Advisor Rice made 34 misleading statements about the trailers in 27 separate public appearances. Shortly after the (mobile trailers were found, the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) and Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) issued an unclassified white paper evaluating the trailers. The white paper was released without coordination with other members of the intelligence community, however. It was disclosed later that engineers from DIA who examined the trailers concluded that they were most likely used to produce hydrogen for artillery weather balloons. A former senior intelligence official reported that "only one of 15 intelligence analysts assembled from three agencies to discuss the issue in June endorsed the white paper conclusion." House Committee on Government Reform- Minority Staff. Iraq on the Record: Bush Administration's Public Statements about Chemical and Biological Weapons. March 16, 2004. Available:http://oversight.house.gov/IraqOnTheRecord/index.asp?viewAll=1&Subject=Chemical+and+Biological+Weapons&submit=display

Former chief of CIA covert operations in Europe, Tyler Drumheller, has said that the CIA had credible sources discounting weapons of mass destruction claims, incuding the primary source of biological weapons claims, an informant who the Germans code-named "Curveball" whom the Germans had informed the Bush Administration was a likely fabricator and including the Niger Yellowcake forgery. Two other former CIA officers confirmed Drumheller's account to Sidney Blumenthal who reported the story at Salon.com on September 6, 2007.

"In practical terms, with the destruction of the Al Hakam facility, Iraq abandoned its ambition to obtain advanced biological weapons (BW) weapons quickly. The Iraq Survey Group (ISG) found no direct evidence that Iraq, after 1996, had plans for a new BW program or was conducting BW-specific work for military purposes. Indeed, from the mid-1990s, despite evidence of continuing interest in nuclear and chemical weapons, there appears to be a complete absence of discussion or even interest in BW at the Presidential level. In spite of exhaustive investigation, ISG found no evidence that Iraq possessed, or was developing BW agent production systems mounted on road vehicles or railway wagons.... ISG harbors severe doubts about the source's credibility in regards to the breakout program." Duelfer, Charles. Comprehensive Report of the Special Advisor to the Director of Central Intelligence on Iraq's WMD. Available: http://www.lib.umich.edu/govdocs/duelfer.html

"While a small number of old, abandoned chemical munitions have been discovered, ISG judges that Iraq unilaterally destroyed its undeclared chemical weapons stockpile in 1991. There are no credible indications that Baghdad resumed production of chemical munitions thereafter, a policy ISG attributes to Baghdad's desire to see sanctions lifted, or rendered ineffectual, or its fear of force against it should WMD be discovered." Duelfer, Charles. Comprehensive Report of the Special Advisor to the Director of Central Intelligence on Iraq's WMD. Available: http://www.lib.umich.edu/govdocs/duelfer.html

2. Iraq was not "actively seeking a nuclear weapons capability."

The key finding of the Iraq Survey Group's (ISG) Report to the Director of Central Intelligence found that "Iraq's ability to reconstitute a nuclear weapons program progressively decayed after that date. Saddam Husayn (sic) ended the nuclear program in 1991 following the Gulf war. ISG found no evidence to suggest concerted efforts to restart the program." Duelfer, Charles. Comprehensive Report of the Special Advisor to the Director of Central Intelligence on Iraq's WMD. Available: http://www.lib.umich.edu/govdocs/duelfer.html

Claims that Iraq was purchasing uranium from Niger were not supported by the State Department's Bureau of Intelligence and Research in the National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) of October 2002.

The CIA had warned the British not to claim Iraq was purchasing uranium from Niger prior to the British statement that was later cited by President Bush. George Tenet, July 11, 2003

"One, there is no indication of resumed nuclear activities in those buildings that were identified through the use of satellite imagery as being reconstructed or newly erected since 1998, nor any indication of nuclear-related prohibited activities at any inspected sites. Second, there is no indication that Iraq has attempted to import uranium since 1990. Three, there is no indication that Iraq has attempted to import aluminum tubes for use n centrifuge enrichment. Moreover, even had Iraq pursued such a plan, it would have been -- it would have encountered practical difficulties in manufacturing centrifuges out of the aluminum tubes in question. Fourthly, although we are still reviewing issues related to magnets and magnet production, there is no indication to date that Iraq imported magnets for use in a centrifuge enrichment program. As I stated above, the IAEA (International Atomic Energy Agency) will naturally continue further to scrutinize and investigate all of the above issues." ElBaradei, Mohamed. Director General, International Atomic Energy Agency. Statement to the United Nations Security Council on The Status of Nuclear Inspections in Iraq: An Update. March 7, 2003. Available: http://www.iaea.org/NewsCenter/Statements/2003/ebsp2003n006.shtml

3 Iraq was not "continuing to threaten the national security interests of the United States."

"Let me be clear: analysts differed on several important aspects of [Iraq's biological, chemical, and nuclear] programs and those debates were spelled out in the Estimate. They never said there was an 'imminent' threat." Remarks as Prepared for Delivery by Former CIA Director George J. Tenet at Georgetown University. February 5, 2004. Available: http://www.fas.org/irp/cia/product/dci020504.html

"We have been able to keep weapons from going into Iraq . . . . We have been able to keep the sanctions in place to the extent that items that might support weapons of mass destruction have had some controls on them . . . . it's been quite a success for ten years." Powell, Colin. Secretary of State. Interview with Face the Nation. February 11, 2001.

"[British Secret Intelligence Service Chief Sir Richard Billing Dearlove] reported on his recent talks in Washington. There was a perceptible shift in attitude. Military action was now seen as inevitable. Bush wanted to remove Saddam, through military action, justified by the conjunction of terrorism and WMD. But the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy. The NSC had no patience with the UN route, and no enthusiasm for publishing material on the Iraqi regime's record. There was little discussion in Washington of the aftermath after military action. . . . The Foreign Secretary (of England) said he would discuss this with Colin Powell this week. It seemed clear that Bush had made up his mind to take military action, even if the timing was not yet decided. But the case was thin. Saddam was not threatening his neighbours, and his WMD capability was less than that of Libya, North Korea or Iran. We should work up a plan for an ultimatum to Saddam to allow back in the UN weapons inspectors. This would also help with the legal justification for the use of force." Rycroft, Matthew; Private Secretary to Prime Minister Tony Blair. Memo to British Ambassador to the United States David Manning. July 23, 2002. Available: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article387374.ece

4. Iraq did not have the "willingness to attack, the United States."

"The fact of the matter is that both baskets, the UN basket and what we and other allies have been doing in the region, have succeeded in containing Saddam Hussein and his ambitions. His forces are about one-third their original size. They really don't possess the capability to attack their neighbors the way they did ten years ago." Powell, Colin. Secretary of State. Transcript of Remarks made to German Foreign Minister Joschka Fischer. February 2001. Available: http://www.usembassy-israel.org.il/publish/peace/archives/2001/february/me0222a.html

The October 2002 National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) concluded that "Baghdad for now appears to be drawing a line short of conducting terrorist attacks with conventional or [chemical or biological weapons] against the United States, fearing that exposure of Iraqi involvement would provide Washington a stronger case for making war." Available: http://www.globalsecurity.org/intell/library/reports/2002/nie_iraq_october2002.htm

5. Iraq had no connection with the attacks of 9/11, or with al-Qaida's role in 9/11.

"The report [of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence] documents significant instances in which the Admnistration went beyond what the Intelligence Community knew or believed in making public claims, most notably on the false assertion that Iraq and al-Qaida had an operational partnership and joint involvement in carrying out the attacks of September 11th. The President and his advisors undertook a relentless public campaign in the aftermath of the attacks to use the war against al-Qaida as a justification for overthrowing Saddam Hussein. Representing to the American people that the two had an operational partnership and posed a single, indistinguishable threat was fundamentally misleading and led the Nation to war on false premises." Senator John D. Rockefeller IV. Chairman, Senate Select Committee on Intelligence. Additional Views of Chairman John D. Rockefeller IV. Page 90. Available: http://intelligence.senate.gov/080605/phase2a.pdf

Richard Clarke's memo of September 18, 2001, titled Survey of Intelligence Information on Any Iraq Involvement in the September 11 Attacks found no "compelling case" that Iraq had either planned or perpetrated the attacks, and that there was no confirmed reporting on Saddam cooperating with Bin Laden on unconventional weapons http://www.9-11commission.gov/report/911Report.pdf (page 334).

On September 17, 2003, President Bush said: "No, we've no evidence that Saddam Hussein was involved with September the 11th. What the vice president said was is that he (Saddam) has been involved with al-Qaida." Available: http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/national/140133.bushiraq18.html

On June 16, 2004, a Staff Report from the 9/11 Commission stated: "There has been reports that contacts between Iraq and al Qaeda also occurred after bin Laden had returned to Afghanistan [in 1996], but they do not appear to have resulted in a collaborative relationship. . . . Two senior bin Laden associates have adamantly denied that any ties existed between al Qaeda and Iraq. We have no credible evidence that Iraq and al Qaeda cooperated on attacks against the United States." Available: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A46254-2004Jun16.html

"Intelligence provided by former undersecretary of defense Douglas J. Feith to buttress the White House case for invading Iraq included "reporting of dubious quality or reliability" that supported the political views of senior administration officials rather than the conclusions of the intelligence community, according to a report by the Pentagon's inspector general.

"Feith's office 'was predisposed to finding a significant relationship between Iraq and al Qaeda,' according to portions of the report, released yesterday by Sen. Carl M. Levin (D-Mich.). The inspector general described Feith's activities as 'an alternative intelligence assessment process.'" Pincus, Walter and Smith, R. Jeffrey. "Official's Key Report On Iraq Is Faulted, 'Dubious' Intelligence Fueled Push for War." Washington Post. February 9, 2007. A1.

6. Iraq possessed no weapons of mass destruction to transfer to anyone.

Iraq possessed no weapons of mass destruction to transfer. Furthermore, available intelligence information found that the Iraq regime would only transfer weapons of mass destruction to terrorist organizations if under severe threat of attack by the United States:

According to information in the October 2002 National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) on Iraq that was available to the Administration at the time they were seeking Congressional support for the authorization of the use of force against Iraq, the Iraq regime would transfer weapons to a terrorist organization only if "sufficiently desperate" because it feared that "an attack that threatened the survival of the regime were imminent or unavoidable. . . "

"Iraq probably would attempt clandestine attacks against the US Homeland if Baghdad feared an attack that threatened the survival of the regime were imminent or unavoidable, or possibly for revenge. Such attacks - more likely with biological than chemical agents - probably would be carried out by special forces or intelligence operatives.

"The Iraqi Intelligence Service (IIS) probably has been directed to conduct clandestine attacks against US and Allied interests in the Middle East in the event the United States takes action against Iraq. The IIS probably would be the primary means by which Iraq would attempt to conduct any CBW attacks on the US Homeland, although we have no specific intelligence information that Saddam's regime has directed attacks against US territory.

"Saddam, if sufficiently desperate, might decide that only an organization such as al-Qa'ida - with worldwide reach and extensive terrorist infrastructure, and already engaged in a life-or-death struggle against the United States - would perpetrate the type of terrorist attack that he would hope to conduct.

"In such circumstances, he might decide that the extreme step of assisting the Islamist terrorists in conducting a CBW attack against the United States would be his last chance to exact vengeance by taking a large number of victims with him." Available: http://www.globalsecurity.org/intell/library/reports/2002/nie_iraq_october2002.htm

7. Iraq had no weapons of mass destruction and therefore had no capability of launching a surprise attack against the United States or its Armed Forces or provide them to international terrorists who would do so. . ."

Iraq possessed no weapons of mass destruction to transfer. Furthermore, available intelligence information found that the Iraq regime would only transfer weapons of mass destruction to terrorist organizations if under severe threat of attack by the United States:

According to information in the October 2002 National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) on Iraq that was available to the Administration at the time they were seeking Congressional support for the authorization of the use of force against Iraq, the Iraq regime would transfer weapons to a terrorist organization only if "sufficiently desperate" because it feared that "an attack that threatened the survival of the regime were imminent or unavoidable..." October 2002 National Intelligence Estimate on Iraq. Available: http://www.globalsecurity.org/intell/library/reports/2002/nie_iraq_october2002.htm

"Iraq probably would attempt clandestine attacks against the US Homeland if Baghdad feared an attack that threatened the survival of the regime were imminent or unavoidable, or possibly for revenge. Such attacks - more likely with biological than chemical agents - probably would be carried out by special forces or intelligence operatives."

"The Iraqi Intelligence Service (IIS) probably has been directed to conduct clandestine attacks against US and Allied interests in the Middle East in the event the United States takes action against Iraq. The IIS probably would be the primary means by which Iraq would attempt to conduct any CBW attacks on the US Homeland, although we have no specific intelligence information that Saddam's regime has directed attacks against US territory."

"Saddam, if sufficiently desperate, might decide that only an organization such as al-Qa'ida - with worldwide reach and extensive terrorist infrastructure, and already engaged in a life-or-death struggle against the United States - would perpetrate the type of terrorist attack that he would hope to conduct."

"In such circumstances, he might decide that the extreme step of assisting the Islamist terrorists in conducting a CBW attack against the United States would be his last chance to exact vengeance by taking a large number of victims with him."

As reported in the Washington Post on March 1, 2003, in 1995, Saddam Hussein's son-in-law, Hussein Kamel had informed US and British intelligence officers that "all weapons--biological, chemical, missile, nuclear were destroyed." Lynch, Colum. "Iraqi Defector Claimed Arms Were Destroyed by 1995." Washington Post. A15. March 1, 2003.

"A substantial amount of Iraq's chemical warfare agents, precursors, munitions and production equipment were destroyed between 1991 and 1998 as a result of Operation Desert Storm and United Nations Special Commission (UNSCOM) actions. . . . There is no reliable information on whether Iraq is producing and stockpiling chemical weapons or whether Iraq has--or will--establish its chemical warfare agent production facilities." Defense Intelligence Agency. Iraq--Key WMD Facilities--An Operational Support Study. September 2002. Available: http://www.fas.org/irp/news/2003/06/dod060703.pdf

8. There was not a real risk of an "extreme magnitude of harm that would result to the United States and its citizens from such an attack" because Iraq had no capability of attacking the United States.

"Containment has been a successful policy, and I think we should make sure that we continue it until such time as Saddam Hussein comes into compliance with the agreements he made at the end of the (Gulf) War. . . . [Iraq is] not threatening America." Powell, Colin. Secretary of State.

9. The aforementioned evidence did not "justify the use of force by the United States to defend itself" because Iraq did not have weapons of mass destruction, or have the intention or capability of using the non-existent WMD's against the United States.

10. Since there was no threat posed by Iraq to the United States, the enactment clause was predicated on lying to Congress.

Congress relied on the information provided to it by the President of the United States. Congress provided the President with the authorization to use military force that he requested. As a consequence of the fraudulent representations made to the Congress, the United States Armed Forces, under the direction of George Bush as Commander in Chief, pursuant to Section 3 of the Authorization for the Use of Force which President Bush requested, invaded Iraq and occupies it to this day, at the cost of 4,116 lives of US service men and women, injuries to over 30,000 of our troops, the deaths of over 1,000,000 innocent Iraqi civilians, the destruction of Iraq, and a long term cost over $3 trillion.

President Bush's misrepresentations to Congress to induce passage of a use of force resolution is subversive of the Constitutional system of checks and balances, destructive of Congress' sole prerogative to declare war under Article I Section 8 of the Constitution, and is therefore a High Crime. An even greater offense by the President of the United States occurs in his capacity as Commander in Chief, because he knowingly placed the men and women of the United States Armed Forces in harm's way, jeopardizing their lives and their families' future, for reasons that to this date have not been established in fact.

In all of these actions and decisions, President George W. Bush has acted in a manner contrary to his trust as President and Commander in Chief, and subversive of constitutional government, to the prejudice of the cause of law and justice and to the manifest injury of the people of the United States and of those members of the Armed Forces who put their lives on the line pursuant to the falsehoods of the President. Wherefore, President George W. Bush, by such conduct, is guilty of an impeachable offense warranting removal from office.

Posted by doctormatt at 5:05 PM

July 8, 2008

Who planned the anthrax attacks

Who Planned the Anthrax Attacks?
It's the $5,800,000 question
by Justin Raimondo

You remember the anthrax attacks - or do you? It often seems, to me at least, that this important catalyst for the invasion of Iraq and our supremely wrong-headed post-9/11 foreign policy has been flushed down the collective memory hole. For all the attention that's been paid to that spooky chapter in the history of the "war on terrorism" in the intervening years, it may as well have never occurred. That's why news of the former prime suspect's ultimate vindication - and his victory in a $5.8 million lawsuit in which he accused the feds of unfairly targeting him as a "person of interest" (as John Ashcroft put it) - seems like a visitation from another time, the ghost of 9/11 past, haunting and mocking us. It sends chills down my spine - because, you see, the real culprits are still out there.

The FBI's non-investigation of this heinous and sinister crime was a joke from the beginning: after all, since when do FBI probes have official names, and why such a silly one as "Amerithrax"? Such brazen corniness has about it an unmistakable Keystone Kops air, which was certainly evident throughout the long-playing media circus that will evermore be known as the persecution of Steven J. Hatfill.

Hatfill, you'll recall, is the long-suffering victim of this horror story, a bio-weapons expert and "insider" who was targeted as the culprit not only by the FBI and New York Times columnist Nicholas Kristof, but also by dustbin Dylanologist A.J. Weberman, who, with characteristic restraint, accused him of being "the scumbag who killed several people in an attempt to awaken America to the dangers of biological warfare." This profile of the killer or killers as a "rogue insider" was also pushed by Barbara Hatch Rosenberg, a biowar expert at the State University of New York at Purchase, who chairs the Chemical and Biological Arms Control Program of the Federation of American Scientists.

It was Rosenberg who became the mainstream media's expert-in-residence at the height of the anthrax scare, and, although she never named Hatfill, it was she who relentlessly pushed the "insider" thesis to the major news organizations, which settled on her detective story as the conventional wisdom. A story that turned out to be spectacularly, disastrously, and tragically wrong. Tragic, that is, from the perspective of poor Hatfill, who found himself vilified and hounded out of his job, deprived of his position in the community, and practically run out of human society by his relentless pursuers.

The Hatfill-haters' narrative went something like this: Senor Hatfill is a right-wing nut-case with dubious connections to South Africa's apartheid regime, and quite possibly a "bio-evangelist" (as Weberman put it) who might conceivably have planned the attacks to "warn" us of the dangers of biowar - by demonstrating, on a small scale, how terrorists might envelop a nation in a miasma of fear.

Which is precisely what the anthrax attacks accomplished. The administration invoked them as part and parcel of the 9/11 terrorist attacks, and the War Party pointed to Saddam Hussein as the probable culprit. Andrew Sullivan, who had earlier accused the antiwar movement of being part of a bi-coastal "fifth column," was so certain the anthrax attacks were proof of Iraq's perfidy that he called on the U.S. to drop nuclear bombs on the Iraqis in retaliation.

The anthrax letters that arrived at major media outlets as well as the Senate offices of two prominent Democrats certainly added a special fillip of fear to the war hysteria that ensued in the wake of 9/11: the senders definitely had an agenda, and there seems little doubt as to what they aimed at: to prepare the nation for war, for some kind of massive retaliation against the Arab world. That was the agenda, and it largely succeeded - but whose agenda was it? Hatfill's exoneration raises the question: if he didn't mail the anthrax letters, then who did?

The answer is not really a mystery, since all the facts are on the public record, but I'll reiterate them here in case you aren't familiar with my past writings on this fascinating subject.

Just before the anthrax letters became public knowledge but after they'd been mailed, military police headquarters at Quantico, Virginia, received a letter that accused an Arab scientist who once worked at the USAMRID facility, a biowarfare lab at Ft. Detrick, of being a terrorist about to unleash biological warfare against civilian targets in the U.S.

The author of this anonymous missive claimed to have been one of the scientist's former co-workers, and appeared to have a detailed knowledge of Assaad's career and daily routine. When the anthrax letters were opened, the FBI paid a visit to Dr. Ayaad Assaad, a former Ft. Detrick employee, and questioned him extensively.

The FBI cleared Assaad of any connection to the anthrax letters early on, but then seemed to have let this significant clue grow quite cold, failing to follow up on it until the winter of 2004, when they launched an investigation into the Quantico letter. It seems clear that whoever sent that letter had at least foreknowledge of the anthrax attacks, and discovering the writers' identity could certainly lead us to the source of the attacks. Yet for years the FBI did nothing: instead, they chased Hatfill around, following him everywhere, blackening his name - and diverting attention away from the only hard evidence that has so far surfaced in this baffling case.

What were the results of the Quantico investigation? The Hartford Courant, which ran a series of articles on the anthrax case and the attempted framing of Dr. Assaad, was the only media outlet, to my knowledge, that reported on this development, which seems mysterious in itself. As for the outcome, that, too, remains a mystery - as does practically everything connected with this murky affair.

Dr. Assaad, an Egyptian-born biologist who worked at USAMRID in the early 1990s, was the target of a hateful harassment campaign that became the subject of a federal lawsuit later settled out of court. The defendants in the suit were a group of USAMRID employees who targeted Assaad by sending him anti-Arab missives - including a rubber camel outfitted with a sex toy - and composed poems that they left on his desk. An account in the Courant depicts the bizarre atmosphere in which U.S. government scientists worked on toxins powerful enough to kill off entire populations:

"Assaad said he was working on the Saturday before Easter 1991, just after the Persian Gulf War had ended, when he discovered an eight-page poem in his mailbox. The poem, which became a court exhibit, is 47 stanzas - 235 lines in all, many of them lewd, mocking Assaad. The poem also refers to another creation of the scientists who wrote it - a rubber camel outfitted with all manner of sexually explicit appendages.

"The poem reads: 'In [Assaad's] honor we created this beast; it represents life lower than yeast.' The camel, it notes, each week will be given 'to who did the least.'

"The poem also doubles as an ode to each of the participants who adorned the camel, who number at least six and referred to themselves as 'the camel club.' Two - Dr. Philip M. Zack and Dr. Marian K. Rippy - voluntarily left Fort Detrick soon after Assaad brought the poem to the attention of supervisors."

The ideological flavor of the Camel Club's jibes isn't too hard to fathom: they sound just like the participants in the hate-fest over at Little Green Footballs, or, come to think of it, the editorial board of the Weekly Standard. The anthrax-laden letters read "Death to America" and "Death to Israel," and invoked the name of Allah. Clearly this wasn't just an attempt to set up a particular Arab, Dr. Assaad, but to finger all Arab-Americans, and Muslims, as potential terrorists - weeks after bin Laden and his boys downed the World Trade Center and took out the Pentagon.

The trail that leads us to the perpetrators of the anthrax letter terrorist attacks ends at Ft. Detrick, where the "Camel Club" held court. Check out this Courant story that details the incredible laxity of the security controls in place at one of the U.S. government's most sensitive military facilities - and then imagine how easy it was for the terrorists to have smuggled out anthrax and other even more lethal toxins.

Doesn't any of this merit investigation by our "law enforcement' agencies - or are they too busy reading ordinary people's email and spying on antiwar organizations to bother going after a gang of dangerous poisoners and murderers?

In settling with Hatfill for mega-bucks, the U.S. government isn't officially admitting any wrongdoing, - and we shouldn't hold our breath waiting for anything like an apology - but clearly something was going on behind the scenes that looks very much like obstruction of the investigation. Of course it's easy for a libertarian like me to scoff at the inefficiencies of government agencies: that's comes with the territory - and is, furthermore, a well-known fact [.pdf]. Yet there seems something a bit more dicey than mere incompetence at work here.

Posted by doctormatt at 12:02 AM

July 7, 2008

Ron Paul - "Something Big is going on"

I have, for the past 35 years, expressed my grave concern for the future of America. The course we have taken over the past century has threatened our liberties, security and prosperity. In spite of these long-held concerns, I have days--growing more frequent all the time--when I'm convinced the time is now upon us that some Big Events are about to occur. These fast-approaching events will not go unnoticed. They will affect all of us. They will not be limited to just some areas of our country. The world economy and political system will share in the chaos about to be unleashed.

Though the world has long suffered from the senselessness of wars that should have been avoided, my greatest fear is that the course on which we find ourselves will bring even greater conflict and economic suffering to the innocent people of the world--unless we quickly change our ways.

America, with her traditions of free markets and property rights, led the way toward great wealth and progress throughout the world as well as at home. Since we have lost our confidence in the principles of liberty, self reliance, hard work and frugality, and instead took on empire building, financed through inflation and debt, all this has changed. This is indeed frightening and an historic event.

The problem we face is not new in history. Authoritarianism has been around a long time. For centuries, inflation and debt have been used by tyrants to hold power, promote aggression, and provide "bread and circuses" for the people. The notion that a country can afford "guns and butter" with no significant penalty existed even before the 1960s when it became a popular slogan. It was then, though, we were told the Vietnam War and a massive expansion of the welfare state were not problems. The seventies proved that assumption wrong.

Today things are different from even ancient times or the 1970s. There is something to the argument that we are now a global economy. The world has more people and is more integrated due to modern technology, communications, and travel. If modern technology had been used to promote the ideas of liberty, free markets, sound money and trade, it would have ushered in a new golden age--a globalism we could accept.

Instead, the wealth and freedom we now enjoy are shrinking and rest upon a fragile philosophic infrastructure. It is not unlike the levies and bridges in our own country that our system of war and welfare has caused us to ignore.

I'm fearful that my concerns have been legitimate and may even be worse than I first thought. They are now at our doorstep. Time is short for making a course correction before this grand experiment in liberty goes into deep hibernation.

There are reasons to believe this coming crisis is different and bigger than the world has ever experienced. Instead of using globalism in a positive fashion, it's been used to globalize all of the mistakes of the politicians, bureaucrats and central bankers.

Being an unchallenged sole superpower was never accepted by us with a sense of humility and respect. Our arrogance and aggressiveness have been used to promote a world empire backed by the most powerful army of history. This type of globalist intervention creates problems for all citizens of the world and fails to contribute to the well-being of the world's populations. Just think how our personal liberties have been trashed here at home in the last decade.

The financial crisis, still in its early stages, is apparent to everyone: gasoline prices over $4 a gallon; skyrocketing education and medical-care costs; the collapse of the housing bubble; the bursting of the NASDAQ bubble; stockmarkets plunging; unemployment rising;, massive underemployment; excessive government debt; and unmanageable personal debt. Little doubt exists as to whether we'll get stagflation. The question that will soon be asked is: When will the stagflation become an inflationary depression?

There are various reasons that the world economy has been globalized and the problems we face are worldwide. We cannot understand what we're facing without understanding fiat money and the long-developing dollar bubble.

There were several stages. From the inception of the Federal Reserve System in 1913 to 1933, the Central Bank established itself as the official dollar manager. By 1933, Americans could no longer own gold, thus removing restraint on the Federal Reserve to inflate for war and welfare.

By 1945, further restraints were removed by creating the Bretton-Woods Monetary System making the dollar the reserve currency of the world. This system lasted up until 1971. During the period between 1945 and 1971, some restraints on the Fed remained in place. Foreigners, but not Americans, could convert dollars to gold at $35 an ounce. Due to the excessive dollars being created, that system came to an end in 1971.

It's the post Bretton-Woods system that was responsible for globalizing inflation and markets and for generating a gigantic worldwide dollar bubble. That bubble is now bursting, and we're seeing what it's like to suffer the consequences of the many previous economic errors.

Ironically in these past 35 years, we have benefited from this very flawed system. Because the world accepted dollars as if they were gold, we only had to counterfeit more dollars, spend them overseas (indirectly encouraging our jobs to go overseas as well) and enjoy unearned prosperity. Those who took our dollars and gave us goods and services were only too anxious to loan those dollars back to us. This allowed us to export our inflation and delay the consequences we now are starting to see.

But it was never destined to last, and now we have to pay the piper. Our huge foreign debt must be paid or liquidated. Our entitlements are coming due just as the world has become more reluctant to hold dollars. The consequence of that decision is price inflation in this country--and that's what we are witnessing today. Already price inflation overseas is even higher than here at home as a consequence of foreign central bank's willingness to monetize our debt.

Printing dollars over long periods of time may not immediately push prices up-yet in time it always does. Now we're seeing catch-up for past inflating of the monetary supply. As bad as it is today with $4 a gallon gasoline, this is just the beginning. It's a gross distraction to hound away at "drill, drill, drill" as a solution to the dollar crisis and high gasoline prices. Its okay to let the market increase supplies and drill, but that issue is a gross distraction from the sins of deficits and Federal Reserve monetary shenanigans.

This bubble is different and bigger for another reason. The central banks of the world secretly collude to centrally plan the world economy. I'm convinced that agreements among central banks to "monetize" U.S. debt these past 15 years have existed, although secretly and out of the reach of any oversight of anyone--especially the U.S. Congress that doesn't care, or just flat doesn't understand. As this "gift" to us comes to an end, our problems worsen. The central banks and the various governments are very powerful, but eventually the markets overwhelm when the people who get stuck holding the bag (of bad dollars) catch on and spend the dollars into the economy with emotional zeal, thus igniting inflationary fever.

This time--since there are so many dollars and so many countries involved--the Fed has been able to "paper" over every approaching crisis for the past 15 years, especially with Alan Greenspan as Chairman of the Federal Reserve Board, which has allowed the bubble to become history's greatest.

The mistakes made with excessive credit at artificially low rates are huge, and the market is demanding a correction. This involves excessive debt, misdirected investments, over-investments, and all the other problems caused by the government when spending the money they should never have had. Foreign militarism, welfare handouts and $80 trillion entitlement promises are all coming to an end. We don't have the money or the wealth-creating capacity to catch up and care for all the needs that now exist because we rejected the market economy, sound money, self reliance and the principles of liberty.

Since the correction of all this misallocation of resources is necessary and must come, one can look for some good that may come as this "Big Even" unfolds.

There are two choices that people can make. The one choice that is unavailable to us is to limp along with the status quo and prop up the system with more debt, inflation and lies. That won't happen.

One of the two choices, and the one chosen so often by government in the past is that of rejecting the principles of liberty and resorting to even bigger and more authoritarian government. Some argue that giving dictatorial powers to the President, just as we have allowed him to run the American empire, is what we should do. That's the great danger, and in this post-911 atmosphere, too many Americans are seeking safety over freedom. We have already lost too many of our personal liberties already. Real fear of economic collapse could prompt central planners to act to such a degree that the New Deal of the 30's might look like Jefferson's Declaration of Independence.

The more the government is allowed to do in taking over and running the economy, the deeper the depression gets and the longer it lasts. That was the story of the 30ss and the early 40s, and the same mistakes are likely to be made again if we do not wake up.

But the good news is that it need not be so bad if we do the right thing. I saw "Something Big" happening in the past 18 months on the campaign trail. I was encouraged that we are capable of waking up and doing the right thing. I have literally met thousands of high school and college kids who are quite willing to accept the challenge and responsibility of a free society and reject the cradle-to-grave welfare that is promised them by so many do-good politicians.

If more hear the message of liberty, more will join in this effort. The failure of our foreign policy, welfare system, and monetary policies and virtually all government solutions are so readily apparent, it doesn't take that much convincing. But the positive message of how freedom works and why it's possible is what is urgently needed.

One of the best parts of accepting self reliance in a free society is that true personal satisfaction with one's own life can be achieved. This doesn't hap