Pursuing the Truth

Maybe I'm not the forgiving type especially when it comes to things like wiretapping, torture, wars based on flawed intelligence, and the politicization of the Justice Department. So why am I finding myself against this thing Senator Leahy calls a Truth Commission? For the same reason four 9/11 widows are against it:

Dear Senator Leahy,

We felt compelled to write to you regarding your recent call for the formation of a "Truth Commission." According to your press comments, this Commission is supposed to look at the following:

* the politicization of prosecution in the Justice Department
* the wiretapping of U.S. citizens
* the flawed intelligence used to justify the invasion of Iraq
* the use of torture at Guantanamo and so-called black sites abroad

These are serious allegations of criminal activity by certain members of the Bush Administration. While we applaud your initiative in looking into these matters, we feel this approach is wrong.

As the Chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, you already have the responsibility and legal authority to investigate matters relating to federal criminal law without having to form a special commission. You are also bound by your oath of office to support and uphold the Constitution by ensuring that those who govern also abide by the rule of law.

Furthermore, a "Truth Commission" will not fix the real problems that our country faces, nor will it guarantee that we will get to the truth. The 9/11 Commission, which you want to model your commission after, is a perfect example of that flawed process.

The 9/11 Commission was mandated to follow the facts surrounding the events of September 11, 2001 to wherever they might lead and make national security recommendations based upon those facts. Sadly, prior to even beginning their investigation, like you, the 9/11 Commissioners agreed amongst themselves that their role was to fact find, not fault find.

This decision resulted in individuals not being held accountable for their specific failures. These people were shown to be incompetent in the 9/11 Commission's Final Report but were left in their positions, or worse, promoted. No one should be allowed to make this compromise on behalf of the American people. How can any agency be deemed fixed or reformed if the people working there are inept? How can anyone feel safer?

At the 9/11 Commission hearings, little actual evidence was ever produced. Many individuals were not sworn in, critical witnesses were either not called to testify or were permitted to dictate the parameters of their own questioning, pertinent questions were omitted and there was little follow-up. Whistleblower testimony was suppressed or avoided all together. The National Security Agency, an intelligence agency that is responsible for the collection and analysis of foreign communications and foreign intelligence, was barely investigated at all.

With the narrative of the 9/11 Commission's final report predetermined and with the preexisting intention to never hold anyone accountable in place, the 9/11 Commission was doomed to fail as a real investigation. The end result of the 9/11 Commission's work was that some of the recommendations that they produced were in fact, based on distortions and omissions. Since their mandate of a complete accounting was ignored, the recommendations were incomplete at best.

There was clearly no desire on the part of Congress to force the Commission to meet its legislative mandate. Accordingly, there were no repercussions for the fact that the investigation and its recommendations were incomplete. It could be surmised that holding no one accountable was more important than uncovering and disclosing the truth. This could compromise the future safety of American citizens. Why then would you want to model another Commission after it? Why would you want another Commission at all?

Senator Leahy, in light of the fact that the 9/11 Commission's worst offense was not fully investigating the September 11th attacks, completing that investigation should also be included on your list of matters to be examined.

America's founding fathers, prescient in their fears of unrestrained power, created three separate but equal branches of government. They had hoped to maintain and enforce the limits of the Executive Branch.

The Bush Administration was allowed to circumvent too many Constitutional restrictions effectively undermining America's system of justice, our nation's integrity and commitment to the rule of law. The Bush Administration's seizing of power proves the adage that "absolute power corrupts absolutely."

The days of no fault government must end; and where there is clear criminal activity, people must be prosecuted. The law must be upheld without exception before we can be assured of the safety of the nation. These duties cannot be ignored for the sake of expediency.

Senator Leahy, our nation needs you to investigate and, if warranted, refer the cases for criminal prosecution in transparent trials. We do not need another meaningless commission resulting in no accountability at the taxpayers' expense. Show all Americans that you have the courage to uphold the law, bring accountability to those who abuse their positions of power and prevent such abuses from happening again.

The November 2008 elections proved that Americans want the rule of law restored for those in Washington who are elected to represent us. You, Senator Leahy, are in the position to lead the way and work toward the change we were promised.

Sincerely,

September 11th Advocates
Patty Casazza
Monica Gabrielle
Mindy Kleinberg
Lorie Van Auken

They make a strong case that a commission is simply the wrong approach. And although Senator Leahy claims any truth commission grant of immunity would be very limited and in consultation with the Justice Department, some lawyers still see the commission as a profoundly bad idea and an inappropriate substitute for criminal prosecution.

Take a look at these recently released Bush era memos from the Office of Legal Counsel. Their flawed conclusion is that the president's powers over military and captured combatants -- including U.S. citizens -- is absolute. Yep, according to John Yoo, if the president decided that a U.S. citizen was an “enemy combatant,” he or she could be imprisoned indefinitely.

More secret memos are likely to surface. The New York Times spoke with officials who believe there exists one memo from the fall of 2001 justifying the National Security Agency’s program of domestic surveillance without warrants and one from the summer of 2002 that listed specific harsh interrogation techniques, including waterboarding.

How is it that a president and the Justice Department can go around making these secret rulings with no input from the other branches of government? Does this mean any president can create his own legal bubble, and then withdraw the flawed opinions 5 days before leaving office? Is it a game?

And how can this Justice Department handle a prosecution of Bush officials when 50 prosecutors who served under Bush still remain?

Despite all of President Obama's talk about looking forward, I just want to reiterate that I, for one, am still looking forward to seeing Cheney behind bars.

a/k/a War on Drugs

Yesterday I watched a/k/a Tommy Chong. The documentary chronicles the entrapment and incarceration of comedy icon Tommy Chong of the legendary comedy duo, Cheech and Chong. The story is an infuriating one about a U.S. Attorney, Mary Beth Buchanan, who went on a money-wasting witch-hunt to prosecute Chong and others for selling water pipes over the Internet. Feel safer? Not me.

In fact, one comment by Chong expressed how unsafe we should feel. When asked what prison was like, he answered "You'll find out."

When a moralistic government is on a mission, they'll prosecute anybody they want. It doesn't matter how benign your business or private life is... they'll come and get you with a SWAT team if it makes for a good photo-op.

You should probably try to see this DVD while it's still available. Mary Beth Buchanan still has the power, and she obviously doesn't want you to see it.

The Cowardly Lion in Oz

Courage is acting in the face of fear. (If video doesn't show, click here.)



There is one big coward on that stage -- Karl Rove. There is one courageous person on that stage -- Janine Boneparth.

One has to be brave to confront a former Bush adviser and accuse him of treason. However, bravery doesn't guarantee the success of your game plan. I do believe this attempted citizen's arrest needed a lot more planning. For example, how do you hand the criminal over to the police, when the police are clearly not interested in jailing him?

But the many efforts to arrest Karl Rove at least keep his crimes in the spotlight and illuminate his mocking contempt for Congress as he refuses to testify despite being twice subpoenaed.

If our US Congress was courageous, it would exercise its "inherent contempt" authority which permits the person cited to be arrested by the Sergeant-at-Arms for the House or Senate, brought to the floor of the chamber, held to answer charges by the presiding officer, and then subjected to punishment as the chamber may dictate. Congress has not used this authority since 1934.

But late last month, with little fanfare, the Department of Justice released a 356 page report which convincingly presents the scandalous details of the Bush administration's plans to remove US Attorneys in order to influence voter fraud and public corruption prosecutions.

However, the report concludes that the investigation has gaps due to Rove's obstructions:

We believe our investigation was able to uncover most of the facts relating to the reasons for the removal of most of the U.S. Attorneys. However, as described in this report, there are gaps in our investigation because of the refusal of certain key witnesses to be interviewed by us, including former White House officials Karl Rove, Harriet Miers, and William Kelley, former Department of Justice White House Liaison Monica Goodling, Senator Pete Domenici, and his Chief of Staff. In addition, the White House would not provide us internal documents related to the removals of the U.S. Attorneys.

The most serious allegation that we were not able to fully investigate related to the removal of David Iglesias, the U.S. Attorney for New Mexico, and the allegation that he was removed to influence voter fraud and public corruption prosecutions. We recommend that a counsel specially appointed by the Attorney General assess the facts we have uncovered, work with us to conduct further investigation, and ultimately determine whether the evidence demonstrates that any criminal offense was committed with regard to the removal of Iglesias or any other U.S. Attorney, or the testimony of any witness related to the U.S. Attorney removals.

The Department’s removal of the U.S. Attorneys and the controversy it created severely damaged the credibility of the Department and raised doubts about the integrity of Department prosecutive decisions. We believe that this investigation, and final resolution of the issues raised in this report, can help restore confidence in the Department by fully describing the serious failures in the process used to remove the U.S. Attorneys and by providing lessons for the Department in how to avoid such failures in the future.

As recommended by the report, the DoJ has appointed a special prosecutor, Nora Dannehy, to continue the inquiry and determine whether anyone should be prosecuted. Possible targets could include former Attorney General Alberto Gonzales and Karl Rove.

So the next time somebody tries to slap handcuffs on Rove's wrists, maybe -- just maybe -- it will be a sworn law enforcement official doing the deed.

After Janine Boneparth was led off stage, the Mortgage Bankers event continued. Rove complained about some nasty campaign jokes made by Senator John Kerry. Former Senate Majority Leader George Mitchell, sitting right next to Rove, responded, “I have to say I feel like Dorothy in the land of Oz hearing you lecture about negative campaigns by others.”

And Karl Rove should be feeling like the Cowardly Lion.

Justice Departed

The New York Times reports today that "Senior aides to former Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales broke civil service laws by using politics to guide their hiring decisions, picking less-qualified applicants for important nonpolitical positions, slowing the hiring process at critical times, and damaging the department’s credibility, an internal report concluded on Monday."

One of those aides was Monica Goodling.



So this incompetent, political-hack Monica Goodling studied law at Messiah College, an institution that describes itself as "committed to embracing an evangelical spirit." Yeah, I'm sure she got a fair and balanced education there. In fact, here are some of the questions she asked job candidates:

Tell us about your political philosophy. There are different groups of conservatives, by way of example: Social Conservative, Fiscal Conservative, Law & Order Republican.

What is it about George W. Bush that makes you want to serve him?

Aside from the President, give us an example of someone currently or recently in public service who you admire.

Why are you a Republican?

I'm sure she thought these questions were completely reasonable. But had she studied at a real college, she might have learned that when justice becomes corrupt, anarchy and tyranny commence.

And so I'd like to plead with our representatives in Washington, "can we prosecute this one? Please? Please? Please?" Oh wait, it seems that when Goodling testified last year, she was under a grant of immunity.

Damn. Well, can we send this one to jail instead?

The Purge Was Working

Remember the US Attorney Purge Scandal? It was a scheme by the Bush administration to turn the Department of Justice into a Republican re-election machine.

The WSJ reports a development in the scandal. Federal prosecutors are pursuing their first criminal indictment in the case. The focus is on the possible perjury by Bradley Schlozman, the former chief of the Justice Department civil rights division.

Here is the rundown on this guy courtesy of TPM:



So Schlozman does all this stuff to suppress the Democratic votes of minorities... all while heading the civil rights division??? This deserves a big WTF! Then, as his reward, he is the first interim U.S. Attorney to be appointed under a new controversial provision in the revised U.S. Patriot Act (which allowed for an indefinite appointment without Senate confirmation). Keep in mind, Schlozman had no experience as a prosecutor prior to his appointment as US Attorney.

Oh, and let's not forget that while he was head of the civil rights division, he had two minority women transferred out of their jobs in order to "make room for some good Americans." Who put this guy in the civil rights division? Oh yeah, it was Bush.

So although it is good news that this investigation is advancing, there are no guarantees that any criminal charges will be filed. But they should be filed. And the next President might have to open a whole new division of the DoJ just to handle all the criminals from the Bush administration.