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.

The Whistles Are Blowing

"It was a bright cold day in April, and the clocks were striking Thirteen..." — George Orwell, 1984

On this bright cold day in January, two days after the Bush presidency ended, whistleblower Russel Tice has come forward alleging that the NSA, under the direction of George W. Bush, spied on everyone, specifically targeting journalists. Keith Olbermann reported last night (if video doesn't show, click here and you can also watch part 2 here):

So let's think back and remember when Bush told us that his administration was not using the Patriot Act to violate civil rights. After all, "a wiretap requires a court order," Bush said. At least he demonstrated that he understood FISA. Of course, the liar had no intentions of following that law, but he understood it.

This news is being called a bombshell, but who is really surprised at this point? The Bush administration was not just wiretapping terrorists. They were not just wiretapping overseas communications. They were spying on Americans, specifically journalists.

There exists a segment of the population who might say, "so what?" But let's think about what this news means. They wiretapped journalists. They kept tabs on who and what reporters were investigating. They could identify potential whistleblowers. And certainly, private communications reveal private information. In other words, this is the stuff the government could smear and blackmail with.

And though Tice made no mention of this, who doubts that Bush was spying on members of Congress? What information did he have? What was he going to do with it? And does this revelation point to why Pelosi took impeachment "off the table"?

What else could Bush and friends do with everyone's communications? Corporate espionage to benefit his cronies? Just guessing. I'm not afraid to make these wild guesses, because everything I've vaguely suspected about the Bush administration has slowly been verified. I'm wondering what more will come out in the next year, and I wonder if any of it will shock me...

Here is some good news -- if we're not too cynical to believe it -- Dennis Blair, the man President Obama has nominated to head national intelligence, promised there would be no torture and no warrantless wiretapping on his watch. This is a good start.