Hubris is the word I'm looking for...

Hubris is the best way to describe this kind of arrogance. An arrogance that says
"we can do whatever we want to whoever we want and no one can touch us."

(CBS/AP) The Pentagon on Tuesday made public a now-defunct legal memo that approved the use of harsh interrogation techniques against terror suspects, saying that President Bush's wartime authority trumps any international ban on torture.

The Justice Department memo, dated March 14, 2003, outlines legal justification for military interrogators to use harsh tactics against al Qaeda and Taliban detainees overseas - so long as they did not specifically intend to torture their captors.

Even so, the memo noted, the president's wartime power as commander in chief would not be limited by the U.N. treaties against torture.

"Our previous opinions make clear that customary international law is not federal law and that the president is free to override it at his discretion," said the memo written by John Yoo, who was then deputy assistant attorney general for the Office of Legal Counsel.

The memo also offered a defense in case any interrogator was charged with violating U.S. or international laws.

"Finally, even if the criminal prohibitions outlined above applied, and an interrogation method might violate those prohibitions, necessity or self-defense could provide justifications for any criminal liability," the memo concluded.

Is there a reason why John Yoo is not sitting in a Federal prison right now? Just on the basis of his inability to tell the difference between the law and "what the boss wants" he should be incarcerated. This legal opinion tries to tear down the rule of law in this country. Tries to, because it had to be withdrawn.

And I don't think anything these people have done will ever stand up over time. We will move on from them soon. We will rebuild this country and we will reject the logic in this memo and condemn it for the rest of our days. This is the framed document that should welcome people to the George W. Bush Presidential Library--framed under glass and tastefully lit next to the PDB that says "Bin Laden Determined to Strike U.S. and the text of his "Mission Accomplished" speech.

"The whole point of the memo is obviously to nullify every possible legal restraint on the president's wartime authority," Jaffer said. "The memo was meant to allow torture, and that's exactly what it did."

The 81-page legal analysis largely centers on whether interrogators can be held responsible for torture if torture is not the intent of the questioning. And it defines torture as the intended sum of a variety of acts, which could include acid scalding, severe mental pain and suffering, threat of imminent death and physical pain resulting in impaired body functions, organ failure or death.

The "definition of torture must be read as a sum of these component parts," the memo said.

The memo also includes past legal defenses of interrogations that Yoo wrote are not considered torture, such as sleep deprivation, hooding detainees and "frog crouching," which forces prisoners to crouch while standing on the tips of their toes.

"This standard permits some physical contact," the memo said. "Employing a shove or slap as part of an interrogation would not run afoul of this standard."

The memo concludes that foreign enemy combatants held overseas do not have defendants' rights or protections from cruel and unusual punishment that U.S. citizens have under the Constitution. It also says that Congress "cannot interfere with the president's exercise of his authority as commander in chief to control the conduct of operations during a war."

Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Patrick Leahy said the memo "reflects the expansive view of executive power that has been the hallmark of this administration." He called for its release four months ago.

"It is no wonder that this memo ... could not withstand scrutiny and had to be withdrawn," said Leahy, D-Vt. "This memo seeks to find ways to avoid legal restrictions and accountability on torture and threatens our country's status as a beacon of human rights around the world."

That's what we have to rebuiild. That's what we have to restore to get our soul back. And there has to be accountability. Has to be.

The rule of law doesn't mean much when third-rate legal minds are allowed to write whatever they want and pass it off as legal advice. To think that these people concocted such a policy and have never repudiated it and keep defending what they did is enough hubris to last us a lifetime.

Was it Arrogance? Was it Hubris? Whatever it was, somebody needs to GO TO JAIL!!!

Do not pass Go. Do not collect $200. Go directly to jail.

The CIA withheld evidence from the 9/11 Commission, and then destroyed it.

In interviews this week, the two chairmen of the commission, Lee H. Hamilton and Thomas H. Kean, said their reading of the report had convinced them that the agency had made a conscious decision to impede the Sept. 11 commission’s inquiry.

Mr. Kean said the panel would provide the memorandum to the federal prosecutors and congressional investigators who are trying to determine whether the destruction of the tapes or withholding them from the courts and the commission was improper.

A C.I.A. spokesman said that the agency had been prepared to give the Sept. 11 commission the interrogation videotapes, but that commission staff members never specifically asked for interrogation videos.

The review by Mr. Zelikow does not assert that the commission specifically asked for videotapes, but it quotes from formal requests by the commission to the C.I.A. that sought “documents,” “reports” and “information” related to the interrogations.

Mr. Kean, a Republican and a former governor of New Jersey, said of the agency’s decision not to disclose the existence of the videotapes, “I don’t know whether that’s illegal or not, but it’s certainly wrong.” Mr. Hamilton, a former Democratic congressman from Indiana, said that the C.I.A. “clearly obstructed” the commission’s investigation.

What? The? Fuck???

I'm not the only one mad as hell about the obstruction of justice - Kean and Hamilton - whose authority to investigate the events of September 11 was granted by both the White House and Congress - are pissed off, too.

And so is Pat Leahy.

On Friday, the Senate Judiciary Committee sent a letter to AG Mukasey and DNI McConnell, specifically instructing them to "preserve and produce to the committee all remaining video and audio recordings of 'enhanced interrogations' of detainees in American custody." The letter was signed by Chairman Leahy and Ranking Member Specter, and requested an extensive search of the White House, CIA facilities and other intelligence agencies to determine whether or not other recordings exist that might show interrogation techniques “including but not limited to waterboarding.”

Officials speaking for the government have steadfastly maintained that the evidence destroyed in 2005 were the only recordings made by employees of the CIA, but the lie was put to this claim in September when attorneys who represent the government informed a federal judge in Virginia that three more recordings of detainee interrogations had been discovered.

As easy as it is to believe the absolute worst about this craven cabal, I keep reminding myself that at their very core, they are a bunch of Mayberry Machiavellis, and they are completely out of their depth. If they weren't incompetent, we would really be screwed.

Mukasey Not Likely to be Confirmed

Curiouser and curiouser.

The Mukasey nomination has bypassed surreal and moved on to ridiculous.

Probably sucks to be Senator Schumer right now.

The nomination is in real jeopardy. Pat Leahy, Chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, announced that he will not support the nominee. It is starting to look unlikely that the nomination will even make it out of committee.

It's all about the torture. He won't go on record that waterboarding is torture. (Nah, it's just a dunk in the water. No big deal. That's why it's sanctioned in international law...oh...wait...)

Waterboarding is a war crime because it's torture. His refusal to state it doesn't mean it isn't.

Frankly, his equivocating tortures logic.

It isn't like we are stupid. He can't go on record because it has been used, and he would then be obligated, should he be confirmed, to prosecute the perpetrators as the war criminals they are. Hell, that obligation to prosecute could go all the way to the executive, and the pResident himself.

For his part, Bush seems to be getting increasingly unhinged, demanding the Senate apporve his nominee, and at one point insisting that if it wasn't Mukasey, well, he would show us! We just won't have an Attorney General! (Geez...Fourth grade much?) His latest excuse for Mukasey's equivocation is that he [Mukasey] has not been briefed.

Leahy didn't bite. “No American should need a classified briefing to determine whether waterboarding is torture.”

The L.A. Times reported today on speculation that Bush might use a recess appointment to install Mukasey at Justice over the upcoming holiday break.

Probably so. Wouldn't put it past the sonofabitch for a hot second, but there is an easy way to thwart that possibility, and they damn well know it!

Don't officially call a recess.

A couple of Dems need to stay behind in Washington. Call the Senate to order every day of the scheduled recess, even without a quorum. I realize that this is the same party that was in a big toot to get their vacations started in August, so they caved on FISA, but damnit! Read the freakin' Jefferson's Manual! Mikulski and Webb live in close enough proximity to the Hill to employ the tactic and not even be greatly inconvenienced.

For every parliamentary maneuver, there is a parliamentary check. And if we don't have Democrats who know how this god-damned game is played, then we need some new god-damned Democrats.

Gonzo is still under the gun

Justice Department Inspector General Glenn A. Fine announced today that his office is investigating outgoing disgraced attorney general Alberto Gonzales to determine if he should face charges of perjury for lying in his testimony before the House and Senate Judiciary Committees.

In a letter today to Sen. Patrick J. Leahy (D-Vt.), Fine said his office "has ongoing investigations" related to Gonzales's testimony on several key issues, including the prosecutor firings and allegations of improper hiring; the National Security Agency's Terrorist Surveillance Program; the FBI's use of national security letters; and allegations that Gonzales sought to improperly influence a witness who was under investigation by Congress and the Justice Department.

Gonzales's often contradictory remarks and his repeated assertions that he could not recall key events drew fire from lawmakers of both parties and contributed to his dwindling support on Capitol Hill.

Prior to todays acknowledgment, Fine would only confirm that he was looking into allegations that the Attorney General sought to influence the testimony of Monica Goodling before she appeared before Congress.

Earlier this month Chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee Patrick Leahy had requested Fine expand the scope of his investigation to include Gonzales contradictory testimony. Today, Fine indicated that he was already on it, and so was the Office of Professional Responsibility. The two offices are jointly conducting an investigation into the illegal politicization of Justice.

Leahy issues a statement that he was "pleased" that Gonzales was being investigated, but indicated that the Congress would continue investigating Gonzales as well. "The current Attorney General is leaving, but these questions remain," Leahy said. "It is appropriate that the Inspector General will examine whether the Attorney General was honest with this and other Congressional committees about these crucial issues."

"Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean they aren't out to get you"

Seriously, it is hard to shock me these days. Every day brings a new outrage. It has gotten to the point that I have been catching myself thinking like a conspiracy theorist, and I do not like that feeling. And I really hate that I might be right to be paranoid.

I happen to believe that government can benefit the citizens and that free people tend toward responsible governance. No “Invisible Hand” necessary, liberal applications of common sense and the rule of law served us quite well for over two centuries.

Then along came George.

A year ago, the Defense Authorization Act for FY 2007 was tweaked, and language was inserted into the bill that effectively suspended the Insurrection Acts of 1807 and Posse Comitatus. It went relatively unnoticed, with the exception of a few bloggers, but the day that bill was signed into law, the relationship ordinary citizens have with our government and our military changed fundamentally.

The Insurrection Acts of 1807 limited the power of the president to deploy the armed forces within the United States to act in a law enforcement capacity, and Posse Comitatus further refined and quantified the use of the military in the United States to enforce the law.

This bit of Federal Law is was the only U.S. criminal statute that outlaws military operations directed against the American people under the guise of law enforcement.

Posse Comitatus reads as follows:

Whoever, except in cases and under circumstances expressly authorized by the Constitution or Act of Congress, willfully uses any part of the Army or Air Force as a posse comitatus or otherwise to execute the laws shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than two years, or both.

With a stroke of a pen on 16 October 2006, those two pillars of our republic were negated, and the ability of the president to declare martial law went from unthinkable to a horrifying possibility, while simultaneously the governors, all 50 of whom objected, lost command of their National Guard contingents when the act federalized the Guard.

The following text is from page 19 of the Defense Authorization act of 2007. (Emphasis is mine.)

Use of Armed Forces in Major Public Emergencies. Section 1042 would amend the Insurrection Act to make explicit the President’s authority to deploy the armed forces, including the National Guard, within the United States to restore order or enforce federal law after a major public emergency, such as a natural disaster, epidemic, or terrorist attack. Current practice, in a major public emergency, is for the governor or legislature of a state to request assistance from the federal government. The Federal Emergency Management Agency then organizes the federal government’s response to that request.

This provision would clarify the President’s authority to deploy the armed forces in response to public emergencies without first receiving a request from state authorities in cases where the President determines such action is necessary to restore public order or enforce federal law. This section also would authorize the President to direct the Secretary of Defense to provide supplies, services, and equipment to persons affected by such an emergency. If this clarification would encourage the President to use the armed forces more frequently or more intensively than is the current practice, the potential cost could be significant. However, because CBO does not have a basis for determining the frequency of such emergencies or the magnitude of the potential involvement of the armed forces, CBO has no basis for predicting the potential cost of this section.

When the bill was being deliberated, exactly one Senator raised a note of protest over this egregious power grab. Senator Patrick Leahy of Vermont was the lone voice of dissent. On 29 September, Leahy entered into the Congressional Record that he had "grave reservations about certain provisions of the fiscal Year 2007 Defense Authorization Bill Conference Report," the language of which, he said, "subverts solid, longstanding posse comitatus statutes that limit the military's involvement in law enforcement, thereby making it easier for the President to declare martial law." Leahy claimed that this provision had been "slipped in,as a rider with little study while other congressional committees with jurisdiction over these matters had no chance to comment, let alone hold hearings on, these proposals." Leahy went on "The implications of changing the (Posse Comitatus) Act are enormous. There is good reason," he said, "for the constructive friction in existing law when it comes to martial law declarations. Using the military for law enforcement goes against one of the founding tenets of our democracy. We fail our Constitution, neglecting the rights of the States, when we make it easier for the President to declare martial law and trample on local and state sovereignty." (emphasis mine) Leahy finished his comments by wondering aloud how we got to this point. "Since hearing word a couple of weeks ago that this outcome was likely, I have wondered how Congress could have gotten to this point. It seems the changes to the Insurrection Act have survived the Conference because the Pentagon and the White House want it."

***************

Now, almost a year later, folks seem to be noticing. It might have had something to do with Michael Chertoff's stomach trouble. What ever it was that set the alarm bells ringing, it got the attention of the electorate in the Oregon-04, and they started calling their congressman, Peter Defazio, who holds a seat on the Homeland Security Committee.

Representative DeFazio, a populist Democrat, requested access to the secure "bubbleroom" in the capitol to review the contingency plans that the federal government has should a "public emergency" arise. initially, his request was approved, then inexplicably, DENIED.

"I just can't believe they're going to deny a member of Congress the right of reviewing how they plan to conduct the government of the United States after a significant terrorist attack," DeFazio says.

Homeland Security Committee staffers told his office that the White House initially approved his request, but it was later quashed. DeFazio doesn't know who did it or why.

"We're talking about the continuity of the government of the United States of America," DeFazio says. "I would think that would be relevant to any member of Congress, let alone a member of the Homeland Security Committee."

Bush administration spokesman Trey Bohn declined to say why DeFazio was denied access: "We do not comment through the press on the process that this access entails. It is important to keep in mind that much of the information related to the continuity of government is highly sensitive."

This is the first time DeFazio has been denied access to documents. DeFazio has asked Homeland Security Committee Chairman Bennie Thompson, D-Miss., to help him access the documents.

"Maybe the people who think there's a conspiracy out there are right," DeFazio said.

Norman Ornstein sees it the same way Representative DeFazio and the voters of the Oregon-04 see it. Ornstein, said he "cannot think of one good reason" to deny access to a member of Congress who serves on the Homeland Security Committee. "I find it inexplicable and probably reflective of the usual, knee-jerk overextension of executive power that we see from this White House."

I have never been one for conspiracy theories. Trying to get enough people on the same page and sharing the same commitment to guarding/pushing the same agenda to pull off a worthy conspiracy borders on the impossible. But the obsessive/compulsive secrecy of this administration is enough to make even the most cynical among us think that there is malevolence most foul lurking just below the surface, just waiting for the opportunity to strike, and as bad as it pains me to say it, I would not put this particular crew of miscreants above making something happen if the prophetic gut is wrong. I absolutely hate saying this, but if an attack happened tomorrow, my first thought would be "false flag operation" and it would likely take a lot more than standard evidence to make me believe otherwise. And you have no idea how fiercely I resent even having thoughts like that.

Betting the Farm on Executive Privilege

.
Talk about stones! On Tuesday, while the nation absorbed the shock of what happened in Virginia, the White House used the political cover the tragedy provided to assert (as they had indicated they would) that Executive Privilege extends to the Republican National Committee computer system.

Yep. You read that right . (Can you imagine if Bill Clinton had tried to assert such a thing? There would have been great wailing and howling and gnashing of teeth. A racket would have set up from the Republicans that would have drowned out a Spinal Tap show - and their amps go to 11.)

From the Washington Post:

The RNC deferred yesterday to White House requests that all documents from administration officials who used RNC e-mail accounts first be reviewed by Bush's lawyers. Congress has requested several years' worth of e-mails from top White House advisers, including Karl Rove, as part of its investigation of the prosecutor firings. In letters to the House and Senate Judiciary committees, an RNC lawyer said those documents belong to the White House.

"Recognizing the unique and significant nature of the potential privilege issue raised by the committee's requests, the RNC has agreed to the White House's reasonable request," Robert K. Kelner, an RNC lawyer, wrote to Conyers. Conyers responded that the action was "a clear attempt on the administration's part to delay this process."

House and Senate investigators have focused on e-mails by J. Scott Jennings, the White House's deputy political director, who used RNC e-mail accounts to discuss Rove's interest in appointing a former deputy as the U.S. attorney in Little Rock.

A leading House Democrat said last week that he had been told that as many as four years' worth of Rove's RNC e-mails may be missing. The e-mails are also sought in a congressional investigation of the alleged politicization of the General Services Administration.

The overreaching of the imperial presidency is stunning in scope. It's as if it truly knows no bounds. This stubborn digging in, in the face of overwhelming public disapproval, seems to me like a hail-Mary pass into heavy coverage. There is no precedent and no reason to believe that any court would uphold this imaginary divine right of the worst president ever.

It is a desperate ploy, and it is certain to fail. I honestly believe that they know they have cashed in all their chits and probably bounced a few checks too boot - the political capital account is overdrawn. All they have left is monkeywrenching...An activity that both Conyers and Leahy long since grow tired of.