|
|
Saturday, December 31st, 2005
Year-End Stories; Impeachment, the Constitution in Crisis, Election Reform, Torture Memos
Happy New Year
There is really no let up to the issues were covering and pushing. First, impeachment continues in the news. Molly Ivins has an excellent and timely editorial, the Detroit Metro Times weighs in with a good story on my censure and select committee resolutions, and Hazel Trice Edney has a useful piece on the latest impeachment buzz from the Chicago Defender and other African American newspapers. Second, thanks again to David Swanson of CensureBush.org, who has posted more articles from our Constitution in Crisis Report. The latest two concern the work we have done to definitively confirm and corroborate the accuracy of the Downing Street Minutes (via Bradblog), as well as the clear evidence of pressure brought to bear on the CIA by the Bush Administration to manipulate intelligence in the run up to the Iraq War (via oped news). Third, the New York Times has a good editorial entitled "Conspiring Against the Voters" noting that Bush has audaciously placed Hans von Spakovsky at the Federal Election Commission, who reportedly was involved in overruling the career DOJ staff to rubberstamp Tom DeLay's Texas gerrymander as well as the purging of legal voters in Florida in 2000. We must never forget that the reason we have the mess we do today is because of the massive irregularities in Florida in 2000 and Ohio in 2004. In that regard, let me highly commend to you all Mark Crispin Miller's excellent book on the 2004 election entitled "Fooled Again" (via Amazon). Fourth, I am now focusing on the torture memos (via RawStory) released by former British Diplomat Craig Murray describing torture and misuse of the information. Let me know your thoughts about the implications of these memos and what can or should be done about it. It has been a hectic year for us. We began by investigating and reporting on the Ohio election fraud, we launched the ConyersBlog, we fought the GOP on Schiavo, we investigated the Downing Street Minutes, we staved off a one-sided Patriot Act extension, and finished the year with our Constitution in Crisis Report. And we're just beginning -- we will launch our drive to the Majority next year, which I hope will be the year of accountability for the Republicans as well. Sadlly, we also saw the loss of a civil rights legend, my good friend Rosa Parks, passed away this year, shortly before the 50th anniversary of her heroic decision not to give up her seat on the bus. Thanks for your support and happy new year.
Friday, December 30th, 2005
Lets be Thankful for the Madison Capital Times
More I-word Buzz
The folks of Madison Wisconsin not only have a first rate University in their town, they are fortunate to have a first rate progessive newspaper, the Capital Times. Two pieces of note. Today, they have an editorial summing up the latest of the year end impeachment buzz. Yesterday my friend John Nichols ran a year end awards piece. He gave awards to folks in the Senate, Repubicans, ex-execuctive branch officials, and referenced some of our good work in the House. Both pieces are worth a read. I spoke at length yesterday to David Swanson of CensureBush.org. He (along with Buzzflash) has posted the full audio, which runs approximately 24 minutes, here. Speaking of censure and impeachment, I just checked my on-line petition to Bush, and we're up to some 26,000 signatures, which is tremendous. If at all possible, with your help I'd like to hit 50,000 by Bush's Jan 31 State of the Union. This would send a strong signal that 2006 will be the year of accountability for the Bush Administraton.
Thursday, December 29th, 2005
Another Item from the Conyers Report -- Rumsfeld Admits to Ghosting a Detainee
Not to mention leaking classified information
Have they no shame? Another item we identified in the "Constitution in Crisis" Report, was that Secretary Rumsfeld admitted at a press conference that he ok'ed the ghosting of a detainee in Iraq in apparent violation of both the Geneva and Hague Conventions. On page 110 of the Report, we note the following exchange in June, 2004: "Q -- Mr. Secretary, I'd like to ask why last November you ordered the U.S. military to keep a suspected Ansar al-Islam prisoner in Iraq [Hiwa Abdul Rahman Rashul] secret from the Red Cross. He's now been secret for more than seven months. And there are other such shadowy prisoners in Iraq who are being kept secret from the Red Cross. "SEC. RUMSFELD: With respect to the -- I want to separate the two. Iraq, my understanding is that the investigations on that subject are going forward. With respect to the detainee you're talking about, I'm not an expert on this, but I was requested by the Director of Central Intelligence to take custody of an Iraqi national who was believed to be a high-ranking member of Ansar al-Islam. And we did so. We were asked to not immediately register the individual. And we did that. It would -- it was -- he was brought to the attention of the Department, the senior level of the Department I think late last month. And we're in the process of registering him with the ICRC at the present time . . ." Yet there has been no investigation, no accountability for this apparent legal violation. All the more reason why we need a select committee, with subpoena authority, to investigate these misdeeds. CensureBush.org has the full story -- or you can read the complete report here. Also, from yesterday, Buzzflash picked up the censurebush.org story from my report detailing official, and seemingly illegal, leaks by the Bush Administration concerning Iraq's acquisition of aluminum tubes. The story of course turned out to be bogus, but that does not justify leaking classified information to further a case for war.
Another Chapter
The President As King
A couple of days ago, I wrote about the legal theory underlying the spying scandal. This is the theory that the Bush Administration is claiming justifies the President's abuses of power. As I mentioned, it is identical to the theory used by the Justice Department to justify torturing detainees. In a nutshell, the argument goes, we are in a war on terror and America is the battlefield. The President, as Commander in Chief under Article II of the Constitution, according to the Administration's claim, has absolute and unchecked powers in the conduct of this war. My last post on this zeroed in on the President's view that he is not subject to the laws passed by Congress. I also mentioned that he believes he is not subject to judicial action. Lest you think I was indulging in hyperbole, read today's Washington Post.
Tuesday, December 27th, 2005
More from the Constitution in Crisis Report
Use of White Phosphorus looks to be Unlawful After All
Careful readers of the 270 plus page report, the Constitution in Crisis, have no doubt come across a number of alarming tidbits regarding the Administration's misconduct. While the mainstream press engaged in a debate over the use of White Phosphorus in combat, and concluded that while it was probably immoral, it was likely not illegal as the U.S. never signed the Chemical Weapons Treaty. However, in the Report, we note that upon closer investigation it turns out the use of White Phosporus appears to be in specific contravention of the U.S. Battle Book which states, "[i]t is against the Law of Land Warfare to employ WP against personnel targets." The Report also notes that a strong case case can be made that the use of White Phosphorus also violates the Geneva and Hague Conventions and the War Crimes Act. CensureBush.org and other sites, such as ZNET , have this story.
Monday, December 26th, 2005
Bush Administration to Congress: Forget About FOIA
And Person of the Year To Boot
One of the many significant items included in our "Constitution in Crisis" Report is the Administration's unwillingness to comply with the Freedom of Information Act. After the Downing Street Hearing this summer, more than 50 Members and I wrote the Administration asking them to release documents concerning the Downing Street charges. After months of delay, we finally heard from the Defense Department -- they basically said, its not clear that we are subject to your FOIA request, but it could cost us more than $100,000 to find out. David Swanson of CensureBush.org has more information on this indignity, which was also covered by the Oped News. While I am at it, my friend Katrina Vanden Heuvel of the Nation has an excellent update on the status of impeachment coverage in the mainstream media posted at Huffington Post, and Larry Beinhart has a good entry over at Buzzflash. Finally, as Alma has noted, TV Newslies has named yours truly as "Person of the Year" and noted our work on the Ohio election fraud, the Downing Street Hearing, and the recent release of the "Constitution in Crisis." Thanks to all of your help on all of these endeavours.
Saturday, December 24th, 2005
Now the Establishment Right is using the I Word?
Early Christmas present from Barrons
Today, the New York Times added another new disclosure -- the unauthorized wiretapping program involved mining and scanning massive amounts of domestic data and tapping into the networks of the leading telecommunications firms in the U.S. Our government even encouraged foreign calls to be routed though the U.S. to facilitate non-court approved surveillance. This serves to add fuel to the flame of the impeachment debate. For many, many months, if not years, any mention of George W. Bush along with the term "impeachment," or the I word, was seen a politically toxic to the nth degree. But now, on the heals of the NSA scandal, the term has entered the popular lexicon -- as many of the below posts show. Today, that stalwart of the business right, Barrons (owned by Dow Jones -- the same folks who own the Wall Street Journal), weighed in with an editorial prominently using the I word. Among other things, the editorial board wrote: "Willful disregard of a law is potentially an impeachable offense. It is at least as impeachable as having a sexual escapade under the Oval Office desk and lying about it later. The members of the House Judiciary Committee who staged the impeachment of President Clinton ought to be as outraged at this situation. They ought to investigate it, consider it carefully and report either a bill that would change the wiretap laws to suit the president or a bill of impeachment." Well, the Democrats have asked Chairman Sensenbrenner for hearings on the spy scandal. 27 of us have filed a Resolution of Inquiry asking the Administration for the information. I have filed censure and investigative/impeachment resolutions, and am seeking support from citizens so that we can send a signal to the White House that the nation will not tolerate their misconduct any longer. Eventually, the people will be heard on this issue. If not this week, or next month, than next year or next election. I wish all of my readers the happiest holiday season. We hit our nadir in November 04, but things will get better. Thank you.
Friday, December 23rd, 2005
Latest Impeachment Results; My Nation Op-ed
Its been three days since we went public with our report and censure/select committee-impeachment resolutions, and the results have been overwhelming. The Right is now clearly playing defense, with the same people who pleaded for Congress to impeach Clinton over an affair explaining that we should not consider impeachment of Bush for manipulating intelligence and violating the fourth amendment; for example this piece by Bush Defender Charles Krauthammer in the Washington Post. But progressives have a stronger, clearer case and it is resonating with the American people; for example, these pieces in the Berkely Daily Planet. and my recent interview on Radio Pacifica. I am also happy to announced that The Nation is running an editorial I penned pulling all the pieces together. Our petition has gathered some 19,000 names by mid-day today. Afterdowningstreet.org/censurebush.org is reporting that more than 17,000 emails have been generated to the Hill. I also just learned that a Dem. Candidate for Congress in OH-13, John Wolfe, has endorsed all of my resolutions.
Destroying Checks and Balances with the Stroke of a Pen
What I just read should scare every American. In connection with the spying scandal, where without any court review or supervision the President unilaterally spied on Americans, we now have the purported legal justification for his actions. The Justice Department has written (PDF) the Chairs and Ranking Members of the Intelligence Committees with its legal arguments. In a nutshell, the letter argues that the President's Article II authority as Commander in Chief allows him to do whatever he wants. He doesn't need congressional authorization or oversight. He does not need to go to any court. His decisions are unreviewable by the Supreme Court. It is a similar argument used to justify torturing detainees. My assessment of the legal basis for this argument would likely break the rules of discourse on this blog. Suffice it to say, it is not going to fly. To bolster this pathetic Constitutional argument, the Administration also points to the September 11 use of force resolution. But here they are really playing fast and loose with the facts. In a classic heads I win, tails you lose fashion, we learned today from fromer Senate Democratic Leader Tom Daschle that the Administration asked for this authority and was denied it (the Washington Post has more). Having been denied this authority by Congress, they proclaim they had it anyway. See more from Armando at DailyKos. This appears to be a direct assault on the constitutional prerogatives of both branches of government. The blunt spoken Joe Conason lays out the case in the New York Observer even before the latest disclosures. The bottom line is that this argument postulates that the President can act, do anything -- inside or outside the law, without any limits or oversight whatsoever. If you weren't scared before, you should be now. One postscript: I was honored that the Republican National Committee responded to my staff's report on the Iraq war lies. The response is as follows: "Republican National Committee spokeswoman Ann Marie Hauser said if Conyers 'spent half the time condemning terrorism that he does condemning the President of the United States, he would be a credible voice in the war on terror.'" I was a little disappointed at the half-heartedness of the response. It's like they are just "phoning it in" when it comes to the McCarthy-ism these days. It is also an unintentionally ironic response, given this nugget and others discussed in the staff report.
Thursday, December 22nd, 2005
Last Day of Congressional Session News; Support for Censure\Impeachment Inquiry Grow
I was in Detroit today, but it was another crazed day in DC. First, we start with the now you see it, now you don't Patriot Act sunset. After swearing up and down that they would not accept any "short term" extensions, the White House and the Republicans flipped again. First they accepted a short term extension of six months, and than, even though they had been pushing for a long term or permanent extension, the House Republicans pushed for a lower number -- five weeks. What does this mean? Nothing -- if we hold together in the House and Senate and fight for safeguards against DOJ abuse. The key isn't when the next deadline hits, but whether the House Republicans and Bush Administration will make genuine concessions to recognize the importance of civil liberties. We shall see. Next, we passed the DOD authorization, which dropped the unrelated ANWR provision, but still included some 45 pages of unrelated avian flu liability relief. You had better hope there is not an epedmic, because if there is the GOP Congress just eliminated most of your legal rights to sue for negligent and even reckless misconduct. Our last hope is that the courts will throw this blatantly unconstituional piece of legislation (violated due process among other things) out. As is usual, there were no hearings and no markup in Judiciary on this measure, even though we have jurisdiction. Third, today I took the lead in offering a Resolution of Inquiry requesting the Attorney General to provide copies of the legal memos justifying the NSA's secret warrantless wiretap program. I was joined by 26 cosponsors. Raw Story has the story. This guarantees us a vote in the Judiciary Committee when we return next year. I expect that this story will still be ongoing, and I will keep you informed about the date and time of the markup so you can watch on the internet. Fourth, we did make some progress on my censure/impeachment investigations. We added the following cosponsor names today. For H.Res. 635 (Select Committee) -- Ms. Waters, Ms. Lofgren, Ms. Woolsey, Mr. Rangel, Ms. Jackson Lee, Ms. Capps, and Mr. Payne. For H.Res. 636 (Censure Bush) -- Ms. Waters, Ms. Lofgren, Ms. Woolsey, Mr. Rangel. For H.Res. 637 (Censure Cheney) -- Ms. Waters, Ms. Lofgren, Ms. Woolsey, Mr. Rangel, and Ms. Jackson Lee. And we also have some 8,000 names as of this morning on our citizen cosponsor letter. Every name we add is additional evidence that we are not going to tolerate illegal conduct by our executive branch. The Republicans may not move these measures, but they can't stop us from adding cosponsors -- both Members and citizens. It also seems they cant stop the talk of impeachment from seeping out into the mainstream media -- see this article by Michelle Goldberg of Salon, this discussion of the issue hitting the Washington Post as discussed on mydd, and this discussion in Editor and Publisher, including references to Newsweek.
Wednesday, December 21st, 2005
Support for Iraq Report, Impeachment Actions, Censure Grow
It has been an incredible whirlwind two days. The Report was downloaded by tens of thousands of individuals in the first 24 hours. Our petition is off to a good start, with some 4000 sigining in the first 24 hours as well. The Report along with my resolutions and new steps to hold the Bush Admiinistration accountable for their flaunting of the law received widespread press coverage, in the liberal and mainstream media. I did interviews on Stephanie Miller and Bev Smith Shows yesterday. I did the Joe Madison Show today, Democracy Now with Amy Goodman, Michigan Radio, and Radio Pacifica today. I was also interviewed by Roll Call, which did a front page, above the fold article. The RNC and GOP leaders chose to respond with their usual change the subject mentality. Some of the print articles included the AP, the AP again, the UPI, the Bradblog, oped news, knight-ridder, the Nation. My favorite is William Pitt at Truthout, who wrote, " Rep. John Conyers and the Democratic staff of the House Judiciary Committee have compiled a massively detailed, impeccably-researched report on the activities of this administration titled "The Constitution in Crisis: The Downing Street Minutes and Deception, Manipulation, Torture, Retribution, and Coverups in the Iraq War." Just as the Downing Street Minutes grew and grew, and coverage snowballed, I hope that coverage of my Report, and the Administration's crimes, will grow towards a tipping pont as well. With your help, it will. If you (or friends and colleagues) haven't signed my peititon, you can do so here. If you would like to make a contribution of $60 or more to pre-order a signed copy of the book form of the Report being published by Chicago Academy Publishers, click here.
Tuesday, December 20th, 2005
The Constitution in Crisis: Censure and Investigate Possible Impeachment
For more information, go to johnconyers.comCross Posted at Huffington Post and DailyKos Today, I am releasing a staff report entitled, "The Constitution in Crisis: The Downing Street Minutes and Deception, Manipulation, Torture, Retribution and Coverups in the Iraq War. Before talking about the report, I must express my profound gratitude to the readers of this site, who kept this story alive when no one would cover it, and continued to talk about it after some in the media moved on. Much of the research in this report is a product of the input and hard work of DailyKos, Huffington Post and Conyersblog readers over the last six months (the help with my "timeline project" was particularly useful). I also am so grateful to progressive talk radio hosts and listeners, who have refused to allow the American people to forget the nation was deceived into war. Now on to the Report and what I plan to do about it. In sum, the report examines the Bush Administration?s actions in taking us to war from A to Z. The report finds there is substantial evidence the President, the Vice-President and other high ranking members of the Bush Administration misled Congress and the American people regarding the decision to go to war in Iraq; misstated and manipulated intelligence information regarding the justification for such war; countenanced torture and cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment in Iraq; and permitted inappropriate retaliation against critics of their Administration. The Report concludes that a number of these actions amount to prima facie evidence (evidence sufficiently strong to presume the allegations are true) that federal criminal laws have been violated. Legal violations span from false statements to Congress to whistleblower laws. The Report also concludes that these charges clearly rise to the level of impeachable conduct. However, because the Administration has failed to respond to requests for information about these charges, it is not yet possible to conclude that an impeachment inquiry or articles of impeachment are warranted. In response to the Report, I have already taken a number of actions. First, I have introduced a resolution (H. Res. 635) creating a Select Committee with subpoena authority to investigate the misconduct of the Bush Administration with regard to the Iraq war and report on possible impeachable offenses. In Watergate, for example, the Congress did not begin matters as an impeachment inquiry, but investigated matters ? through the Ervin Committee ? and referred impeachable evidence to the Judiciary Committee. Second, I have introduced Resolutions regarding both President Bush (H. Res. 636) and Vice-President Cheney (H. Res. 637) proposing that they be censured by Congress based on the uncontroverted evidence already on the record and their failure to respond to Congressional and public inquiries about these matters and have never accounted for their many specific misstatements in the run up to War. As you know, taking these steps means that I am likely to be criticized by the political and media establishments in Washington and attacked by the right wing noise machine. There is a school of thought among Washington political consultants that criticizing the President about Iraq will make Democrats appear to be weak on national security. There is a media establishment that marginalizes politicians for espousing beliefs held by the majority of Americans. The right wing noise machine in turn retaliates against the President’s critics. Be that as it may, I just could not be silent any longer. The title of the report is exactly right: the Constitution is in Crisis. There are serious and well-substantiated allegations that the Executive Branch has usurped the sole power of the Congress to declare war by deceiving the Congress about the evidence for war. There are serious and well-substantiated allegations that the Executive Branch has deceived the American people to manufacture the people’s consent for war. If you agree with me, I am going to need your help like never before. Please go to my website, johnconyers.com, where you will find an action center, including a copy of the Report via Raw Story, and ways you can help. Also visit censurebush.org to join with other activists who want to move this issue forward.
Monday, December 19th, 2005
Announcement in the Morning
If all goes well, I expect to make an announcement on the Stephanie Miller Show in the third hour of her show (beginning 11am EST).
Thursday, December 15th, 2005
The End of the Legislative Year
Something's Coming...
Sorry posts have been a bit more infrequent than usual lately. The end of the year wrap up in Congress is exceptionally busy this year, and exceptionally full of matters concerning the House Judiciary Committee and, therefore, consuming a lot of my time. Among other things, the Patriot Act passed the House, but a measure I offered to substitute the Conference Report with the bill that passed the Senate unanimously, narrowly failed. I hear the Senate will have a vote on cloture (ending debate on the bill) Friday and Senator Feingold may have rounded up enough votes to block the termination of debate. If so, it would be a tremedous accomplishment and he -- and the bipartisan coalition opposing the Conference Report -- deserve our thanks. I should note that both Senator Reid and House Democratic Leader Pelosi have been courageous in their opposition to this Conference Report. In the House, we are considering something the Republican leadership calls a "Border Security Bill." Never mind that they have passed border security measures before and then failed to fund them. never mind that they are now using the issue of border security to bootstrap and anti-immigrant agenda. Among other things, the bill and amendments I expect to be offered to it would deny citizenship to people born in the United States, if the person's parents were non-citizens; require the forfeiture of church property if clergy assisted an illegal immigrant in obtaining food or shelter; and impose jail time for the clergy involved in such aid. It may well be that the House Republican leadership has bitten off more than they can chew. The far right in their caucus is insisting on votes on many of these bizarre proposals. If they do not get those votes, they may bring down the whole bill, even though it is already filled with some of their extreme proposals. Watch the House tomorrow. It could be a bumpy ride for this bill. If all goes well next week, I also expect to make an announcement that will interest many of you....
Tuesday, December 13th, 2005
An Intriguing Story Under the Radar
The LA Times reported this weekend on an interview with the former head of French counterintelligence, Alain Chouet, in which he provides a revealing timeline for the Bush Administration's internest in the Niger yellowcake issue. For some reason this story has not received much attention. Alain Chouet was asked to verify the authenticity of the Niger documents which indicated that Iraq was seeking to buy uranium from the African country to build nuclear weapons. After a thorough investigation, he emphatically rejected them as forgeries and discredited any suggestion that Iraq was purchasing uranium in Niger. Most intriguiging is Chouet's claim that the U.S. was touting these forged documents before 9/11. Chouet's December 1st interview in the Italian newspaper, La Repubblica, offers a few more specifics than the L.A. Times piece and thanks to the Booman Tribune we have a translation: “Early in the summer 2001, the CIA passed us a piece of information both general and alarming. ‘Iraq’ – Langley warned – ‘is apparently trying to purchase uranium from an African country’...
I rolled up my sleeves. I instructed my men to get to work in Africa. In Niger, obviously, but also in Namibia (you will soon understand why). The outcome was entirely negative...
Five of our best men were part of the team. With a deep knowledge of Niger and of all the issues connected to yellowcake. My men stayed in Africa for a couple of weeks and, once back, they told me a very simple thing: ‘the American information on uranium is all bulls--t’. When I read their report, I did not doubt their work nor, if you let me say so, my mind. I know Niger well but I can say that I have known Baghdad and Saddam even better. And I know that if Saddam had wanted to purchase yellowcake (which he already owned in great quantities) from Niger he would have never asked an Ambassador to open negotiations. Saddam did not trust anybody in his Foreign Office. He certainly didn’t trust his ambassadors around the world. For such a task he would have sent one of his sons. On the other hand, we knew the reason of the journey of Iraqi Ambassador to the Holy See, Wissam Al Zahawie. He had to identify an African country ready to accept the storage of the regime’s hazardous toxic waste, in exchange for money. In fact Namibia, which had been used as a dumping ground by Iraq, had told Baghdad they couldn’t go on contaminating their soil. I told the CIA the results of our mission in Niger. The Americans seemed very disappointed for what they had to hear. I understood then the reasons for their frustration and I understood them even better when the CIA, not content with the result, at the end of June 2002, sent us a part of the documents of the Niger dossier, as if they wanted to underline the reasons for their insistence. Chouet's account includes further insights on Italy's handling of the forgeries, and suggests that a lot more was known about the documents and their forgers than the U.S. and Italian intelligence agencies would like to reveal.
Monday, December 12th, 2005
Supreme Court to Review Texas Redistricting Plan
After the news emerged last week that every career Justice Department official opposed DeLay's Texas redistricting plan on the grounds that it violated the Voting Rights Act, the Supreme Court has chosen to consider the case. The Washington Post reports that: In agreeing to hear arguments in the case, the Supreme Court will review a ruling by a three-judge panel that allowed the 2003 redrawing of the Texas congressional districts. The panel rejected challenges to the constitutionality of the new boundaries by plaintiffs who contended they illegally diminished minority voting rights and constituted unlawful partisan gerrymandering...
According to a previously undisclosed memo, six lawyers and two analysts in the department's voting section found that the redistricting plan violated the Voting Rights Act by illegally diluting black and Hispanic voting power in two congressional districts, but senior Justice Department officials [Bush appointees] overruled them and approved the plan. A similar case came before the Supreme Court in 2004 in which the plan to redistrict Pennsylvania was upheld on a 5-4 decision. However, the circumstances of this case are different in that the Pennsylvania districts were drawn immediately after the census and the Texas DeLay redistricting occurred almost immediately after the districts had already been redrawn for the 2002 elections. Given the number of indictments that have arisen from actions relating to this case, I hope the Justices act decisively to undo this shameful gerrymandering.
Friday, December 9th, 2005
What Does Torture Get You?
Rice Europe Trip a Success by Most Counts ... Rice's European charm offensive on the issue of torture a success. [OK that was Fox News. Now for the real news.] The New York Times is reporting today that al-Libi's claims of an Iraq-al Qaeda terrorism connection, which he claimed were coerced through torture, were pried from the detainee after he was rendered to Egypt. This, of course, comes on the heels of the Rice's "charm offensive" through Europe which found her pleading for someone to believe that the administration does not endorse torture. The new disclosure provides the first public evidence that bad intelligence on Iraq may have resulted partly from the administration's heavy reliance on third countries to carry out interrogations of Qaeda members and others detained as part of American counterterrorism efforts. The Bush administration used Mr. Libi's accounts as the basis for its prewar claims, now discredited, that ties between Iraq and Al Qaeda included training in explosives and chemical weapons.
The fact that Mr. Libi recanted after the American invasion of Iraq and that intelligence based on his remarks was withdrawn by the C.I.A. in March 2004 has been public for more than a year. But American officials had not previously acknowledged either that Mr. Libi made the false statements in foreign custody or that Mr. Libi contended that his statements had been coerced. This AP article by Anne Gearan describes the loopholes in Rice's defense of American torture policy. Rice claimed that prohibitions of cruel and degrading treatment covered by the UN Convention Against Torture "extends to U.S. personnel wherever they are." Of course, this carefully parsed statement excludes contractors or foreign personnel.
Thursday, December 8th, 2005
Patriot Act Update
[cross-posted at DailyKos] I am disappointed to say that instead of passing a bi-partisan and a reasonable effort at reform, the Patriot Act Conference Committee reported back language that does not contain even moderate changes that would have made the PATRIOT Act respect civil liberties and constitutionally sound. Yesterday, the House Democratic Conferees made one formal request: that the government show some connection to a terrorist before delving into our citizens' most personal records and possessions. It was flatly ignored. Politics won out over civil liberties. The White House won out over the Senate, the House, Democrats and Republicans. I simply cannot support this bill. The proponents of this measure will tell you that they have improved the bill by taking the Senate passed four year sunset of a few provisions instead of the seven year sunset in the House bill. The bottom line is, when it comes to a flawed law, sunsets just kick the can down the road. The bad law stays on the books for years, with no improvement. It is my understanding that NO Democrat in the House or the Senate has signed this Conference Report. It is also my understanding that Senator Feingold (and perhaps others) intend to fillibuster it. The critical vote coming up will, therefore, be the vote to invoke cloture (in other words, cut off the fillibuster) in the Senate. Obviously, the more Senators who agree to oppose cloture, the more likely we are to reach the 40 needed to sustain Senator Feingold's fillibuster. As to the substance, despite efforts to exaggerate reforms made in the bill, under this conference report, a person could still: * Receive secret intelligence orders for any tangible thing, including library or medical records, if the government can show only "relevance" to terrorism. The target DOES NOT have to be suspected of any wrongdoing. * Be permanently gagged even after he's turned over his most personal information; * Have his home searched and not find out for a month, or even longer - all for the convenience of law enforcement; * Expect his personal data to sit in databases indefinitely, including his financial and medical insurance records; * Be sent to prison for telling someone he received a secret order to turn over information and not getting the Justice Department's permission first. In terms of scheduling, I expect the report to be filed early next week and reach the House and the Senate as early as Wednesday. We have some time to stop it, but not much.
Leak Case Developments
The Washington Post is reporting that Fitzgerald has presented evidence for the first time to the second grand jury in the leak case. Fitzgerald's decision to empanel a second grand jury indicates he meant business when he announced at the Libby indictment press conference that the investigation would continue. Randall D. Eliason, who headed public corruption prosecutions in the U.S. attorney's office in Washington, said Fitzgerald would not go through the trouble of repeating information to a new grand jury unless he is considering criminal charges or there are significant, potentially criminal matters he wants to resolve.
"The fact that Fitzgerald is going through the effort to re-present is certainly a sign that the investigation is active," Eliason said. Rove worked furiously to keep from being indicted along with Libby by providing last-minute evidence which the special counsel could not fully review before the expiration of the first grand jury. Since then, additional information has come to light including Bob Woodward's role in the Plame outing and Viveca Novak's communications with Rove's lawyer. Viveca Novak is to scheduled to give a sworn deposition today to Fitzgerald about her conversations with Rove's lawyer, Robert Luskin, alerting him to her knowledge that Rove outed Plame's identity to fellow Time reporter Matt Cooper. After being contacted by Novak, Rove apparently changed his story to the special counsel, claiming that he suddenly recalled his conversation after reviewing emails that documented the Cooper conversation. Looks like Fitzgerald has Rove in his sights now.
Wednesday, December 7th, 2005
Parsing Torture Policy
Europeans are confused about America's torture policy. Condoleeza Rice's tour through Europe has done little to reassure our allies and instead she finds herself dogged by questions about U.S. torture policy. The Europeans have begun investigating activities which our own government is loathe to face up to. In Germany, where Rice met with the new German Chancellor, Angela Merkel, Der Spiegel reports that 437 "torture flights" have transported detainees through that country's airspace during the past two years, on many occasions using its airports. The Times of London reports that the CIA quickly moved detainees from the secret prisons in Europe to Northern Africa in advance of Rice's visit "to allow the US Secretary of State to tell her European hosts that nobody was being held on their soil." And a nonpartisan parliamentary group in Britain has determined that its country's participation in such exercises would be in violation of international law. Earlier today, Rice appeared in Ukraine, making the claim:"As a matter of US policy, the United States' obligations under the CAT (Convention against Torture), which prohibits cruel, inhumane and degrading treatment, those obligations extend to US personnel wherever they are, whether they are in the United States or outside of the United States," she said. Her careful parsing of words avoids discussing whether the countries receiving US detainees abide by the CAT prohibitions of cruel, inhumane, and degrading treatment. The president has stated that "we do not render to countries that torture," without mentioning whether we render to countries that engage in cruel, inhumane, and degrading treatment. The administration is going to great lengths to identify this narrow niche of acceptable detainee abuse. But, ABC News has already quoted CIA sources claiming to have used waterboarding as an Enhanced Interrogation Technique against al Qaeda detainees. This is simulated drowning. Who can deny that this is not cruel and inhumane abuse? Human Rights Watch considers this cruel and inhumane. Senator John McCain, himself a Vietnam torture victim, called this tactic " very exquisite torture" in his Newsweek cover story. The former Chief of Staff to Colin Powell, Larry Wilkerson, stated last month that the directive to conduct torture and other atrocities in Abu Ghraib and elsewhere came directly from Vice-President Cheney. I applaud Senator McCain's efforts to include stronger prohibitions against torture and the cruel and inhumane treatment of detainees. There is no clearer indication that we have lost our global position as champion of democracy and human rights than the present circumstance in which our administration has to send the Secretary of State to Europe to defend its torture policy. I will continue my fight in the House to work vigorously against torture policies and restore dignity to the conduct of our foreign policy.
Tuesday, December 6th, 2005
DeLay Money Laundering Charges Stick
A Texas judge upheld the felony charges of money laundering and conspiracy to commit money laundering against Tom DeLay, just as the former Majority Leader was seeking to have the charges dismissed to facilitate his return to leadership. While the other consipiracy charges have been dismissed, the judge's decision to let the felony counts stand ensures that DeLay will go to trial. All of this news has served to bring into focus what DeLay's activities mean to his constituents. In a Gallup poll released today, residents of the 22nd district of Texas have decided that they would rather support a Democrat over DeLay by a margin of 49 to 36 percent. This should be encouraging to DeLay's democratic challenger, Nick Lampson. Nick served in the House until DeLay's redistricting campaign squeezed him out of a seat. Nick is the founder and chair of the Congressional Caucus on Missing and Exploited Children, is a tremendous human being, and is probably the diametric opposite of DeLay. If you are able, please help Nick.
Friday, December 2nd, 2005
Every Career Justice Department Official Opposed Texas Redistricting
The Washington Post reported today that in 2003 the Texas redistricting plan was rejected by every career Justice Department official, but was approved anyway by Bush's political appointees. You may recall that this was the purely political gerrymandering plan, riven with corruption, that has led to the indictment of Tom DeLay and several of his political operatives. This gerrymandering has also had the effect of increasing the number of Texas Republicans elected in to Congress from 15 to 22 and ended the careers of many highly respected senior Democrats. I had anticipated the politicization of this process and had called on the Bush political appointees to recuse themselves. The Texas redistricting plan required Department of Justice approval, and when the Chief of DoJ's Voting Section declined to sign the "no objection" letter, it was clear there was significant opposition to this proposal. It has now become clear that only the Bush political appointees, who should have recused themselves, supported the DeLay redistricting plan against the recommendation of every career Justice Department official involved. For the last two years I have been asking for the recommendation memorandum that was the source of today's Washington Post story. Given the explosive nature of its content, I am calling on Judiciary Committee James Sensenbrenner to conduct hearings on the matter when Congress returns next month. With the Voting Rights Act requiring renewal, and concerns of similar politicization in Georgia and Mississippi, it is imperative that this activity in the Justice Department is addressed without delay.
Thursday, December 1st, 2005
Righting the Wrongs of Our Times
[cross-posted at blackprof.com] The following is the text of an op-ed I drafted today honoring the 50th Anniversary of Rosa Parks' refusal to give up her seat on a Montgomery bus. She was not tired. Her feet did not ache. A day’s work had not made her weary. Rather, fifty years ago today, December 1, 1955, Rosa Louise Parks refused to give up her seat in the colored section of the bus for another reason. She remained seated for a reason that, as she would tell you, was quite simple. Rosa Parks simply refused to give in to injustice. Today, we have the opportunity to honor Rosa Parks by refusing to give in to injustice ourselves. We must follow Mrs. Parks’ example of refusing to accept the inequalities of her day and address our own modern day disparities. In the only voice that I knew her to have in the 23 years that she served in my Congressional office – in a quiet voice that spoke volumes – Mrs. Parks said, “No.” She said “no” to giving up her seat. She said “no” to the continued mistreatment of all African Americans, not just on the bus, but in all segments of society. She said “no” to the continued de jure and de facto segregation of this nation. The courage, dignity, and determination of Rosa Parks, in the face of adversity, provided the foundation for Martin Luther King, Jr.’s philosophy of nonviolent civil disobedience, Nelson Mandela’s pursuit of a free, multiracial democracy in South Africa, and my campaign platform of “Jobs, Justice, and Peace.” In advancing the legacy of Rosa Parks, we must tell the story of Mrs. Parks and that day on the bus, but just as importantly, we must work to be the nation that Mrs. Parks envisioned. Subjected to a cruelty and inhumanity that was inherent in a society that judged individuals by the color of their skin, Rosa Parks knew that this country was better than that. Rosa Parks tirelessly labored to bring about change because she knew that “until everyone can enjoy the same opportunities, people cannot be equal.” Unfortunately, as we recognize the 50th anniversary of Rosa Parks’ refusal to give up her seat on the bus, we must also recognize that everyone does not enjoy the same opportunities and people are not equal. Today, 1 in 9 African Americans cannot find a job; 1 in 5 African Americans is uninsured; and 1 in 4 African Americans lives in poverty. The typical African American family had 60% as much income as a white family in 1968, but has only 58% as much today. African American infants are almost 2 ˝ times as likely as white infants to die before age one, a greater gap than in 1970. Nearly 3 in 10 public high school students fail to graduate, but for African Americans that number is almost 1 in 2. Recently, Hurricane Katrina brought these disturbing inequities to the forefront of public consciousness, but these disparities are not new. We may forget about them until images of a national tragedy are televised. We may forget about them if our reality is not that we are the 1 in 9 that cannot find a job. However, such disparities exist and have existed. The experiences of those in this country are vastly different if one is white or Black, or rich or poor. Such characteristics, just as they did 50 years ago, continue to determine one’s place in life – whether or not one will have access to housing, education, employment, and healthcare. So as we honor Rosa Parks for her decision to stand up to injustice 50 years ago, we must advance her legacy by addressing modern day disparities just as we have worked to preserve her life and work for generations to come. One of the proudest moments of my political career was having Mrs. Parks lie in honor in the Capitol, the first woman to have this honor. My proposals for a Rosa Parks commemorative stamp and a Voting Rights Act reauthorization bill in her name, as well as my support of placing a Rosa Parks statute in the Capitol’s Statuary Hall, are among my continued efforts to ensure that Rosa Parks never be forgotten. However, her legacy is best preserved, not merely by symbolic gestures, but by bridging the gaps between whites and Blacks, the rich and the poor, the educated and the uneducated, and quite simply, those with access to the American dream and those without. Fifty years ago today, Rosa Parks acted because she did not want two separate and unequal societies in this nation. She refused to believe that a Black person or a poor person, or any person for that matter, was to be denied freedom and equality because of their circumstance. In advancing this principle, Mrs. Parks remained seated, recognizing the extraordinary opportunity to right the wrongs of her times. In her memory, we must be willing to right the wrongs of our own times.
|
|
