If you needed any further evidence . . .

. . . of the nature of the Bush Administration, this video provides all you need:



By way of background, then-Attorney General John Ashcroft was extremely ill and in the hospital, so much so that his wife had barred any visitors. James Comey, then No. 2 at the Justice Department, was the acting Attorney General due to Ashcroft's illness.

Comey informed the White House that he would not be reauthorizing the warrantless wiretapping program the White House had maintained for a period of time, based on his belief that the program was illegal. The White House, not liking that answer, took the actions Comey describes in this video, through Alberto Gonzales (then White House Counsel) and Andrew Card (Chief of Staff).

Please watch it. Then, read this excellent editorial by the Washington Post.

You must read this.

I'm going to write more about my previous post and your thoughtful responses to that post soon.

But in the meantime, I wanted to make sure you have the chance to read the most important article written so far about the Attorney General Purgegate scandal. Writes Murray Wass of the National Journal:

Attorney General Alberto Gonzales signed a highly confidential order in March 2006 delegating to two of his top aides -- who have since resigned because of their central roles in the firings of eight U.S. attorneys -- extraordinary authority over the hiring and firing of most non-civil-service employees of the Justice Department. A copy of the order and other Justice Department records related to the conception and implementation of the order were provided to National Journal.

In the order, Gonzales delegated to his then-chief of staff, D. Kyle Sampson, and his White House liaison "the authority, with the approval of the Attorney General, to take final action in matters pertaining to the appointment, employment, pay, separation, and general administration" of virtually all non-civil-service employees of the Justice Department, including all of the department's political appointees who do not require Senate confirmation. Monica Goodling became White House liaison in April 2006, the month after Gonzales signed the order.

The existence of the order suggests that a broad effort was under way by the White House to place politically and ideologically loyal appointees throughout the Justice Department, not just at the U.S.-attorney level. Department records show that the personnel authority was delegated to the two aides at about the same time they were working with the White House in planning the firings of a dozen U.S. attorneys, eight of whom were, in fact, later dismissed.

A senior executive branch official familiar with the delegation of authority said in an interview that -- as was the case with the firings of the U.S. attorneys and the selection of their replacements -- the two aides intended to work closely with White House political aides and the White House counsel's office in deciding which senior Justice Department officials to dismiss and whom to appoint to their posts. "It was an attempt to make the department more responsive to the political side of the White House and to do it in such a way that people would not know it was going on," the official said.

. . . . .

The senior administration official who had firsthand knowledge of the plan said that Gonzales and other Justice officials had a "clear obligation" to disclose the plan's existence to the House and Senate Judiciary committees -- but the official said that, as far as he knew, they had not done so. When the committees began to inquire into the firings of the U.S. attorneys, the official said, Congress had a right to know that the firings were part of an ambitious effort to install administration loyalists throughout the department. The official spoke on the condition that neither his position nor agency be identified, because he feared retaliation from his superiors and the White House for disclosing aspects of the program.

Referring to the firings of the U.S. attorneys and the broader plan targeting other Justice employees, the senior official said, "You cannot separate one from the other. They were one and part of the same plan by the White House."

Now go read the rest of the article . . . you'll be hearing more about it soon.

This tells you all you need to know . . .

. . . about the Bush Administration:

It can be hard to tell whom the Bush administration considers more of an enemy at the Guantánamo Bay detention camp: the prisoners or the lawyers.

William Glaberson reported in The Times yesterday that the Justice Department had asked a federal appeals court to remove some of the last shreds of legal representation available to the prisoners.

The government wants the court to allow intelligence and military officers to read the mail sent by lawyers to their clients at Guantánamo Bay. Lawyers would also be limited to three visits with each client, and an inmate would be allowed only a single visit to decide whether to authorize an attorney to handle his case. Interrogators at Guantánamo Bay have a history of masking their identities, so the rule would make it much harder than it already is to gain the trust of a prisoner.

Perhaps the most outrageous of the Justice Department’s proposals would allow government officials — on their own authority — to deny lawyers access to the evidence used to decide whether an inmate is an illegal enemy combatant. Not even the appalling Military Commissions Act of 2006, rammed through in the last days of the Republican-controlled Congress, goes that far.

The filing, with the federal appeals court in Washington, D.C., says lawyers have caused unrest among the prisoners and improperly relayed messages to the news media. The administration offered no evidence for these charges, probably because there is none. This is an assault on the integrity of the lawyers, reminiscent of a former Pentagon official’s suggestion that they are unpatriotic and that American corporations should boycott their firms.

The Justice Department also said lawyers had no right to demand access to clients at Guantánamo Bay because the clients are “detained aliens on a secure military base in a foreign country.”

The Supreme Court has already rejected that argument, and President Bush can hardly be worried about the sensibilities of Fidel Castro’s government. (The camp is on land leased to Washington after the Spanish-American War.)

It’s obvious why the administration is attacking the lawyers. It does not want the world to know more than it already does about this immoral detention camp. And brave lawyers have helped expose abuse and torture there, as well as detentions of innocent men — who are a large portion, if not a majority, of the inmates at Guantánamo Bay. The Bush administration does not want these issues aired in public, and certainly not in court.

Mr. Bush thinks that he has the right to ignore the Constitution when it suits him. But this is a nation of laws, not the whims of men, and giving legal rights to the guilty as well as the innocent is a price of true justice. The only remedy is for lawmakers to rewrite the Military Commissions Act to restore basic rights to Guantánamo Bay and to impose full accountability for what has happened there.

New York Times Editorial, April 27, 2007.

Just a thought: As of today . . .

Number of people who died at Virginia Tech: 33

Total U.S. deaths in Iraq: 3333

Total U.S. wounded in Iraq: 24,313

Reported minimum number of civilians killed since our "intervention" in Iraq: 62,417

If I had actual spare time, I would research the percentage of daily news coverage dedicated to the Virginia Tech shootings versus the daily percentage dedicated to the Iraq war and the lies that led our innocent soldiers there.

This editorial

is but one of the reasons I love the New York Times. In it, the paper of record lists the many things that need to happen to unwind the damage done by the current administration to "the founding principles of American democracy." The NYT views these three tasks as fundamental, but doesn't stop there:

Restore Habeas Corpus

One of the new act’s most indecent provisions denies anyone Mr. Bush labels an “illegal enemy combatant” the ancient right to challenge his imprisonment in court. The arguments for doing this were specious. Habeas corpus is nothing remotely like a get-out-of-jail-free card for terrorists, as supporters would have you believe. It is a way to sort out those justly detained from those unjustly detained. It will not “clog the courts,” as Senator Graham claims. Senator Patrick Leahy of Vermont, the Democratic chairman of the Judiciary Committee, has a worthy bill that would restore habeas corpus. It is essential to bringing integrity to the detention system and reviving the United States’ credibility.

Stop Illegal Spying

Mr. Bush’s program of intercepting Americans’ international calls and e-mail messages without a warrant has not ceased. The agreement announced recently — under which a secret court supposedly gave its blessing to the program — did nothing to restore judicial process or ensure that Americans’ rights are preserved. Congress needs to pass a measure, like one proposed by Senator Dianne Feinstein, to force Mr. Bush to obey the law that requires warrants for electronic surveillance.

Ban Torture, Really

The provisions in the Military Commissions Act that Senator McCain trumpeted as a ban on torture are hardly that. It is still largely up to the president to decide what constitutes torture and abuse for the purpose of prosecuting anyone who breaks the rules. This amounts to rewriting the Geneva Conventions and puts every American soldier at far greater risk if captured. It allows the president to decide in secret what kinds of treatment he will permit at the Central Intelligence Agency’s prisons. The law absolves American intelligence agents and their bosses of any acts of torture and abuse they have already committed.

Post of the Day, maybe even of the Week or Month!

I'm not sure if you have seen Jay's blog. If not, you should!

His post today is rich with the amazing and interesting details of his trip to Branson, Missouri. But two parts of it made me laugh out loud, not an easy task on a day in which I decided twice to quit my job (the first time, I saw it definitely happening down the road, and the second time, I considered doing it immediately) and cried in my office.

Anyway, back to the funny . . . Jay writes about a couple of store employees whom he thought he might have interrupted while they were, um, bonding:

They were standing on the other side of the building from me talking quietly to each other. It started reminding of being in college, sitting on my bed reading with my roommate and his girlfriend sitting on his bed looking at me like “are you ever going to leave dude?” So, I decided to go ahead and leave. The lady told me to have a nice day and the kid gave me this big smile and the old “head nod” move. But, just before I walked out I spun around and asked for an application. They were both heading back towards that same door when I did this. The woman said “uhh ... sure” and went and got me one. The kid wasn’t smiling at me anymore.

I threw the application away after I left.

The part where I laughed was when he wrote about asking for the application, then throwing it away. The second time I laughed out loud while reading Jay's blog today was during this part, where he describes a convenience store clerk's reaction to a customer who called her "baby" during their transaction:

The lady behind the counter then said “I wish she wouldn’t call me ‘baby’”. I just looked at her. She went on to explain “Men can call me ‘baby’ all they want, but not women. I don’t think it’s a good idea anymore. There’s too much lesbianism going around, ya know”

Going around? I didn’t know it was contagious. Be careful out there people or you will catch the guy!

Then she dropped this amazing line on me:

“I stick to the sticks, if you know what I mean” She had her eyebrows raised and was leaning over the counter just a bit.

Good stuff, eh? You see, this is why Jay is a Golden Spork winner, an honor of which I can only dream.


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

The story about people calling each other "baby" reminded me of something I've been meaning to write about. I noticed over the last year or so that people suddenly seem to call me "honey" wherever I go. Seriously. Store clerks, bartenders, waitresses and waiters and the cashier at the place where I get my car washed all have called me "honey." I've been trying to figure out why they do it, and all I can guess is that I'm looking young these days and that they have no idea I am 37 years old. But really, it's anyone's guess.

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

Finally, I'm sure you all are just dying to know what I think about the Grand New Strategery for the Vietnam--I mean--Iraq war, which Shrubby rolled out tonight. Well, I was already furious yesterday when I read somewhere that the idea to send more troops to their near-certain deaths came from a national security staffer who wanted to a plan that was not a focus of the Iraq Study Group's report. I'm SERIOUS, people. Do you really think I could make that up? I wish I had saved the article for you, but I didn't.

So, with the high expectations for the speech that that tidbit engendered, I eagerly tuned in to listen to tonight's presentation. You know what I learned? There is no new plan. Just the same old one, which has been so successful for us. God help the men and women in our armed forces, as well as the Iraqui people.

It's a good thing we brought democracy to the Iraqi people . . .

(Pool photo by David Furst)

I should immediately reveal my bias: I am vehemently anti-death penalty, even with respect to acknowledged bad, bad, bad guys like Saddam Hussein. You see, I am not aware of any footnote providing an exception to the Sixth Commandment ("Thou shall not murder").

When Mr. Hussein was captured, our country's Jackass in Chief (ever the diplomat) said: “Good riddance, the world is better off without you.” Now, his wish has officially been granted. The New York Times, in a rare ALL CAPS front page title, announces, "HUSSEIN IS EXECUTED." Of course, the JIC has this to say:

He said that the former Iraqi dictator “was executed after receiving a fair trial — the kind of justice he denied the victims of his brutal regime.”

Consistent with his shirking of service in the Vietnam War, our Jackass in Chief did not even bother to stay awake for the execution of one of the two men he claimed posed the most serious threat to American safety. No, he went to bed before the execution took place, according to another story in the Times. I understand that a decision was made for him not to crow about it, and that makes sense in a "too little, too late," kind of way, but couldn't he have stayed awake?

And I know it will surprise you, but many groups and individuals, including Human Rights Watch, disagree with the JIC about the "fairness" of Hussein's trial. Human Rights Watch lists some of the following concerns about that trial:

• No requirement to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
• Inadequate protections for the accused to mount a defense on conditions equal to those enjoyed by the prosecution.
• Disputes among Iraqi political factions over control of the court, jeopardizing its appearance of impartiality.
• A draconian requirement that prohibits commutation of death sentences by any Iraqi official, including the president, and compels execution of the defendant within 30 days of a final judgment.

I might add to that that the guy was convicted after a trial in which at least three of his defense lawyers were KILLED. Yes, killed. I realize that in the U.S., there are many who believe a person can receive a fair trial while his lawyer sleeps, but surely one cannot receive a fair trial while his lawyers "sleep with the fishes."

Also in the Times article is this:

Iraqi and American officials kept outsiders, including his legal team, from contacting him all day, according to Najib al-Nauimi, one of Mr. Hussein’s lawyers, who was in Qatar.

Does that sound fair--to keep a convicted defendant's lawyers away from him at the eleventh hour before his execution?

A Washington Post story outlined these other deficiencies in Hussein's trial:

There was failure to disclose key evidence to Hussein's attorneys, as well as violations of the basic rights of the defendants to confront witnesses, rights activists said. The first presiding judge resigned. Iraqi politicians routinely denounced the tribunal as weak. Three defense attorneys and a witness were assassinated. Outbursts by the second chief judge, Raouf Rasheed Abdel-Rahman, undermined his impartiality, the activists said.

So how surprising, really, is this tidbit from the Times article:

“He just gave up,” said Mowaffak al-Rubaie, Iraq’s national security adviser. “We were astonished. It was strange. He just gave up.”

It makes me sick. Literally, sick.

And so much for that whole plan of bringing peace to Iraq by sweeping Hussein out of power. At least 59 more people were killed and scores more injured in the hours after his execution, according to this Washington Post story.

Finally, no event would be complete without a Bush lie about it. Although many published stories reflect denials by the U.S. government that they were at all involved in the execution, the New York Times writes:

Prime Minister Maliki was still conferring with American officials late Friday night to work out the timing and resolve key details, like what to do with Mr. Hussein’s body, a Western official said.

Josh Marshall highlights these lies from the White House:

Reuters, December 29th, 2006 18:35 GMT ...

The White House declined to comment on the timing.

"That is a matter for the Iraqi people, we are observers to that process. They are a sovereign government and they will make their own decisions regarding carrying out justice," spokesman Scott Stanzel said in Crawford, Texas.

AP, December 29th, 2006 10:02 PM Eastern

An adviser to Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki said Saddam would be executed before 6 a.m. Saturday, or 10 p.m. Friday EST. Saddam and others were convicted of murder in the killings of 148 Shiite Muslims from an Iraqi town where assassins tried to kill Saddam in 1982.

...

The time was agreed upon during a meeting Friday between U.S. and Iraqi officials, said the adviser, who declined to be quoted by name because he was not authorized to speak to the media.

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

I realize Hussein wasn't innocent, but if you are interested in helping fight for the human rights of criminal case defendants, especially helping those who are innocent to find justice, please check out this group, which is led by one of my favorite law school professors. Chiefly powered by students, they have logged 20,000 investigative hours over the past four years, resulting in two inmates being released from prison, two death penalty inmates receiving a new trial and numerous clemency petitions being filed. If you'd like to donate, you can do that here.

Remembering Those Who Have Lost Their Lives

I stumbled across this web site and couldn't stop reading it. As we wrap up what has undoubtedly been another warm and wonderful holiday season for so many of us, let us remember those for whom it has been neither. Please keep the dead, the injured and their families in your thoughts. And please do all that you can to help the new Congress bring their brothers and sisters home safely as soon as possible.