If I remember correctly, 60 Minutes also has a report about the theft of armaments from the al Qaa Qaa ammo dump ready to air at about the same time that the TANG report aired. And that the furor over the TANG report caused CBS to can the al Qaa Qaa story.

EW, I think you have the wrong link up for Tim Grieve. Your â€this article†link goes to today’s Glen Greenwald column, and while it’s a good read, it doesn’t go where you wanted it to go.

Trust Us

The photo will get rid of illusions that you thought you’d dispelled long ago.

Off topic: Marcy, did you see the SJC hearing yesterday with Jack Goldsmith? I only caught small pieces of it rebroadcast last night, as I had been watching Erik Prince for the time I had available. I heard Sen. Whitehouse mention that he had gotten a lot of information by reading Goldsmith’s book, which I haven’t read. There doesn’t seem to be much in the news about the hearing (except for TPM). One interesting thing I saw was when Whitehouse was asking about Comey’s mad dash to the hospital. He asked Goldsmith why Comey would race over in his car, using his flashing lights for the first time ever, and then literally running up the steps to the hospital room. I think he said Comey took the steps two at a time, or something like that. Goldsmith answered that it was a very important issue, but Whitehouse got little more than that out of him. It was an interesting exchange. I wondered if there was more to it. Whitehouse has become one of the most interesting members of the panel to watch.

Once upon a time, Our Country ripped in two, and our Military fought itself – Slave against Free.

At the end of hostilities, there were tremendous acts of military chivalry by both sides towards the other. Our Military came back together – in Honor – having settled the argument on the field of battle.

The matter was settled – Our guiding light is the Freedom of All – Our Military, from then on, would only fight for the Common Good.

And that’s how we’ve packaged Our Wars ever since – We’re fighting Oppression for the Freedom of All. The World Wars, Korea, Vietnam and even the ’Cold War’ were all sold as steps in the global March of Freedom.

Even after being rudely rebuffed by Korea and Vietnam for our offer to ’help’ them find their ’Freedom,’ we still stumbled ahead with ’best intentions’ to support Freedom for All.

Until Bush. The Wars in Afghanistan and Iraq are clearly Not based on Freedom for All. They are based on self-righteous, vengeful â€How dare you!†Hate.

This is an Ideological Beat Down – that is being sold – sloppily – with any convenient bright, shiny object that keeps Literalists distracted from the inconvenient truth that â€dark-skinned, far-away Muslims†are standing on Bush’s Oil.

But, Our Military can’t claim to be distracted by the bright, shiny objects – they know firsthand that this is about Control – not Freedom.

Gen. Myers covered-up and materially aided a false representation by Bush to the Supreme Court that ’We don’t torture,’ when, in fact, Gen. Myers knew about Abu Ghraib – which experts the World over say is clearly documented evidence of torture with a Capital ’T’.

Where is the Honor in that?

Gen. Pace has said, at least twice in public speeches, that some People shouldn’t be in the all-volunteer Citizen Military because God Says So. Is there any other way to take that than he’s an Ideology-first/People-second kinda guy?

Is this what Confusing Honor with ’Loyalty to an Ideology’ looks like?

If so, We need to ask Adm. Mullen if we are witnessing an Internal Military Reversal of the Issue previously settled by Our Bloodiest War, Our Civil War?

Is Admiral Mullen, the new Chairman of the JCS, going to continue the six-year-old tradition of Myers and Pace by Fighting for the Boss over fighting for the Common Good?

Hear hear Mary! I couldn’t agree more. All these hearings are pointless if they are not followed up with prosecutions. And thus far, nada. I don’t have a good feeling at all about any of this. I have seen no evidence yet that the Dems are serious about tackling these problems. They appear intent on only having endless hearings to sway voters opinions for 2008. It’s beyond sickening.

An excellent point PJ — thanks for that

Mary,
Yes, the September 26th, 2003 torture circuit is on pages 99-101 of Goldsmith’s, ’The Terror Presidency’. At the time Goldsmith was working for Haynes at the Pentagon, and was a prosective employee at OLC. He says that there were about a dozen lawyers on this trip.

I got the feeling from the book that the whole administration had a giant case of 9/11 induced PTSD, compounded by being fed the daily threat assessments and Cheney’s zero tolerance for any new incidents and it gets summed up in David Addington’s, â€if there is another incident, the blood of 100,000 Americans will be on your hands.†They were in the bunkers mentally. They should have been able to function, to have the vision to see the outcome of their actions, but for whatever reasons, they did not. Yoo and Bybee were rubber stamping hacks at best, and Goldsmith was dangerous in his position because he was able to manufacture much better legal logic to back up Bush’s illegal actions. Goldsmith is worth the read because he gives insight into the historical derivations of his thinking, and a flavor for the thinking inside the DoJ.

Since Goldsmith started the rethinking in 2003 of torture, detention, and FISA (amongst other things) it is important to keep up the time lines, so that when McConnell gets up to say that debates on novel aspects of FISA cost a soldier’s life in May of this year, one can easily call it the lie that it is.

Coincidentally Sept 26th was Hamdi’s birthday (he turned 22 that day), and Goldsmith’s (40).

Not that I have an opinion.

And â€shamefully bad example of a self apologist†isn’t really, technically, what I meant to say – I just typed and hit post too fast. *g*

Mary – As you probably recall, I thought the Abu Ghraib stuff would be very significant in Rather’s theory of case even though it was not emphasized nearly as much as TANG in the complaint. At any rate, here are some random off the top of my head thoughts on this (read: I may change my mind as I delve deeper) that I related to EW previously. Am interested to hear your thoughts:

â€The question regarding Clement at the Supremes is fascinating. The questioning did not
really go that way on this occasion, but the Supreme Court is pretty much an appellate court only, and this was a review from below on both Hamdi and Padilla. Questioning attorneys in front of them about factual subjects not within the record certified for review is not supposed to be part of the deal in an appellate court like SCOTUS as a general rule. And a real quick look at the syllabi of the two decisions does not indicate any reason to believe that the statements we are now discussing on the part of Clement in respopnse to Justice’s questions at argument formed any basis for the decision by the Supremes. I am not quite sure what my exact point is here other than to apprise you all of the situation and the kind of unique circumstances here for whatever it is worth. If I had been Clement, and I knew about Abu Ghraib, and I had been so queried by the Justices, I would have couched any answer only in terms of the certified record for the case so as not to risk stepping into the shit. And if the Justices pressed, I would remind them that the only proper facts were those in the record. Clement was much more casual in the way he responded. He had an easy, and proper, out like I just described if he really knew about the Abu Ghraib and/or other specifics of known torture. This almost makes me think Clement didn’t really substantively know.

As to whether the Justices themselves knew–or had heard–rumors about the Abu Ghraib torture, and whether that might be why they asked Clement questions; I thought about that too. Again, got to read more, but my initial inclination is that they knew no more than the diffuse stuff the rest of us did. Although they diverted â€off the certified record†as I said above, said diversion did not look strained and was not that long. I would think that if they knew, it would have been more pointed, and they would have made much more of a ruckus since then, because they would have set a trap and the government walked straight into it. Hard to say. I don’t think much glowingly nice of either of these sides right now, Supremes or Clement, and I am still thinking they were somewhat clean here. I dunno. Great questions though….

These are pretty initial thoughts. I need to read all the links, and maybe the full SCOTUS decisions to be more certain. I may be
missing something here too. I dunno.

Phred – Go Pack!! Actually watched your Badgers too for some reason – was best game on at the time – you are on a roll so far this year.

I don’t think I am very clear when I talk about having to buy Goldsmith’s book to get information on the torture and illegal surveillance programs conducted by Gov.

It’s not that he’s making or not making money – it is that he was a public servant and now says the public only has a right to know if they buy his book. That’s just wrong.

And if a Grover Norquist charity is getting the proceeds or not – I don’t see Goldsmith doing anything – not even tiny things – to assist the actual victims of the policies he helped solicit and carry forward and defend. I dunno – have he and Jim Haynes sent flowers to the Dilawar’s family? By the time they buy a daisy for each Haynes-central approved blow that was landed on Dilawar, it might be cost-prohibitive.

I also don’t think that there was really that much of a sea change on retardation of Executive power – I think the Executive grabbed power he never had and Congress stood up and said Stop It. Kind of like here:

http://youtube.com/watch?v=BYLMTvxOaeE

It’s not that Congress diminshed Presidential power, it is that with the technological advances, the President began to operate against American citizens in a manner that would never have been allowed if it had to have been carried out openly – but since wiretaps and the like were so nicely damn covert and so many in the intel field were so willing to target other Americans, he thought he could get by. JMO

Near the end of his book Goldsmith tells a joke about how the only thing worse than being demonized by the left, is being lionized by the left.

Aww -isn’t that sweet – I think he lifted that from Comey didn’t he? Who said pretty much the same, as if it were so clever. Goldsmith and Comey are both very wrapped up in self-labelling. They are the â€conservatives†the â€good guys†etc. and they are the absolute epitome of the irresponsible egocentrics who will depend on others, like THEIR demonized version of â€the left†to protect them, all the while spitting on the people who are willing to stand for something more than petty self interest. I laughed when Comey tsk tsked over how he just couldn’t figure out how DOJ would ever survive if that mean ol girlie girl Monica had politicized it – with his own handprints all over torture cases and he wonders how DOJ survives a MONICA?!?

And put both comments in context. In the discussion of whether or not it was a good or necessary or right thing to do to stand up for law and for the Constitution, it doesn’t matter a damn to Goldsmith or Comey over whether or not AMERICANS would demonize or lionize those activities. Only where â€the left†would stand, so they can make a production of holding their nose if a DFH gets too close to them. I guess I’ve always been a bit of a civil libertarian, but never have I seen such efforts to demonize all of â€the left†and to cast into that pit of demons anyone and everyone who doesn’t take a loyal Bushie position on torture and law.

bmaz –

IIRC, a part of the factual record for review in both cases were the repeated gov assertions that all detainees were being treated humanely. But that’s based on fading memory about various things written at the time and not any personal review of the record.

As I pointed out somewhere, by the time Padilla and Hamdi were being argued, Arar had already filed HIS torture victims act suit and in part I think Clement was trying to pave the way with the court regarding those types of recourse by victims of the US DOJ solicitations to maltreatment.

I also think that the very fact that the questioning took place showed it did have some impact on at least the justice doing the questioning. Here’s the other thing I personally think and have floated by a couple of those who know more and haven’t been completely shot down on.

I think that these â€detentions†with abuse for those who were NOT taken on the battlefield and have not been charged are prohibited bills of attainder aka pains and punishments. I think that kind of unconstitutionality was on some minds at least and my guess is that Clement was partly prepared for that line of questions and that was somewhat where the emphasis on claiming that these people were not being abused.

As I said elsewhere, Clement could perhaps parse, even with Abu Ghraib if he stuck to the â€rogue actors†line. But what else was going on by then and of which parts at least of DOJ had sure and certain knowledge?

Dilawar.

Arar.

The FBI was alleging abuses at GITMO. E.g. http://www.boston.com/news/nat…..nee_abuse/

KSM’s waterboarding and blacksiting.

Kidnap/detention of KSM’s children.

Blacksites.

Waterboarding and torture of Zubaydah

At a minimum the allegations of Binyam Mohammed

The ghost planes and renditions

etc.

So how could there be that much, even if piecemeal, knowledge out there at DOJ about so many things and just Forest Gump Clement just didn’t know nuthin bout birthin no torture?

Plus – I like this:

http://www.legalaffairs.org/pr…..msp?id=898

In a particularly blunt blog post titled, â€Did the Justice Department Lie to the Supreme Court?†the University of North Carolina law professor Eric Muller called for a congressional investigation of Clement.

But soon after Muller raised his concerns, Clement’s friends and colleagues began reaching out to set Muller straight. â€I was privately assured by many people who knew or know Paul Clement that he’s an absolute straight shooter and an up-and-up kind of guy, and not the kind of person to dissemble and not the kind of person to knowingly mislead the court,†Muller said. â€The people who came to me were actually people who were on the other side of the aisle. They were Democrats who had worked with him or known him.†What struck Muller about the outreach was the way in which it went beyond the clubby rules of the Supreme Court bar, where practitioners are loath to criticize one another. â€People were actually taking the initiative to contact me, in a sense reaching out to say, ’You’ve got the guy wrong,’ †Muller said. â€That’s way beyond the call of club rules.â€

See, like Comey and Goldsmith – they turn to a part of the hated left to lend them a semblance of respectablity when they do very bad things, and then while they laughingly deride how awful it is to have â€the left†say anything nice about them (like grade schoolers obsessed over cooties) they use those nicely said things to save their own butts.

From the same article, discussing a not-very-nice incident involving a murdered woman and the Revue poking fun at her, there is also this aside, …the Revue authors poked mild fun at [Clement]for arrogance, using mock footnotes: â€See CLEMENT, I Can Explain Anything with a Graph, in THE ANALYSIS IS EASY ONCE YOU ASSUME AWAY THE HARD STUFF 54 (1992)

I tend to think that someone put their finger on Clement’s legal pulse with the â€once you assume away the hard stuff†and Goldsmith et al as well. Once you assume you’re just the good guys who won’t be adversely using power, then the answers are easeier, aren’t they?

As to who looks good or not, here’s part of my take. First, I think the questioning was a pretty logical extension of Clement’s argument that, not just could these people be detained like with a POW camp, but that they could then be hidden from the IRC and all kinds of other things including no habeas rights. I think the standard response on that would be – how do you know bad things won’t go on behind the closed doors. It’s the spinoff of â€democracy dies behind closed doors†that has been a frequent theme in the Court.

And the Justices, whether they hate or love international law aspects, all I am sure were aware of rulings by Israel’s Sup Ct that hidden away detainees were being tortured and that court weighed in prohbiting torture, even with the daily violence that faces Israel.

But here’s where I think things really fall apart. AFTER the oral argument, one of the things that happened is that Comey & Co. purportedly conducted this exhaustive research into Padilla’s case, including all kinds of classified info. They then supposedly fought the good fight to get info declassififed so Comey could make his reassuring Press Conf that Bush is a swell guy who made the absolute right decision to blackhole and torture an American citizen for years without charges.

As a part of that investigation, there is flat out no way they didn’t learn about Zubaydah’s waterboarding and torture. No way.

Did anyone supplement the record of Clement’s statements to the Court? Did they say – uh, about that â€no torture†thing, um, well, we still say Abu Ghraib was just some rogue criminals and not the Executive, but uh, yeah, ya know, I guess we do actually torture now and then.

That’s without even going into all the rest of the things that chunks of DOJ knew about -once Clement’s statements to the Court became public, then anyone at DOJ who had direct knowledge to the contrary is responsible for not coming forward to correct the misrepresenations to the court, IMO.

And there were lots who knew.

we

I understand your points bmaz and I know you aren’t making excuses for them, just considering all the possible angles and having problems with why someone who knew about torture would work things the way he did.

I do think that they are/were assured in their abiity to claim â€few rogue actors†with Abu Ghraib and insulate all the MI aspects. Remember, Taguba when he did get to investigate was prohibited from investigating MI, just MP. So I don’t know how much he knew about Abu Ghraib or whether or not they could parse it to try to make his statements correct (the Executive never authorized what those guys did – see, we’re going after them). So I don’t think Abu Ghraib is really the lynchpin, other than the impact of the pictures so soon after his statements.

Where I do think he has a problem is that over the next few months, fast and furious, he had both the duty – with Abu Ghraib reveleations – to make further/better enquiry, and also a whole boatload of areas in which torture was occuring, at home, abroad, by US intel, buy US miltary, by US proxy torturers in other nationstates, etc. He had a whole boatload of people at DOJ who knew some or all of what was going on. But never, prior to the court’s decision, did he supplement the record and, to the contrary, Comey held that horrible Padilla presser to blow more smoke.

So how can he have not misled the tribunal given all the knowledge in DOJ and his duty after the Abu Ghraib revelations to make better inquiry?

But your point – that maybe he had been kept deliberately in the dark – is also plausible up to that point and is a part of why I think they didn’t want him to be â€the guy†on the FISC request for the â€questionable†surveillance – where he would have to be briefed in on things and where he would end up with personal direct knowledge of the FISC reaction. I’m thinking they did not want the guy who might have to go argue the illegal and unconstitutional mess to know too terrible much about the specifics of why it is illegal and unconstitutional.

So I understand where you are coming from. It is why I included him not technically knowing as one of the options. But the other thing is – at some point DOJ’s knowledge is impugned to him. And DOJ definitely did know. And those in DOJ who did, definitely, know – listened to his statements to the court and never came forward to correct the record.

Such trash.