Haynes, Armed Services, Perjury?

/34 Comments/in /by

Scott Horton has more on the news that Jim Haynes has lawyered up–borrowing Dick’s trusty lawyer–in the face of scrutiny from Armed Services. Scott seems to imply that Armed Services is closing in on Haynes on perjury charges.

I’ve been looking into this trying to get a sense of what, exactly, the Armed Services Committee is so eager to discuss with Haynes. Two possibilities emerge.

First is the subject that Isikoff identifies: committee staffers have been carefully assembling secondary accounts concerning Haynes’s role in the process of authorizing highly coercive interrogation techniques, in preparing memoranda, and in soliciting memoranda to cover his advice from the Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel. Haynes’s relationship and dealings with OLC are drawing particular attention. Similarly, staffers are looking very carefully at Haynes’s prior appearances before the Committee, as well as his appearance before the Senate Judiciary Committee in connection with his nomination to the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals.

My hunch is that the facts and circumstances surrounding the preparation of the two “torture memoranda,” which I have dubbed Yoo Prime (August 2002) and Yoo Two (March 2003) will be right in the center of questioning. Something that Haynes said, it seems, doesn’t sit right with the investigators.

The second matter is Haynes’s role in restructuring the Military Commissions at Guantánamo and tasking prosecutors and the legal advisor to the convening authority. This is the point on which the president of the New York City Bar, apparently now joined by other bar associations, is pressing for Haynes’s examination under oath. Accusations come from the former chief prosecutor, Colonel Morris Davis, among others. Davis has recently stated that he is prepared to submit to a lie-detector test about the matter. Haynes has refused to make public comment, offering only a bland statement that he “disputes” Davis’s charges through a Pentagon public affairs spokesman. [my emphasis]

That would be just like a Bush Court nominee, to lie under oath (something even Scottish Haggis has insinuated Alito has done). Guess it’s time to review that transcript.

The Davis testimony is likely not perjury–while DOD has issued a statement that Davis’ allegations are bunk…

Reached for comment, Defense Department spokesperson Cynthia Smith said, "The Department of Defense disputes the assertions made by Colonel Davis in this statement regarding acquittals."

…that statement was not, after all, under oath or to Congress.

But if Levin confirms that Haynes did rig the Gitmo tribunals, one would hope that would be enough to scuttle the hearings–at least the rigged hearings as currently constituted.

34 replies
  1. MadDog says:

    Via Scott’s piece, this is from Haynes back when he worked for Secretary of Defense Cheney in 1991 and was then trying to muzzle the JAGs:

    The necessity and justification for designating the general counsels as “chief legal officer” is grounded in the basic and fundamental organizational principle that each department or agency must have a single senior legal officer whose opinion is final within that department or agency.

    Even back in 1991, Cheney and crew were trying to maximize power into their own hands and silence marginalize the efforts of the professionals.

    Sheesh, déjà vu all over again.

  2. WilliamOckham says:

    ew,

    Do you know if there is a transcript of Haynes’ testimony? I’ve googled, but can’t find one.

  3. MadDog says:

    OT – EW, your naming of Senator Rockefeller as “Jello Jay” has infected the entire world. *g*

    National Association of Manufacturers

    “Now compare that argumentation to that of immunity’s most vocal opponents, including the Daily Kos blogger, mcjoan, who in this post calls Senate Intelligence Chairman Jay Rockefeller “Jello Jay” and accuses him of “carrying the water” for the Administration.”

    Alternet.org

    Jay Rockefeller: The Most Gullible Sheep in the Senate?

    The Dem senator is an advocate for Bush’s domestic spying efforts and cheerleader for telecom immunity: Is he a clownish dupe, or is his brain addled?…

    …But since the 9/11 attacks, “Jay” has become just one of Rockefeller’s nicknames. These days the senator is also known as “Jello Jay,” “Vichy Democrat No. 1″ and the “Senator from AT&T,” depending on which outraged Democrat you’re talking to. Most of these newer nicknames have their origins in Rockefeller’s performance as chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee…

  4. bell says:

    i don’t read every word posted on emptywheel so forgive me if this has already been pointed out- moon of alabama mentions an article in vanity fair ‘the green light’ wherein jim haynes is mentioned.. i will quote the section that was of interest to m of a..

    >>I recommend to read The Green Light in full. Among others, Sands interviewed Diane Beaver, staff judge advocate for Gitmo commander Maj.Gen. Dunlavey, and Dunlavey himself.

    This is the gist of what was not known before:

    On September 25 [2002], as the process of elaborating new interrogation techniques reached a critical point, a delegation of the administration’s most senior lawyers arrived at Guantánamo. The group included the president’s lawyer, Alberto Gonzales, who had by then received the Yoo-Bybee Memo; Vice President Cheney’s lawyer, David Addington, who had contributed to the writing of that memo; the C.I.A.’s John Rizzo, who had asked for a Justice Department sign-off on individual techniques, including waterboarding, and received the second (and still secret) Yoo-Bybee Memo; and Jim Haynes, Rumsfeld’s counsel. They were all well aware of al-Qahtani. “They wanted to know what we were doing to get to this guy,” Dunlavey told me, “and Addington was interested in how we were managing it.” I asked what they had to say. “They brought ideas with them which had been given from sources in D.C.,” Dunlavey said. “They came down to observe and talk.” Throughout this whole period, Dunlavey went on, Rumsfeld was “directly and regularly involved.”
    …
    They met with the intelligence people and talked about new interrogation methods. They also witnessed some interrogations. Beaver spent time with the group. Talking about the episode even long afterward made her visibly anxious. Her hand tapped and she moved restlessly in her chair. She recalled the message they had received from the visitors: Do “whatever needed to be done.” That was a green light from the very top—the lawyers for Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, and the C.I.A. The administration’s version of events—that it became involved in the Guantánamo interrogations only in November, after receiving a list of techniques out of the blue from the “aggressive major general”—was demonstrably false.

    Sands concludes that the men and women involved in this committed war-crimes and could well be prosecuted when caught outside of the United States.

    While the memo release has been picked up in the main papers, I have yet to find any MSM reference to this important piece. That seems to support my suspicion that the memo release is just a diversion.

    Yoo was a mid-level lawyer at the justice department. A despicable person for sure. But the really guilty guys were above him. Yoo just did what they told him to do.< <</p>

    http://www.moonofalabama.org/

  5. masaccio says:

    I’m not seeing a lot of careful analysis of that miserable torture opinion. It makes me nervous that the committee is considering it without a lot of outside assistance.

  6. kspena says:

    OT-relates to comments in previous thread. Der Spiegel Online gives rundown on bush’s arrogant intentions and self-defeating performance at NATO.

  8. bmaz says:

    Update on the “Quantico Circuit” from Tuesday’s WaPo:

    When FBI investigators probing New York prostitution rings, Boston organized crime or potential terrorist plots anywhere want access to a suspect’s telephone contacts, technicians at a telecommunications carrier served with a government order can, with the click of a mouse, instantly transfer key data along a computer circuit to an FBI technology office in Quantico.

    The circuits — little-known electronic connections between telecom firms and FBI monitoring personnel around the country — are used to tell the government who is calling whom, along with the time and duration of a conversation and even the locations of those involved.
    …
    Different versions of the system are used for criminal wiretaps and for foreign intelligence investigations inside the United States. But each allows authorized FBI agents and analysts, with point-and-click ease, to receive e-mails, instant messages, cellphone calls and other communications that tell them not only what a suspect is saying, but where he is and where he has been, depending on the wording of a court order or a government directive. Most of the wiretapping is done at field offices.

    Wiretaps to obtain the content of a phone call or an e-mail must be authorized by a court upon a showing of probable cause. But “transactional data” about a communication — from whom, to whom, how long it lasted — can be obtained by simply showing that it is relevant to an official probe, including through an administrative subpoena known as a national security letter (NSL). According to the Justice Department’s inspector general, the number of NSLs issued by the FBI soared from 8,500 in 2000 to 47,000 in 2005.

    The administration has proposed expanding the types of data it can get from telecom carriers under the 1994 Communications Assistance for Law Enforcement Act, so FBI agents can gain faster and more detailed access to information sent by wireless devices that reveals where a person is in real time. The Federal Communications Commission is weighing the request.

    My bold added on last paragraph; reason self explanatory. So, they (telcos) all have “Quantico Circuits”? Really? What the hell is going on in this country? Are the threats to this country so great and cataclysmic, and our defense (upon which we literally spend nearly as much as the rest of the world combined) so weak and pathetic, that the only way to keep me, you and other average Americans safe from Islamofascisaterrorists or whatever is to put a listening and location monitor up our butts? Really? I am willing to take that chance. Give me the liberty and privacy that the Constitution promises or give me death. And I simply refuse to soil my pants in fear of the latter like the NeoCons running this country. These jackals are “patriotic”? You have got to be kidding me; they are the complete antithesis to everything this country is supposed to stand for. These are the most un-American assholes I have ever seen in my life.

    • WilliamOckham says:

      Yeah, it hit me the other day that that’s how the FBI found out about the TSP so fast. The wiretaps started lighting up without warrants. I bet the FBI crapped their pants thinking somebody hacked their system. Which, essentially, really is what happened.

  9. bmaz says:

    More poo in the NeoCon pants:

    The Secret Service is preparing to provide Vice President Cheney with agents, transportation, advance work and other security-related trappings of executive power for six months after the Bush administration packs up and moves out in January, the agency’s director, Mark Sullivan, told Congress last week. The expected cost: $4 million.

    Let him reap that which he has sown. If he wants this protection, he can pay for it. Alternatively, I understand they are able to keep people like Cheney very safe in the Hague; and unlike he and Scalia, they don’t punish or torture during pre-trial detention.

  10. klynn says:

    “…able to keep people like Cheney very safe in the Hague…”

    Yep.

    Definitely the Hague…

    And that Jay… Needs a lifetime supply of the dessert item. Definitely “molded”…To further add to the symbolism… He’s not a parfait type…

  12. Peterr says:

    More from that Horton piece, a propos of some of the discussions here lately:

    Yoo is currently a professor at the University of California at Berkeley, the author of a number of widely featured books, and a widely followed media figure whose works are routinely published in the Wall Street Journal and other publications. He remains a member of the bar in Pennsylvania and California.

    Haynes recently left the position of General Counsel at the Department of Defense to become General Counsel–Corporate at Chevron Inc. He remains a member of the bar in North Carolina, Virginia and the District of Columbia.

    A system that punishes and shames Matthew Diaz, yet obstructs any investigation into the misconduct of John Yoo and Jim Haynes, and particularly their focal rule in the introduction of torture, cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment, is corrupt. Indeed, it persecutes the innocent and rewards the guilty. A bar association that disbars Matthew Diaz and leaves Yoo and Haynes free to practice is fundamentally corrupt. In essence, this choice reflects a legal profession that puts upholding the will of the Executive, even when it commands the most egregious and unlawful conduct, over the Rule of Law. It reflects the abnegation of the bedrock principles of the profession and the principles of the American Constitution and the Revolution which gave rise to it.

    I wonder if anyone has asked the heads of the PA, CA, NC, VA, and DC Bar Associations for their reactions to Horton’s piece.

  13. klynn says:

    O/T again (sort of)

    EW,

    Did you read this in today’s Guardian?

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/worl…..8/iraq.usa

    A confidential draft agreement covering the future of US forces in Iraq, passed to the Guardian, shows that provision is being made for an open-ended military presence in the country.

    The draft strategic framework agreement between the US and Iraqi governments, dated March 7 and marked “secret” and “sensitive”, is intended to replace the existing UN mandate and authorises the US to “conduct military operations in Iraq and to detain individuals when necessary for imperative reasons of security” without time limit.

    and this on Iran:

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/worl…..clearpower

    And the are Live blogging Petraeus hearing…

  14. klynn says:

    O/T again…

    This opinion piece on our economy is spot on:

    The financial crisis being felt around the world will get worse unless strong actions are taken by governments. The strongest action of all is required in the United States, where this global maelstrom originates.

    My bold.

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/busi…..baleconomy

    At least the UK seems to be making decisions which back homeowners on the mortgage front. They got the concept of addressing the mortgage crisis from the homebuyer side, not the bailout of banks side. The win-win…What good is it to destroy a class of home buyer simply for a harvest season for the lenders (like in the U.S. – government bailout AND banks received the defaulted properties…okay, now who can turn around and invest in the properties the banks own? Very few…)

    • Petrocelli says:

      What that UK bank failed, they sacked the Executives and did not give them Golden Parachutes as is common practice in “The Greatest Country in the History of the World” (H/T Luntz ?)

  15. Mary says:

    11 – ditto

    OT, but not too far. Via War and Piece, Human Rights Watch is getting ready to release a report on 14 suspects “rendered” to Jordan for torture.

    “The Bush administration claims that it has not transferred people to foreign custody for abusive interrogation,” said Joanne Mariner, terrorism and counterterrorism director at Human Rights Watch. “But we’ve documented more than a dozen cases in which prisoners were sent to Jordan for torture.”

    Re: Haynes, I don’t know what he did or didn’t say before the Armed Services Committee, but he and Keisler would have pretty much had to be involved past their ears in something like the Kurnaz case and the direct suppression of exculpatory evidence. Given the hellbent speed with which Warner and Levin began tucking amnesty into the DTA, killing habeas, and insuring no access to any kind of due process would be available either to innocent people or to torture and abuse victims, they obviously knew what was going on too though, so I’m not sure what is expected on that front. The word is that Kurnaz will be filing a suit and it may be that the Armed Services Committee is basically trying to put on a little show for the furriners, making it look like they are doing something so that foreign courts don’t start entering judgements for the depraved acts committed with carte blanche and Congressional blessings.

    I just have no faith in Levin – it’s like sending out Sherrod Brown as a spokesperson for the repeal of the MCA. But here’s hoping I’ve become more cynical than life demands. And in addition to his statements before the Committee, there would be his actions in blocking others from testifying and the reasons he was blocking them as well.

    Col. Stuart Couch comes to mind.

    There’s an empty chair at Malcolm Nance’s hearing before a subcommittee of the House Judiciary Committee on torture this morning. That chair was supposed to be occupied by Marine Lt. Colonel Stuart Couch. In 2004, Couch, a then a prosecutor, refused to bring charges against a 9/11-linked detainee at Guantanamo Bay, Mohamedou Ould Slahi, after determining that the basis for the charges — Slahi’s confession — were yielded by torture, as the Wall Street Journal reported earlier this year.

    As the TPM piece notes, Couch was talking publically for years – and yet, we got the DTA and the MCA. Then there is Hayne’s role in the “classifying” or lack there of and the withholding of documents from Congress. His role in Hicks. His role in giving the orders to abuse Lindh. His fibbifying before the Judiciary Committee about what did or did not happen with the “working group” memo that he and Walker cooked up and sent out the door and the subsequent input by Rives and other JAG(that one should have had immediate fireworks and instead barely caused a hiccup). Arm twisting JAGs on a wide array of fronts. Failing to press the unanimous JAG position on Geneva Conventions. Holding up issuance of an approved star. Leahy has indicated that he thought Haynes was less than truthful in a letter he sent back in 2003. Rigging trials, pressuring lawyers and judges.There certainly isn’t a dearth of things that would bear legitimate scrutiny.

    Who knows what the focus will be, but I really do tend to believe all that is happening is for show, to make it look like he got some kind of a handslap to insulate him from later actions by courts in other countries or civil actions here (not that Congress hasn’t already obliged him on the civil and criminal actions here front by passing the DTA and MCA and acquiesing in torture).

  16. Mary says:

    Bc so many here like timelines, I’m going to give this link for a site put up by Thomas Fiscus (article by Ricks), now retired AF JAG who originally fought Walker, Haynes, Rumsfeld and OLC pretty hard on detainee issues, then found himself the center of an IG investigation for allegations of sexual misconduct with a female AF lawyer on his staff. Per the Ricks article:

    Investigators are looking especially at e-mail exchanges between the general and the woman, a Pentagon official said.

    Interesting that some emails are so much easier to find than others.

    Ricks goes on to discuss the AF JAG office’s fights over detainee issues and quotes David Sheldon, ”a defense lawyer specializing in military cases” as saying:

    ”The timing of it is certainly suspect, given [Fiscus’s] office’s opposing OSD [the Office of the Secretary of Defense] on detainee issues,” Sheldon said.

    So – I can’t say much about how much you could/should rely on Fiscus and his timeline is partly to flesh out his situation vis a vis the complaints made against him, but the parts involving Mary Walker and the detainees issues are interesting (from the Chronology, which spans back to 1991 and mentions O’Donnell, Addington, Haynes, etc.) Fiscus apparently wrote a National War College Paper on the attempt by O’Donnell (DOD GC), Haynes (Army GC) and Addington(DOD GC nominee) to stage a ”hostile takeover” of JAG. That probably made him friends among the unholy trio.

    Discussing the Nov 2001 to April 2002 period,

    I recall feeling how strange it was to have the civilians arguing for the harshest possible application of the Executive Order while the uniformed lawyers argued for some semblance of modern due process. Strangely, the uniformed lawyers found themselves the ”liberals” in the room …

    In Feb of 2003:

    Having concluded that Mary Walker is not incorporating
    JAG inputs into the working group report on detainee
    interrogation techniques, we feel we have no choice but
    to create a ”paper trail” of our objections. My
    International and Operations Law Division drafts a letter
    identifying our concerns …
    By the time the letter is completed, I am on
    travel and it is signed out with my authority by
    my deputy. It is immediately classified. Walker
    is furious at the letter. She is forced to advise
    the DOD GC of our objections. Ours is the first
    of similar letters later sent by the other service
    JAGs. We never see the final product
    submitted by Walker to the DOD GC …

    After Abu Ghraib, Lindsey Graham contacts Fiscus to see if JAG agreed with Yoo’s memo:

    I tell him the TJAGs were unanimously against any policy that took the US out of compliance with the Geneva Conventions. I tell him I was so concerned that I had my Deputy sign out a letter to Mary Walker in Feb 03 (see above) putting the AF JAG on record as opposing a policy that would put us in the category of rogue nation. He is surprised to learn
    of the letter and asks if he can have a copy. I tell him that the Memo has been classified and I will begin looking for a way to legally provide it to him.
    …
    I began to look into how the Feb 03 letter became classified, who
    had classification authority over it and who could either declassify it or grant access to Senator Graham.

    Some interesting stuff. The very most interesting, though, from May of 2004:

    I take a telephone call from the DOD GC, Mr. Jim Haynes,
    who demands that I do a live interview with ABC News to
    talk about the ”collegial environment” in which the
    detainee interrogation techniques approved by SECDEF
    Rumsfeld were developed. He wants me to tell ABC
    News that the JAGs had a full opportunity to participate
    in the development of the detainee interrogation policy.
    Though I advise him that I can talk about the process, I
    cannot confirm that the JAG inputs were valued or
    considered. He tells me he really needs for me to do
    this for him. I decline to participate

    He also pretty much says that Graham and McCain reneg on assurances to protect him and that they both got firsthand info from him about JAG resistance to the torture memos.

    So with the overall circumstances of his situation, take it or leave it in whole or in part. But I think the fact that Haynes aske him to go on television and lie is a pretty significant allegation.

    Oh, and btw – the email relating to his ”relationship” that HE deleted – – formed the basis of an obstruction charge. Odd, isn’t it, how those rules on emails seem to be a constantly moving target – it’s not Obstruction when the President does it and DOJ covers for him.

  17. Mary says:

    26 – and whether that was all just a mistake, or whether that Yoo memo was relied on more than has been acknowledged? maybe too?

  18. maryo2 says:

    There has been some question about why Mueller called on the night of the hospital showdown. Was the Yoo memo applied to FBI NSLs??

    Wednesday, March 10, 2004 – The Ashcroft Hospital showdown
    “I was headed home. My security detail was driving me.” Comey got a call from Ashcroft’s chief of staff, who said that although Mrs. Ashcroft had “banned all visitors” from her husband’s room in the ICU, where he was in his sixth day, a call had just come to his hospital room indicating that Gonzales, then White House counsel, and Andy Card, then Bush’s chief of staff, were on their way. (Comey seemed to recall that the call to Ashcroft came from the president; he says it certainly came from the White House.)

    Comey made frantic calls to his own chief of staff and to Robert Mueller, then FBI director , while he raced to the hospital, sirens blasting.”

  19. sailmaker says:

    Someone is going to go down (in history at least) for the torture, the extreme renditions, the deaths, the holding of innocents, the war crimes. Somebody has to go down, or none of the administration can travel outside the country. The logical focal spot should be Cheney, except that as Mary excellently pointed out yesterday, he is the warm-bucket-of-spit-Iago who has the moral responsibility, but none of the legal authority for war crimes. Why did anyone follow his instructions? My guess is that Cheney and Addington using their patented pounding-on-their-high-chair school of management said that the President wanted x,y, or z and anyone who got in their way was impinging upon the President’s power to do whatever he wanted in a time of war. To a certain degree it was implied that Cheney would be the driver of, or the grownup in foreign policy in the Bush administration. Cheney got more authority, more power going into the administration than most VPs have coming out.

    Back to Haynes. The structure of the MCAs was to give only convictions (kangaroo court by any other name): defendants could not see the charges, ‘evidence’ collected by torture and hearsay was permitted, the defense lawyers could have little or no contact with the defendants, and on and on. Colonel Davis said that Haynes said that ‘but we can’t have acquittals, we can only have convictions’. Goldsmith in his ‘The Terror Presidency’ p. 121 speaks to the difficulty of establishing the procedures for the military commissions, and that the Defense Department threw up roadblock after roadblock to the development of the military commissions which they believed were fundamentally unfair. Goldsmith p. 122 (typos mine)

    My time in the Pentagon led me to doubt whether the Defense Department could, without the legitimizing impact of congressional ratification, craft long-term legal policies for incapacitating terrorists.

    Haynes was at the DoD while all the rationals for war crimes were being developed. Goldsmith went from Dod to DoJ then quit government. Note that the DoD not the DoJ declassified Yoo’s memo. I believe we have a severe case of what I call Thumbelina going on here – not me – he did it (waves thumb at next guy) – not me- he did it (waves thumb at next guy), with war crimes instead of broken cookie jars. Cross departmental warfare at its worst. The 4th branch – Cheney and Addington, with the lend/lease of their lawyer seem to be trying to prevent ‘fall guy’ from being written into Haynes’ resume.

  20. Mary says:

    29 – I think Mueller called bc his backside was going to be on the line right there along with Ashcroft’s in the FISC blow up that was going on concurrently.

  21. sailmaker says:

    Here is Comey’s May 15, 2007 testimony. Comey testified that Mueller was one of the people who was going to resign if ‘the program’ was not put on a legal basis for the mandatory 45 day legal certification. Ashroft was another person who it is said was going to resign, but David Ayres (Ashcroft’s chief of staff) asked that they wait until the following Monday to resign so that Ashcroft would be in better health. This took place on May 10th, the night before the necessary recert, which was also the night before the Madrid bombings. Comey (at least in my reading) seems to say that everything was legalized and that, therefore, no mass resignations were necessary on the following Monday.

    Aside: we didn’t know which program or which parts of the program were causing the legal problems. EW (I think) figured out that at some point there was a limited hang out of ‘the program’ which did not expose the whole thing, and from then on references to ‘the program’ were fuzzy.

  22. radiofreewill says:

    26, 28 – How about a hypothetical?

    – 911 or shortly after, Bush ‘militarizes’ Our response to 911
    – Bush secretly declares himself UE
    – Bush secretly makes ‘Suspicion’ the domestic surveillance standard for Citizens, replacing Probable Cause
    – Bush creates ‘The Program’ to surveil citizens domestically
    – Domestic DB TIA moved to Pentagon
    – Telecoms told to ‘give it up’ for National Security
    – Quantico Circuit(s) installed
    – NSA ‘hooked-up’ to TIA for Foreign input
    – FBI ‘hooked-up’ to TIA for Domestic ‘fetches’ using NSLs

    So, for instance, a ’suspect’ phone call originating in ME lands on an American citizen’s cellphone in Hoboken.

    – NSA intercepts the incoming call, feeds TIA (the Database of The Program)
    – DoD scans the social network of the receiver (to three degrees?) and makes a threat determination
    – For any identified ‘targets’ deemed ‘of interest,’ out go the NSLs through the FBI

    That seems to me just like what Bush would do. Declare himself King, Above the Law, and Immediately start ‘Over-watching’ the Citizenry for any ‘dissent.’

    So, if the NSLs were being used to launder ‘domestic leads’ generated by The Program at DoD – on the basis of suspicion, which has all kinds of wrongness about it – then is it possible that these DoD NSLs were what Gonzo was cryptically referring to as ‘other intelligence activities’ in his SJC testimony?

    Are you saying that it could be the Hospital Visit was about ‘bringing The Program into compliance with the Law’ over the DoD use of NSLs?

    Maybe that’s why Bush and Cheney were so cocky about invading Iraq? Could they have been ‘over-watching’ All of US – looking for ‘unpatriotic dissent’ – as they Drove US with Lies to an Aggressive War of Choice, against a Nation that had nothing to do with 911?

Comments are closed.