Declining Justice: DOJ Lets Statute Run On Bush Criminality

On March 10, 2009 Emptywheel noted that the five year statute of limitation on the initial criminal wiretapping acts by the Bush/Cheney Administration were expiring.

…the statute of limitations on the potentially criminal March 11 wiretaps of Belew expire today. By all appearances, that means the statute will expire without George Bush being punished for illegally wiretapping an American citizen, even though clear evidence of that criminal wiretapping almost certainly exists.

This is because the one period of time that it is crystal clear that the Bush/Cheney surveillance program was operating without legal sanction was subsequent to the hospital incident:

On March 11, 2004, remember, the warrantless wiretap program was operating without the approval of the Acting Attorney General. After Jim Comey refused to recertify the program on March 9, after Andy Card and Alberto Gonzales tried to get John Ashcroft to overrule Comey from his ICU bed on March 10, Bush reauthorized the program using only the legal sanction of then-White House Counsel Alberto Gonzales on March 11.

Thus, even if the rest of the program were somehow deemed legal (which it wouldn’t be, because it violated FISA, which is the question at hand), it would be not be deemed legal on March 11, 2004, because the program didn’t have sanction from the Attorney General.

There are, or were at least, three critical dates on which the lawyers for the al-Haramain organization knew themselves to be wiretapped that occurred during the period in which criminality would undoubtedly attach, March 10, 11 and 25 of 2004. It is believed that the program was reinstated under formal footing (as opposed to being run on Alberto Gonzales’ worthless signature as was the case in the days after the hospital incident) in early April, 2004. So, while Emptywheel gave the obituary on the expiration of the first two dates of known criminal culpability, I am here to give the post mortem on the last. It died at 12 pm Eastern time last night.

Now the one entity that has, and has had all along, the proof of the Bush/Cheney criminality in its hot little hands is the United States Department of Justice. You would think that the national press would be swimming with articles about the DOJ declining to pursue Executive Branch crimes in the biggest conspiracy against American citizens in the history of the country. But nary a peep. The only sound was a regurgitating by the Washington Post of information we already knew and that perpetrates a misconception about the state of the al-Haramain case as it exists In Judge Walker’s court.

So, the day after the DOJ has let the five year statute for the known underlying criminal acts expire without any action, all the while fighting like rabid dogs to conceal the criminality, the Washington Post and the rest of the media are as silent as a vacuum about the government shirking its duty to the Constitution and citizenry.

Lovely. The national media is asleep at its insipid wheel and there is effectively no Justice Department, only the department of just us.

image_print
30 replies
  1. DWBartoo says:

    Sadly, bmaz, you have precisely described the reality of the moment.

    What remains to be determined, is whether just us will rise to the needs of this moment.

    That will take courage.

    There is the courage of facing the truth, but greater and graver courage is required to do something about it.

    We shall see to whom this matters.

    As ever, bmaz, thank you for truthing us.

    DW

  2. JimWhite says:

    The list of crimes for which Obama refuses to prosecute anyone is getting ridiculously long. Can we hope that the dam will burst or are we just damned?

    • sojourner says:

      I have heard an expression uttered twice in recent weeks by close friends who have been done dirty by the companies they worked for. In both cases, they conceivably have a legal remedy for what happened. In both cases, however, they have stated that to pursue that remedy would not be constructive. In other words, they just want to move on.

      I recently read a piece that compares baby-boomers to GenX and GenY, their attitudes toward work and life. Both of my friends are GenX (I am a baby-boomer in my mid-50s). My thought here is that perhaps we are seeing a more universal attitude about justice in general that there is nothing constructive to be gained in pursuing criminal issues against Bush and Cheney.

      That does not mean that I like it at all. It really chaps my rear-end. Sadly, the fact that this president seemingly does not want to pursue the criminality says to me that a younger generation is taking the attitude that justice does not matter.

      I have seen a similar shift in attitudes in the workplace. Older workers insist on doing things “right.” Younger ones just want to do what is expedient in the situation and worry about correcting things later. Sound familiar?

      Sad day for all of us…

  3. JThomason says:

    There is a piece that continues to be hidden in the link between governance and AIG types and it has to do with the policies that governmental entities are taking out to meet judgments finding civil rights violations. This standing indemnity begins to provide a foundation of the sense of impunity with which the self-interest of governing bodies compromises the representative interest of the people.

    The new elitism underwritten in the shirking of liability for constitutional excesses is expressed in the non-nonchalance we see emerging in terms of the disintegration of both representative and legal checks. The cascading effect of petty bureaucratic tyrannies are perpetrated until Constitutional concerns become secondary to a pervasive realpolitik of entitlement.

    The centralization of financial power and the illusion of formulaic management tools thought to be relevant to government and operative through the collation of massive data base generating the minutiae of the rights and claims of the citizenry has instilled a new actuarial paradigm where the risks of the assertion of greater control of the people beyond constitutional understandings are ameliorated. This and the social concessions of the elite among themselves creates forces new to history and of course this is coupled with the consumer comforts of the technical efficiencies of automated production. But in the end the human factor is not susceptible to such a strictly quantitative analysis.

    It will be interesting to see where the imposition of authority finally displaces the social pressure exerted in the models of quantitative governance with the kind of precipitous breakdown that the financial crisis foreshadows.

    • DWBartoo says:

      Most eloquently said, JThomason!

      Beware the demagogues, for they sense the time is theirs …

      And “the people” are sore confused.

  4. Mary says:

    All this makes me too angry to really comment in any helpful way, but thanks for the post and for not being in splutter mode like I am bmaz.

  5. phred says:

    Thanks for the post bmaz. This is indeed an ignominious day for DoJ’s political protection racket.

    Several weeks ago, EW asked Sen. Whitehouse about these approaching SoL deadlines. He told her he would look into it. Did anyone ever follow up with the Senator?

  6. Mary says:

    I’ll avoid spluttering by quoting

    I often wonder whether we do not rest our hopes too much upon constitutions, upon laws and upon courts. These are false hopes; believe me, these are false hopes. Liberty lies in the hearts of men and women; when it dies there, no constitution, no law, no court can save it…

    Learned Hand

    • skdadl says:

      I believe that to be true, except: one of the ways that liberty dies, especially among citizens, is through sheer ignorance.

      When citizens grasp what the basic principles and structures and distinctions are supposed to be in a democracy (which I think too few now do), they don’t have the same motives that elites do to manipulate them cynically. What we need is not just pride in our constitutions but intelligent pride, and that means education, good education, universal education. (I’m having a Rousseau moment.)

      Lose intelligent support for democracy among the citizens, and then it is true: no court can save it.

    • bobschacht says:

      I often wonder whether we do not rest our hopes too much upon constitutions, upon laws and upon courts. These are false hopes; believe me, these are false hopes. Liberty lies in the hearts of men and women; when it dies there, no constitution, no law, no court can save it…

      Learned Hand

      Let’s see now. Let’s compare Pakistan and the U.S. In which country does Liberty thrive?

      In Pakistan, for a number of years, lawyers have taken to the streets to re-instate the Chief Justice, who had been removed from office by one President, and kept out of office by the next. The current gov’t finally relented and re-instated the Chief Justice.

      In the United States, the President and Vice President from 2001-2008 committed war crimes, violated the Constitution, turned the DOJ into an arm of the Republican Party, and broke numerous other laws, including warrantless government surveillance of citizens, and the arrest of citizens without habeas corpus proceedings, arrest warrants, or trials. In response, Congress has emasculated itself, and most of the public seems unconcerned.

      In which country does liberty thrive?

      Just askin’ (and yes, I know that the answer is not simple or one dimensional.)

      Bob in HI

  7. TarheelDem says:

    bmaz:

    Who exactly are these people? Do they have bios? Connections with the Bush administration?

    MICHAEL F. HERTZ
    Acting Assistant Attorney General

    DOUGLAS N. LETTER
    Terrorism Litigation Counsel

    JOSEPH H. HUNT
    Director, Federal Programs Branch

    ANTHONY J. COPPOLINO
    Special Litigation Counsel

    ALEXANDER K. HAAS

    MARC KRICKBAUM

    • bmaz says:

      They are all DOJ personnel under Bush that are still there as far as I know. You can check the DOJ website for bios maybe.

      • TarheelDem says:

        Thanks. The DOJ web site has nothing about personnel.

        The Plum Book 2008 shows that Hertz occupies the position held at the time of publication by Gregory Katsas; it is a presidential appointment with advice of the Senate (PAS). The others are “career appointments” in the Senior Executive Service pay plan.

        Hertz was Deputy Assistant Attorney General for the Civil Division in the Bush administration. In the Plum Book, he is not named but there is one Deputy Assistant Attorney General position listed as “Career incumbent”. No indication from the 2004 Plum Book that he has burrowed into the position.

        FindLaw says that Letter is a staff attorney for the Civil Division Appellate staff. Hertz is just listed as US Department of Justice.

        That’s all I’ve found on the Google.

        I’m about ready to concede that Holder (or Obama) has fouled up on this one.

  8. Peterr says:

    Thanks, bmaz. My day started with a meeting involving a sleazy lawyer, I’ve spent far too much of the day since then thinking about sleazy lawyers, and I come to emptywheel’s place for some snark to take my mind off how my day has been, and this is what I find: sleazy lawyering.

    Thanks a lot.

    Of course, no one could have anticipated that a post at this place would involve sleazy lawyers in it somewhere. AIG, Capitol Hill, warrantless wiretapping, . . .

    *sigh*

    OK, my bad. I should have gone over to tbogg’s if I wanted better odds on getting some lawyer-free snark. But with my luck, he’s trashing lawyers today too. . .

  9. THATanonymous says:

    –bmaz

    Is it still the case that you don’t know what I mean when I say “The law is not the law”?

    –TA

    • THATanonymous says:

      Put another way, what does it mean when you swear to uphold the law, but there’s no one else there (with any power) to support you?

      –TA (the law is not the law)

  10. Mary says:

    OT but kinda related. I was reading about the journalists that North Korea is holding as spies and I got to wondering.

    Is anyone going to ask Obama whether or not things like stripping, hooding, isolating, sleep deprivations, anal assault with an instrument, waterboarding, head slapping, hypothermia etc. being applied to them by North Koreans would be merely “policy decisions” that we would never want to “criminalize?”

  11. Ishmael says:

    The rationale for a limitation period does not seem very compelling in this case – admittedly, I am kibbitzing from a Canadian perspective, where our Criminal Code imposes no time limits at all for indictable offences – (felonies in the US context)except, oddly enough, treason! But none of the usual justifications for limitation periods apply in the criminal wiretapping case. It’s only been five years, so no evidence has been lost to the passage of time. Everything has been documented, so gaps or inconsistencies in memory shouldn’t be a problem. Statutes of limitations have been defended as a bulwark against politicization of the judicial process, or prosecutorial discretion run amok or latter day witchhunts, but it seems that the opposite occurred in the wiretapping cases.

    Not much you can do about it now that the statute has run, but it is interesting to consider the justification for the rule in the first place.

    • bmaz says:

      You know, from a criminal defense perspective, I kind of like statutes of limitation; however, where the crimes involve an executive (presidential) administration, it is a problem. I don’t know about eradicating them totally, but do think that enacting a provision that expands the statute, any statute when construed to an executive act, to ten years so that, no matter what, the statute is open for at least two full years after the end of any administration, even if the crime is perpetrated on the first day of the administration.

  12. victoria2dc says:

    bmaz…

    why would they have done this? Can you please explain what possible positive results this will have for an Obama White House?

    How dare they do this! Why? I just can’t understand it.

  13. Mary says:

    19 – or not.

    22 – it’s not simple or one dimensional, as you point out, but it’s a legitimate avenue of thought.

Comments are closed.