Carl Levin on Torture Investigation

/in , /by

As I reported earlier, when Senator Reid spoke at Progressive Media Summit, he stated that he supported investigations of BushCo wrong-doing, even stating he was increasing the budget for such investigations. He specifically mentioned that Senator Levin would be doing some such investigation.

Here’s Senator Levin’s response. It sounds like Levin’s investigation is primarily his SASC investigation on torture. 

In good news, though, Levin’s committee should be releasing the full report in short order.

More Comments from Reid, Progressive Media Summit

/in /by

On Bush’s crimes:

We have to look back. We are increasing the funding for investigations, we’re even considering having a select committee to go back and look at these things.

On EFCA:

My favorite Woody Guthrie song is "Union Made." I believewhas has happened in the last eight years has been unfair to working men and women. We’ve got card check in Nevada. The cry from business is that it takes away the secret ballot. That’s garbage. We hope to get to it before this summer. I’m a union guy.

On immigration reform:

I’ve received so many threats because I put immigration on the calendar three separate times. Comprehensive reform important to our country. Protecting our borders for the security of our people. We need to have a guest worker program. We need them in the service industry. We need to have a good fair temporary working program. We need to bring the undocumented workers out of the shadows. Let’s put them in line for citizenship. They come out of the shadows and be productive. They pay taxes. They learn English. We need to do something about employer sanction. DREAM Act. We’ve got to make sure kids can go to school. 

The OLC Opinion Eliminating the 4th Amendment (and "Justifying" the Warrantless Wiretap Program)

/in , /by

Christy linked to HJC’s report on the Imperial Presidency earlier.

I’ll have a lot more to say about it. But for the moment I wanted to point to details it includes on the October 23, 2001 OLC opinion eliminating the 4th Amendment we’ve been looking for (this is the memo cited in Yoo’s Torture Memo). 

On page 74 it describes the memo:

On October 23, 2001, Deputy Assistant Attorney General John Yoo and Special Counsel Robert Delahunty in the Department of Justice’s Office of Legal Counsel (OLC) prepared a memorandum entitled: “Authority for Use of Military Force to Combat Terrorist Activities Within the United States.”291 This unclassified memorandum suggests broad power of the president as Commander in Chief to use military force inside the United States, contemplating even seizure and detention of United States citizens (or lawfully admitted aliens) in some circumstances. As such, the memorandum – though it does not squarely address detention policy — is consistent with the September 25, 2001, War Powers Memorandum which claimed for the president domestic war powers, anticipates the assertions of presidential power in the domestic detention context just a few months later, and anticipates the November 2001 conclusion that the president has the power to subject United States citizens to military commissions.

The memorandum, which was directed to White House Counsel Alberto Gonzales and Defense Department General Counsel William J. Haynes, addresses whether the president has constitutional or statutory authority to use military force inside the United States in terrorism-related situations and, if so, whether such domestic military operations would be barredby either the Fourth Amendment or the federal Posse Comitatus statute. Examples of the type of force considered for purposes of the analysis include, but are not limited to: (1) destroying civilian aircraft that are believed to have been hijacked; (2) deploying troops to control traffic in and out of a major American city; (3) seizing or attacking civilian property, such as apartment buildings, office complexes, or ships, believed to contain terrorism suspects; and, (4) using military-level eavesdropping and surveillance technology on domestic targets.

Mr. Yoo and Mr. Delahunty concluded that both Article II of the Constitution and the 9/11 use of force resolution would authorize these types of domestic military operations (even though Congress had expressly rejected language proposed by the Administration for the AUMF that would have authorized domestic military operations).292 Read more →

Iraq War Memos Released: Working Thread

/in , /by

McClatchy’s Marisa Taylor has gotten a hold of three more Yoo memos–and one Jack Goldsmith memo–that reveal the Administration’s thinking on the Iraq War.

They are:

October 23, 2002: Bush has authority to declare war against Iraq because his Daddy did

November 8, 2002: UN 1441 doesn’t prevent Bush from going to war outside the terms of 1441

December 7, 2002: If Scooter Libby claims the Iraqis lied on their WMD declaration, Bush can declare war

March 18, 2004: If the US ships Iraqis outside of Iraq, then they can torture them [Jack Goldsmith’s opinion]

I’m most interested in the December 2002 memo, because it seems to have shaped the roll-out of propaganda directed against Iraq–up to and including John Bolton’s use of the Niger claim in a State Department release on Iraq’s declaration. Basically, they seem to have gotten the legal opinion, then tailored their propagana to the terms of the legal opinion.

But I guarantee you, Mary is going to have some things to say about the Goldsmith memo, which she has been keeping an eye out for for some time.

Consider this a working thread.

Update: Come to think of it, the October 23, 2002 opinion is pretty funky. As it points out, it came not long after Congress approved the Iraq War resolution.

You asked us to render an opinion based on the constitutional and other legal authorities that would exist in the absence of new authorization from either Congress or the United Nations ("U.N .") Security Council. We note that on October 16, 2002, the President signed into law the Authorization for Use of MiIitary Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002, HJ. Res. 114, Pub. L No. 107-243,116 Stat. 1498 (2oo2),which authorizes the President to use force against Iraq to enforce relevant U.N. Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq and to defend the national security of the United States from the threat posed by Iraq. We have not considered here the legal effect of that resolution. As this memorandum makes clear, even prior to the adoption HJ. Res. 114 the President had sufficient constitutional and statutory authority to use force against Iraq. We also note that negotiations are ongoing in the U.N. Security Council on a
new resolution regarding Iraq, but we do not address any of the proposed terms here.

It’s as if, at each stage of the process, Bush got Yoo to say he could do what he wanted regardless of the machinations in Congress and the UN, so he could claim he didn’t need that authorization. (Shades of Daddy, here.) And, of course, they eventually probably relied on that authority when they went to war without a new resolution.

I wonder whether Colin Powell knew about these opinions?

Read more →

The al-Haramain Dates

/in , /by

Before you read this post, go read this post and this post for background about Judge Vaughn Walker’s order yesterday that the government must give him a document accidentally given to al-Haramain years ago that the Muslim charity claims proves they were wiretapped using the illegal wiretap program. Those posts explain that Walker will finally assess the warrantless wiretap program itself to determine whether it violated FISA. The second post goes on to suggest that this decision will likely impact Walker’s pending decision on whether or not the retroactive immunity passed by Congress is legal.

In this post I’m going to wallow in some delightful weeds, because they show that al-Haramain is going after Bush personally.

Recall that, back in July, Walker told al-Haramain that, before he would review the document itself to determine whether or not the program was illegal, they would have to use unclassified material to prove they are aggreived persons–that they had been wiretapped. A central part of their response to that direction was a description of a series of phone calls which they assert the government used to classify al-Haramain as a super-duper terrorist group, one with direct ties to Al Qaeda. Walker cites those calls in his opinion.

Soon after the blocking of plaintiff Al-Haramain Oregon’s assets on February 19, 2004, plaintiff Belew spoke by telephone with Soliman al-Buthi (alleged to be one of Al-Haramain Oregon’s directors) on the following dates: March 10, 11 and 25, April 16, May 13, 22 and 26, and June 1, 2 and 10, 2004. Belew was located in Washington DC; al-Buthi was located in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia. During the same period, plaintiff Ghafoor spoke by telephone with al-Buthi approximately daily from February 19 through February 29, 2004 and approximately weekly thereafter. Ghafoor was located in Washington DC; al-Buthi was located in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia. (The FAC includes the telephone numbers used in the telephone calls referred to in this paragraph.)

In the telephone conversations between Belew and al-Buthi, the parties discussed issues relating to the legal representation of defendants, including Al-Haramain Oregon, named in a lawsuit brought by victims of the September 11, 2001 attacks. Names al-Buthi mentioned in the telephone conversations with Ghafoor included Mohammad Jamal Khalifa, who was married to one of Osama bin-Laden’s sisters, and Safar al-Hawali and Salman al-Auda, clerics whom Osama bin-Laden claimed had inspired him. Read more →

Oops! They Pissed Off Judge Walker Before He Finalizes Immunity

/in , /by

I just finished reading Vaughn Walker’s opinion explaining that the government will have to give him the document that–the lawyers for al Haramain claim–shows they were wiretapped without a warrant under Bush’s illegal wiretap program, so he can determine whether it really does show what the lawyers claim it shows. If it does, you see, then someone will finally be able to sue Bush and his cronies for violating FISA.

If you don’t have time to read the entire opinion, I recommend you pick it up around page 16–where Walker includes a short summary of how the al Haramain lawyers proved they were surveilled under the illegal program–and then go to page 21–where Walker starts getting really cranky with the government. 

Defendants simply continue to insist that § 1806(f) discovery may not be used to litigate the issue of standing; rather, they argue, plaintiffs have failed to establish their “Article III standing” and their case must now be dismissed. But defendants’ contention that plaintiffs must prove more than they have in order to avail themselves of section 1806(f) conflicts with the express primary purpose of in camera review under § 1806(f): “to determine whether the surveillance of the aggrieved person was lawfully authorized and conducted.” § 1806(f).

In reply, plaintiffs call attention to the circular nature of the government’s position on their motion:

Do defendants mean to assert their theory of unfettered presidential power over matters of national security —— the very theory plaintiffs seek to challenge in this case —— as a basis for disregarding this court’s FISA preemption ruling and defying the current access proceedings under section 1806(f)? So it seems.

So it seems to the court also.

It appears from defendants’ response to plaintiffs’ motion that defendants believe they can prevent the court from taking any action under 1806(f) by simply declining to act.

But the statute is more logically susceptible to another, plainer reading: the occurrence of the action by the Attorney General described in the clause beginning with “if” makes mandatory on the district court (as signaled by the verb “shall”) the in camera/ex parte review provided for in the rest of the sentence. The non-occurrence of the Attorney General’s action does not necessarily stop the process in its tracks as defendants seem to contend. Read more →

The Thomas Tamm Legal Defense Fund

/26 Comments/in , , , , /by

images5.thumbnail.jpegAs Mike Isikoff has related in Newsweek, Tom Tamm was the critical tipping point behind Eric Lichtblau and Jim Risen’s New York Times expose the Bush Administration domestic surveillance program.

Marcy pointed out yesterday, the FBI/Justice Department has now been upending Mr. Tamm’s life for years now and, it appears, has been stringing out the matter seeking to get past Vaughn Walker’s consideration of the Constitutionality of the retroactive Congressional immunity grant in the consolidated cases in the Northern District of California (and, presumably, get past the five year statute of limitations on many of the Administration’s actions):

Delaying the decision until the Obama administration takes office would do more than dump the problem into Obama’s lap (just like the Gitmo detainees, of course). It would also delay the time when Tamm testified publicly about what he knows of the domestic surveillance program until after Vaughn Walker issues a ruling on immunity for the telecoms.

By coming forward now, Tamm has told Walker something–in no uncertain terms–that the government won’t tell him.

DOJ recognized that this program was illegal.

The bottom line is that Tom Tamm blowing the whistle is probably the linchpin behind us knowing what we do about the egregious unconstitutional and illegal actions of the Bushies. Tamm coming forward at this time may also prove to be critical in forming Judge Walker’s mind on his review of the immunity assertion.

A lot of readers have asked about how to donate to Tamm’s legal defense fund. In that regard, I contacted Mr. Tamm’s attorney, Paul Kemp and obtained the information; here is the response:

Hi [bmaz]. Thanks for your inquiry. The address of the defense fund
is:

Thomas Tamm Legal Defense Fund
Bank of Georgetown
5236 44th Street
Washington, DC 20015.

Tom appreciates your support and that of your readers. [Some
unrelated chit chat on another matter redacted]

Paul F. Kemp

Irrespective of his precise personal motivations, Tom Tamm has done the Constitution, the Fourth Amendment, the rule of law and all of us a favor by exposing the rank lawlessness of the elected leaders of this country. If you see fit, send him a few bucks to lighten the load he has taken on.

I don’t know about you, but if the wingnuts can pony up hundreds of thousands for the traitor Scooter Libby, I am sure as heck going to ante up a little to thank Tom Read more →

Thomas Tamm to Vaughn Walker: They Knew It Was Illegal

/121 Comments/in , /by

I’ll have a lot more to say about Isikoff’s excellent story on Thomas Tamm, the guy who tipped Eric Lichtblau off to the domestic surveillance program.

But for the moment, I’d like to elaborate on yesterday’s comments about timing. Tamm’s lawyer reveals that DOJ just recently told him that they were delaying a decision on whether or not to charge Tamm.

Paul Kemp, one of Tamm’s lawyers, says he was recently told by the Justice Department prosecutor in charge of Tamm’s case that there will be no decision about whether to prosecute until next year—after the Obama administration takes office.

Delaying the decision until the Obama administration takes office would do more than dump the problem into Obama’s lap (just like the Gitmo detainees, of course). It would also delay the time when Tamm testified publicly about what he knows of the domestic surveillance program until after Vaughn Walker issues a ruling on immunity for the telecoms.

By coming forward now, Tamm has told Walker something–in no uncertain terms–that the government won’t tell him. 

DOJ recognized that this program was illegal. 

Tamm provides the names of several people whom Walker might want to consult before he rules on the immunity law. There’s Lisa Farabee, who told Tamm that,

"Don’t even go there," and then added, "I assume what they are doing is illegal."

And there’s Mark Bradley, who told Tamm,

"This may be [a time] the attorney general gets indicted,"

If these two lawyers in the Office of Intelligence Policy and Review–the office that provides legal review of wiretaps on a logistical level–believed that this program was illegal, then how can Michael Mukasey now represent to Walker that it wasn’t?

And just for good measure, Tamm also reveals the code name for the program–Stellar Wind–which will help the Electronic Frontier Foundation and others argue that the existence of this program is publicly known.

I’m guessing that Vaughn Walker is reading this article very closely this morning.

One more point about timing: I don’t think Tamm coming forward now is due exclusively to noble motives. Consider how it might affect any potential trial. If Tamm can force two lawyers (plus the FISA judges who balked at the program) to go on the record that they, too, believed this was an illegal program, then it’s going to make it easier for him to argue that he came forward solely to expose illegal activities. Read more →

Speaking of that Man-Sized Safe…

/21 Comments/in , /by

JimWhite noted that Senators Leahy, Jello Jay, DiFi, and Whitehouse have written the White House to warn Cheney to stop shredding. The letter seems to be a response–at least in part–to this passage from Barton Gellman’s Angler.

The command center of "the president’s program," as Addington usually called it, was not in the White House. Its controlling documents, which gave strategic direction to the nation’s largest spy agency, lived in a vault across an alley from the West Wing [7] — in the Eisenhower Executive Office Building, on the east side of the second floor, where the vice president headquartered his staff.

The vault was in EEOB 268, Addington’s office. Cheney’s lawyer held the documents, physical and electronic, because he was the one who wrote them. New forms of domestic espionage were created and developed over time in presidential authorizations that Addington typed on a Tempest-shielded computer across from his desk [8].

It is unlikely that the history of U.S. intelligence includes another operation conceived and supervised by the office of the vice president. White House Chief of Staff Andrew H. Card Jr. had "no idea," he said, that the presidential orders were held in a vice presidential safe. An authoritative source said the staff secretariat, which kept a comprehensive inventory of presidential papers, classified and unclassified, possessed no record of these.

In an interview, Card said the Executive Office of the President, a formal term that encompassed Bush’s staff but not Cheney’s, followed strict procedures for handling and securing presidential papers.

"If there were exceptions to that, I’m not aware of them," he said. "If these documents weren’t stored the right way or put in the right places or maintained by the right people, I’m not aware of it."

The Senators ask, 

Have you investigated allegations reported in the Washington Post on September 14, 2008, that the "staff secretariat, which kept a comprehensive inventory of presidential papers, classified and unclassified, possessed no record of" presidential orders in the safe of the Counsel to the Vice President? If so, what were the results of your investigation.

In addition, they also ask specifically about Dick’s own notes (and those of Addington and Libby and Bush, if he actually ever kept notes)a.

Does the White House believe that any notes or documents created by the President, the Vice President or their respective staffs may be destroyed without consultation with the Archivist? If so, which notes or documents, and why?

Read more →

Another 16 Words: Boumediene Bites Bush Again

/60 Comments/in , , , , , , /by

images3.thumbnail.jpegLaura Rozen rocks, and today she rolls up more jaw dropping malevolence and fraud on the part of the Bush/Cheney Administration.

A potentially explosive new court filing by the lawyers for Lakhdar Boumediene and five other Guantanamo detainees suggests that the Bush administration ordered the Bosnian government to arrest and hold the men after an exhaustive Bosnian investigation had found them innocent of any terrorism related activity and had ordered their release, in order to use them as props in Bush’s January 2002 State of the Union speech.

The filing–"Lakhdar Boumediene, et al., Petitioners, v. George W. Bush, President of the United States, et al., Respondents, Petitioners’ Public Traverse to the Government’s Return to the Petition for Habeas Corpus"–lays out the case that the Bush administration threatened at the highest levels to withdraw diplomatic and military aid to the Balkan nation if Bosnia released the men, which its own three-month investigation had found innocent of any terrorism charges in the days leading up to Bush’s January 2002 State of the Union.

Faced with the threats of the withdrawal of aid and that if it released the men, the White House would order NATO troops to detain them, Bosnia transferred the men under duress to the custody of the US government in January 2002. Ten days later, Bush used sixteen words to warn Americans that, in "cooperation" with the Bosnian government, it had captured terrorists who had planned to bomb the US embassy in Sarajevo: "Our soldiers, working with the Bosnian government, seized terrorists who were plotting to bomb our embassy," Bush told the nation.

But, six years later, the detainees’ petition says, after the US Supreme Court has sided with the detainees and ordered the US to give the detainees habeas corpus rights, the Bush administration has failed to repeat the embassy plot charges that Bush used in his State of the Union address, or to produce credible evidence of why the men should be held as enemy combatants.

It is hard to be shocked by these kind of revelations anymore, there has been so much criminal depravity on the part of the Bush/Cheney crew in relation to their torture and sadistic gulag detention programs that it just dulls the senses after a while. And it is not like we didn’t know that the case against Lakhdar Boumediene was bogus; that was evident from the prior litigation that led to the original Supreme Court Boumediene decision. The pleading containing the new allegations is here (pdf). For those of you perplexed by the title of the pleading, a "traverse" pleading is nothing more than a somewhat archaic term for a reply pleading.

The revelation that Boumediene has been, from the outset, about yet another 16 word intentional lie to the American public, and indeed the world, in the hallowed State of the Union Speech, in order to fraudulently gin up the basis for an illegal and immoral war of aggression, is heart stopping and hard to stomach. Read more →