Tag: State Secrets

Delusional Decider.

“‘I believe we will keep the White House,’ he said twice at a pre-holiday news conference in the White House briefing room. ‘I believe ours is the party that understands the nature of the world in which we live and that the government’s primary responsibility is to protect the American citizens from harm…I’m confident we can pick up seats in both the Senate and the Congress.'”

Hey, Mr. President, how is the weather on Mars? At a news conference today, Dubya predicted a GOP presidential victory and GOP congressional gains come next November. (He also refused to comment on the CIA tapes debacle.) The good news here for the rest of us is that this man has been wrong about pretty much everything for the past seven years. Why stop now?

Congress/Judge to WH: Tear down the Wall!

So much for those early, hopeful signs of independence…Attorney General Michael Mukasey tries to stonewall both a Congressional investigation and a Judicial investigation into the destroyed CIA tapes, arguing it would impede the Justice Department’s own inquiry into the matter. “‘We are stunned that the Justice Department would move to block our investigation,’ Reps. Silvestre Reyes (D-Tex.) and Peter Hoekstra (R-Mich.) said in the [responding] statement. ‘Parallel investigations occur all of the time, and there is no basis upon which the Attorney General can stand in the way of our work.’“

And, in somewhat related news, conservative judge Royce Lamberth, who earlier butted heads with the administration over FISA, rules that — despite what Dick Cheney thinks on the matter — White House visitor logs are public records, meaning visits from “Casino Jack” Abramoff and/or religious conservatives can no longer be kept secret on account of (dubious appeals to) “national security.” Looks like it’s win-some, lose-some for Dubya’s imperial pretensions this week.

The Lost Langley Terror Tapes.

“[H]ere’s a different thought experiment: How would the national debate over torture have changed if we’d known about the CIA tapes all along? How would our big terror trials and Supreme Court cases have played out? Yes, this is also a speculative enterprise, but it’s critical to understanding the extent of the CIA’s wrongdoing here.” In light of the recent revelation that the CIA destroyed video evidence of their abusive interogation procedures in 2005, well after they’d become relevant both in many different legal cases and in the national discussion about torture, Slate‘s Emily Bazelon and Dahlia Lithwick survey the wreckage the CIA has made of our legal process. “Video of hours of repetitive torture could have had a similarly significant impact — the truism about the power of images holds. If we are right about that — and we think we are — this evidence that has been destroyed would have fundamentally changed the legal and policy backdrop for the war on terror in ways we’ve only begun to figure out.” If nothing else, an independent counsel should be named immediately. Even given the criminality and contempt for the rule of law we’ve come to expect from this administration, this sort of thuggish, gangland behavior is shocking news.

The Secret History of Torture.

“‘The administration can’t have it both ways,’ Rockefeller said in a statement. ‘I’m tired of these games. They can’t say that Congress has been fully briefed while refusing to turn over key documents used to justify the legality of the program.” Claiming only that the US “does not torture people,” the White House refuses to turn over Justice Department documents on torture policy, “contending that their disclosure would give terrorist groups too much information about U.S. interrogation tactics.” Those documents, announced by the NYT on Thursday, “provided explicit authorization to barrage terror suspects with a combination of painful physical and psychological tactics, including head-slapping, simulated drowning and frigid temperatures, and “show how the White House has succeeded in preserving the broadest possible legal latitude for harsh tactics.“

Act like a pup…

…and this is the treatment you should expect: Despite rolling over for Dubya on his formerly-illegal wiretaps, the Senate still put up a show of outrage after Karl Rove simply skips a Senate hearing on the persecuted prosecutors scandal. (Citing executive privilege once again, Dubya instead dispatched a lower-level flunkie, Scott Jennings, to the meet.) “The privilege claim can be challenged in court. But Specter has said the courts would be unlikely to resolve any challenge before Bush leaves office.“

Congress Pushes Back.

“‘Congress will act to preserve and protect our criminal justice system and to ensure appropriate Congressional oversight in all areas essential to the well-being of the American people,’ House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) said in a statement.” Faced with continued White House stonewalling and armed with a new report that underscores the adminstration’s malfeasance, the House Judiciary Committee issued contempt citations to former White House Counsel Harriet Miers and Chief of Staff Josh Bolten for their failure to honor House subpoenas on the persecuted prosecutors matter earlier this month. And, on the Senate side, Dems — with a document trail on their side — call for a perjury investigation into Attorney General Alberto Gonzales on the same day a subpoena is issued for consigliere Karl Rove. Dubya flunkies, meet the rule of law. Update: More grist for the perjury mill: FBI Director Robert Mueller contradicts Gonzales’ prior testimony.

Scorpio Sphinx in a Power-Suit.

“‘I think sometimes you’ve stepped on one side of the line and then not wanted to step on the other,’ said Sen. Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y. ‘This broad claim of privilege doesn’t stand up.‘” A belated persecuted prosecutor update: After Dubya apparatchik Sara Taylor’s tortured performance before the Senate Judiciary Committee (which included lots of shaky claims of executive privilege, stories that don’t hold up, and some rather depressing confusion over oath-taking), Dubya orders Harriet Miers not to testify, thus prompting the House to move forward on a contempt citation for Miers (and thus increasing the likelihood of a legal foray into the still-murky waters of executive privilege.) [Oath link via Medley.]

No, you back down.

“As the letter from the Acting Attorney General explained in considerable detail, the assertion of Executive Privilege here is intended to protect a fundamental interest of the Presidency: the necessity that a President receive candid advice from his advisors and that those advisors be able to communicate freely and openly with the President, with each other, and with others inside and outside the Executive Branch.” Dubya invokes executive privilege again in response to the Leahy/Conyers letter of a week ago, prompting further outrage among congressional Dems and increasing the likelihood of a protracted legal standoff. “Speaking on the floor of the Senate Monday afternoon, Leahy blasted what he called ‘the White House disdain for our system of checks and balances.’ ‘What is the White House trying to hide by refusing to hand over this evidence?’ he said.”

Leahy/Conyers: Not so Fast.

“We had hoped our Committees’ subpoenas would be met with compliance and not a Nixonian stonewalling that reveals the White House’s disdain for our system of checks and balances…The veil of secrecy you have attempted to pull over the White House by withholding documents and witnesses is unprecedented and damaging to the tradition of open government by and for the people that has been a hallmark of the Republic.” In a “barbed” letter to the administration, Judiciary Committee Chairmen Conyers and Leahy demand that Dubya explain his rationale for executive privilege (which he invoked earlier in the week to thwart subpoenas concerning the persecuted prosecutors case.) Thus far, the White House has described the letter as “another overreach.“