« previous | MUCK HOME | next »
Pols Vow to Continue Tape Probes
Congress and the Justice Department didn't play together very nice last year. And there may be more of that to come.
For the record, just because Michael Mukasey has ordered a criminal investigation into the CIA's torture tapes, lawmakers want everyone to know that Congress isn't backing down.
That's the word from Senate Intelligence Committee Chairman Jay Rockefeller (D-WV), who says in a statement:
"We... have an obligation to continue our own congressional investigation and that is exactly what we will do.“Our negotiations with the CIA and DOJ over the scope of our investigation are ongoing. I fully expect their continued cooperation, including relevant testimony and documents, so that the Committee can thoroughly review and publicly report on all actions related to the destruction of the tapes.”
And House intel chairman Silvestre Reyes (D-TX), whose probe has been much more aggressive, says the same:
"I am pleased to see that the Attorney General is taking this issue seriously. At the same time, I also believe that there must be an independent congressional review of this matter. For that reason, the House Intelligence Committee launched an official committee investigation on December 10, 2007, and our plan is to move forward with that investigation."
And Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Patrick Leahy says that he's going to grill Mukasey the next time he gets a chance:
"I remain concerned that the constitutional oversight role of Congress has been ignored in the discovery and destruction of these tapes. I look forward to hearing further from Attorney General Mukasey when he comes before the Judiciary Committee this year. I hope the Justice Department will cooperate with Congress as it investigates this serious matter."
Mind you, when we hear from Rockefeller, he's the same man who privately had concerns, but didn't disclose them.
- What other private "reservations" does he have, but isn't disclosing?
- Has he, in secret, agreed to accept some evidence; and not openly discuss his concerns with that evidence?
I don't trust either the WH or Congress to be independent. Best if they both attempted to do their job, and let the voters decide if they did a credible job.
Not looking good for the Senate Intelligence Committee, or Rockefeller. It took this long -- after they were told about waterboarding, and said nothing -- to raise the issue of "the tape destruction".
Shocked! [/sarcasm]
Public needs an independent method -- outside Congress, outside the courts, outside the Executive branch -- to independently review the US government. This three-branch "system" isn't working; but giving us whitewash investigations, delays, and war crimes.
We need an independent branch of government [a fourth branch] that independently gathers facts. One that will force the auditors and legal fiduciaries to clash as factions; and not quietly agree to be complicit with alleged war crimes.
January 2, 2008 6:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
Leahy's "concern" and "threat" to get "more information" from the AG is a joke. What's Leahy going to do if the AG, as already happened, refuses to provide the information?
"Oh, I'll write another letter."
This is stupid. Let's mobilize the public to openly discuss -- and ask the 2008 Presidential candidates -- what reforms they are willing nto support to ensure this incompetent US "governance" is reformed.
US runs around the Middle East "lecturing" others how to govern. Time for the US "experts" to stay home, and focus on this cess pool in DC.
January 2, 2008 6:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
Call Scotland Yard!
January 2, 2008 6:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
So far, Rockerfeller has produced more smoke than fire. I'm not impressed.
Mukasey's reputation is on the line. I look for him to be doing something else before his investigations are complete.
Until he ends up investigating the Oval Office and prosecuting those who have obstructed investigations and justice, nothing will be accomplished.
You don't have to be a blind conservative not to see it, just an ignorant one to deny it.
January 2, 2008 6:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
Jay has lost a bit of credibility lately. Can't quite put my finger on why.
January 2, 2008 7:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
Kinda like the telecoms Jay? What was our esteemed vice presidents words? Oh yah, go fuck yourself.
January 2, 2008 7:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
My money says the 'tapes' were copied before they were 'destroyed' ...
Remember Rumsfeld's reaction to the photos from Abu Ghraib ? "It's these darn CAMERAS ... "
To answer for the 'destruction' of the 'tapes' is far easier than to have the torture viewed by the whole world, repeatedly, forever.
Senators : keep asking for copies of the tapes.
January 2, 2008 7:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
Jay will cave in - he's part of the DC establishment. He's the same man who voted against S-CHIP and replied with a lame excuse by snail mail that it didn't cover pregnant mothers. Great blonde joke!
January 2, 2008 7:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
The fact of the matter is that this country isn't going to get better til the leadership in Washington actually believes in the rule of law. The other day I was talking to someone who used to be "overseas" and she had her doubts about our legal system and Constitution. If she's indicative of the folks who "took the oath" to uphold [the Constitution] "against enemies, both foreign and domestic" then we are in big trouble, as a nation and as a world.
January 2, 2008 8:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
This government has the burden of proof. The public can lawfully make adverse inferences, and discuss new approaches to inspire in the Members of Congress a greater love of "the rule of law" than they have shown to date. A needed wakeup call may include a publicly organized effort -- outside Congress -- to forward evidence to the ICC. Rockefeller's statements may be introduced as alleged war crimes evidence in re alleged war crimes, malfeasance, and other issues the ICC may review. The Congress has the burden of showing it is doing what it should, as required by oath, 5 USC 3331 to enforce all treaty obligations. Without Senate-House cooperation with ICC and public oversight of Congress, adverse inferences are warranted.
Rockefeller's assertion is dubious and demands clarification: "Our negotiations with the CIA and DOJ over the scope of our investigation are ongoing." We need something that says the Senate really does take this seriously; as opposed to the non-sense drivel we've been given since 2001.
Let's consider the "other" Senate investigation: The WMD investigation. That took a while. In light of that disastrous investigation/stonewalling/cover-up: Congress needs to provide the public with a summary of the discussions with the CIA to include the specific points of disagreement.
- Which evidence does the CIA not adequately justify shielding;
- What is the plan of the Congress/Seante Intelligence Committee to provide a summary list of the types of documents the CIA and Senate have jointly agreed to not disclosure, but keep confidential;
- What are the reasons the Congress is not being specific with the CIA -- which is an agency in another branch of government -- as to the reasons why specific documents are or are not being withheld;
- Is there an effort -- above and beyond the CIA tapes which were supposedly destroyed -- to continue providing a list of all e-mails sent between OVP-DoJ-WH-CIA-DoD on the subject? [The tape may not be available; but the email evidence/discussion sent after the tape wa disclosed to have been "destroyed" is something the public would benefit in seeing];
- What steps is the Senate taking to glean the lessons of the "botched WMD Senate investigation" [Oh, where is that phase II report?], and ensure the public is provided information which will give a better sense that the voters do not still have a group of incompetent legal counsel making excuses to do nothing about alleged war crimes;
- Is there a credible case the Senate is making -- above and beyond the issue of the CIA tape destruction -- that it is part of an "independent" branch of government; or is the Senate merely confirming the suspicion: The Senate even under DNC "control" is merely a lapdog of the White House;
- Has the Senate adequately addressed the issue of "DNC members of Congress being informed of waterboarding, but doing nothing to investigate that alleged war crime in 2001-2";
- Is the Senate fully asserting its 5 USC 3331 oath of office obligations;
- Can the Senate -- and it's individual Members -- show it has a story for "what happened" and why there were no apparent DNC minority reports sent to the CIA-DoD IGs;
- Does the Congress have a means -- above and beyond the CIA-DoD IGs, that are supposedly lap dogs of the President -- to independently get information;
- Given Congress reluctance to enforce contempt proceedings for not getting fully cooperation on the US Atty firings -- what does the Senate plan to do differently to signal it really is doing something to get information, enforce subpoenas, and enforce Geneva;
- Have the Senators really shown they understand prisoner abuse -- as an allege d Geneva violation -- is something that is under the US Constitution; and as a treaty obligation, is something the Members of Congress agreed to fully enforce through their 5 USC 3331 oath of office;
- Is the Congress demonstrating its legal counsel is fully able and willing to challenge the legal non-sense/drivel/frivolous arguments of the Wh-DoJ-OVP; or is the legal counsel acting like a lap dog to OVP in not fully asserting its oath to enforce Geneva as required through 5 USC 3331;
- Is the Congress leading efforts to undersand what happened within the DC Atty Disciplinary Board to understatnd why the likes of Addington-Yoo-Gonzalez have apparently infected this legal community to assent to alleged war crimes; or is there no plan by anyone in the Saenate to ensure the legal community and DC bar does not get a needed wakup call to ensure Nuremberg precedents are fully asserted/enforced against US legal counsel;
- Why should we believe -- based on the apparent contrast between the Senators' actions and words in re Geneva -- that the Congress is serious about acting like a separate branch of government; and really interested in defending the Constitution against alleged domestic enemies within the ranks of the American legal community;
- What case -- by their actions and results -- are the Members of Congress making that the public should not discuss new systems of governance that would strip the US government of power; and redelegate those powers to entities marginally more interested in defending rights and constraining power;
- What case are the Members of Congress making that they should be taken seriously, trusted, not prosecuted, and believed on issues of oath of office, Geneva, war crimes, fiduciary duties, malfeasance, and competence expected of public officials; and
- What defenses do the Members of Congress have in re ICC jurisdiction on alleged Member of Congress complicity with war crimes, prisoner abuse, and violations of US Treaty obligations, 5 USC 3331?
January 2, 2008 8:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
Translation for the apparent idiots in the US Congress: Either do your jobs and prosecute these alleged war crimes; or this needs to go to the ICC. You're quickly moving from being "marginally relevant to governance" to becoming a defendant before the ICC.
The world continues to watch your non-sense. You get paid. Start doing your jobs. Or the ICC will remind you what "doing your job" means; and the consequences for not fully asserting your oath.
This US government was well warned in 2001 by the JAGs of possible ICC prosecution. The memoranda from the JAGs in re the POW working groups can be entered into evidence: When did Members of Congress well understand; and how long did they know about the alleged illgeal activity, but did nothing.
It appears this Congress would prefer ICC action than to self-govern. Keep it up: The public will then have the needed excuse to transform the US government, not just the Congress into something more responsive to the rule of law. It can be done. You don't have a choice. You work for us. We don't work for you. Time to wake up. We the People are the source of all power. We can use it, redelegate, and assert power. Any. Time. We. Choose.
January 2, 2008 8:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
WHY are the Democrats focusing on the issue of the tapes and their destruction?
The issue is much simpler.
Did this President authorize the use of torture, specifically waterboarding. He has NO authority to do so.
If he did authorize its use, not only should he be facing impeachment, he should be facing JAIL time.
What is wrong with this picture?
January 2, 2008 9:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
Does anyone suppose Alberto Gonzales would have launched one? I doubt it!
http://osi-speaks.blogspot.com/2008/01/and-speaking-of-justice-u-s-attorney.html#links
January 2, 2008 9:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
...ICC action...
??
Come on. Impeachment is more likely than anyone from the administration landing in an ICC courtroom. Sure, they deserve it but I can't see it happening.
January 2, 2008 9:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
War grimes? We washed our hands. We are the overlords of the world, please don't f*ck with us or we will have the NSA, CIA and boys from Brooklyn tak'n care of you.
January 2, 2008 10:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
Fuck Senator Rockefeller.
January 2, 2008 10:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
Criminal investigation into tape destruction? Why?? Who's demanding this? CAIR??? I want a criminal investigation of why the tape disappearance is being investigated. I also want to know which US government employee(s) leaked the international banking story to the NY Times, and which bureaucratic traitor leaked the E. Europe prison story to the Wash. Post, and who in gov't. leaked the Bin Laden cell phone story to the media. The unelected bureaucrats at State and CIA have been using these leaks to undermine and thwart our elected President's foreign policy since 911. These POS dregs must not be allowed to defy our elected leaders.
January 2, 2008 10:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
The only one who can bring us transparency is Obama. Continuing the Bush/Clinton/Bush/Clinton saga will not allow us to pick up the rock.
I believe that Obama is the only one who can unite us to bring real change. Here are six reasons and your chance to vote your favorite among Clinton, Edwards or Obama. Please check it out. I would love to hear your comments!
http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/1/2/22840/86271/686/429523
CHANGE ’08. OBAMA ‘08
January 2, 2008 10:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
We don't need Obama to have us all join hands while he leads us in a chorus of Kumbaya. We don't need to be united with the criminals, slugs, and assorted hangers-on who currently run Washington. We need some serious ass whupping. Any other Dem candidate come to mind here?
January 2, 2008 10:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jay_Rockefeller
What's in a name? What, indeed...
"As a great-grandson of oil tycoon John D. Rockefeller, he is the only current politician...."
It's all about the oilbuxxx...everything
else is just a sad, tired sideshow...
that's my view, anyway. Of course, once
we've got the electric cars, and the
solar panels to support em, then no one
really needs the oil garbage anymore,
and the Big Game is over...
January 2, 2008 10:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
The first anonymously posted comment presents an idea that has been on my mind for a long time: the need for a fourth branch of government devoted to monitoring the other three [actually, the number of branches would still be 3 under my proposal, but differently configured]. Here, in bullet-point format, are the main features of my reconfigured US Government:
- The Chairmanship of the USA would subsume the Justice Department, the Audit Department, and the Elections Department.
- The Chairman of the USA would be elected for single 6- or 8-year term in a nonpartisan, publicly funded election. Anybody who had served in a position in the federal government to which he or she had been nominated by the President, approved by Congress, and served honorably (e.g., federal judges) would be eligible to run for election to the Chairmanship.
- The Chairman's departments would be authorized to audit and investigate any and all functions, actions, and expenditures of the government; to report their findings and recommendations to the government and the people; and to prosecute any criminal activities uncovered. There would be no national security or executive privilege umbrella of secrecy or obstruction preventing the Chairman's departments from doing their job, although reporting might be restricted in some extreme cases.
- The Chairman would deliver publicly a twice-yearly summary report on his departments' activities and findings.
- The need for the Chairmanship of the USA results from the overwhelming of the 'checks and balances' vision of the US Constitution by party politics. Americans would be better off letting their elected legislative and executive officials do what they were elected to do, as happens under a parliamentary system, but checked by the independent Chairman's departments and Judiciary. Therefore, I would consolidate legislative and executive power in the House of Representatives, who would nominate the President and his Cabinet. The Senate would be part of this branch but would become an advisory body with respect to legislation. The Senate would retain the very important functions of confirming high-level nominees, ratifying treaties, judging impeachments, approving proposed constitutional amendments, and conducting hearings and investigations (in connection with this latter function, the Senate would liaise with the Chairman). Elections to the Senate should be publicly funded.
So, there's my multi-volume proposal in a blog nutshell. Your reaction?
January 2, 2008 11:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
Write them a letter dammit! That will teach those treasonous bastards! Remember the 5th of November. The date of the NEW REVOLUTION. Thank God it's about time!
Peace!
January 2, 2008 11:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
Jay Rockefeller...isn't he the fellow who's owned lock, stock, and barrel by the telecomm lobby and hasn't he been bribed to extend them immunity for illegally turning over phone & e-mail records to the bush admin? Sorry, but clearly the security of this nation is the last thing he has at heart.
If you look up the word "corruption" in the dictionary, you'll find his picture there.
January 3, 2008 4:28 AM | Reply | Permalink
If you don't mind, I'll wait to see what these Dem committee chairs DO before I put any confidence in what they SAY.
January 3, 2008 7:40 AM | Reply | Permalink
mike k. - "thwart our elected President's..."
I actually read your post up until this point. Way to string me along and waste 6 seconds of my reading cognition.
January 3, 2008 9:22 AM | Reply | Permalink
If you could believe him can you trust him?
January 3, 2008 11:54 AM | Reply | Permalink