Comments (26)

bwindrip wrote on November 8, 2007 11:30 AM:

Land of the free.

Home of the brave.

Censor of people of conscience.

Rooktoven wrote on November 8, 2007 11:33 AM:

Ditto.

Boy does my country suck.

dm wrote on November 8, 2007 11:36 AM:

10 USC S 1034(a)(1):
No person may restrict a member of the armed forces in communicating with a Member of Congress or an Inspector General.

Explain to me how this has not been violated. Impeach Haynes.

Powkat wrote on November 8, 2007 11:48 AM:

Rooktoven - our country doesn't suck. "The Homeland" that BushCo has substituted for our country sucks. We need to take our country back from these criminals. God bless Dennis Kucinich saying 'impeach' on the house floor.

anonymouse wrote on November 8, 2007 11:51 AM:

It's nice to see that a military general is more powerful than our elected congress... that he can stop congress in its tracks and prevent testimony. Apparently, Congress has NO authority any longer.

Bye Bye democracy...

JMOHR wrote on November 8, 2007 12:01 PM:

See, the DEMOCRAT party contains nothing but cowardly wussies. The whine, they cry and they shit their pants when President Bush or his minions look cross-eyed at them. The DEMOCRAT party is the party of girlie men. No wonder why people will vote for an authoritarian, idealogue that brought us into Iraq on such an incompetent basis.

Has the DEMOCRAT party stood up to Bush on even one issue? I have changed to the Republican party. I may hate 90% of what they stand for, but the DEMOCRAT party stands for nothing but a pathetic bend over and take it up the ___ attitude. Their lack of guts makes them even worse than the Republicans.

jolly ranchero wrote on November 8, 2007 12:17 PM:

I'm baffled, myself. How does some two-bit General have jurisdiction over testimony in front of Congress?

Can he bar anyone in the military from testifying? What's the limit on this guy's authority?

anon wrote on November 8, 2007 12:35 PM:

Pentagon general counsel, William J. Haynes II, is not a General but the general counsel, i.e. the head lawyer at the Pentagon.

true patriot wrote on November 8, 2007 12:50 PM:

This should make Haynes guilty of contempt of Congress, whether merely in truth or in law. If the Democowards can't muster up enough courage to get the answers not just they, but the country needs, then they should resign and let someone who is qualified to the job. They are not serving the country. They are destroying it.

parrot wrote on November 8, 2007 1:21 PM:

Basically, inherent contempt needs to be exercised and the crisis needs to be brought to a head: Do we still have an operating democracy or not? The military have no constitutional or legal justification for preventing testimony before Congress. None. The only conclusion that can be reached from what occurred here is that there are people in the Pentagon in violation of their loyalty oath to the Constitution.

anonymouse wrote on November 8, 2007 1:36 PM:

"Pentagon general counsel, William J. Haynes II, is not a General but the general counsel, i.e. the head lawyer at the Pentagon."

Military folks are "advised" by attorneys. Their advice is not mandated. Lt. Colonel Couch, however, is most likely obeying those who would not permit him to talk, which would have been a military person, not an attorney.

Mary wrote on November 8, 2007 2:20 PM:

How is it that Haynes, who has been specifically, personally, named and implicated in allegations and complaints of authorizing torture - - - doesn't have a completely insurmountable conflict of interest with respect to determining who does and does not testify on that issue?

There should be a demand that he recuse himself on all decisions relating to torture information provided in IG or Congressional investigations.

Just remember then next time a new PR story comes out where there is an attempt to annoint people like Comey and Goldsmith, they were pushing for Hayne's appointment to the Fourth Circuit even after he "fibified" to the SJC in connection with interrogation memos and JAG review.

And yet, the Dems have never taken any action.

Someone like Haynes should lose his license and be prosecuted. All the innocent people he's been willing to abuse; all the military he has been willing to defile; all the misinformation he has been willing to circulate and inculcate; all the retribution and revenge he's been willing to foment among the populations he has authorized to receive abuse; and on and on.

dm wrote on November 8, 2007 3:52 PM:

to anonymouse at 1:36 -

According to 10 USC S140, the General Counsel "shall perform such functions as the Secretary of Defense may prescribe."

Presumably, under this statute, SECDEF could have delegated the authority to direct military personnel with respect to participation in congressional investigations, and therefore such direction would carry the force of law. This seems likely, given the fact that Haynes runs the Defense Legal Services Agency, which in turn runs the Office of Legislative Counsel. In fact, check out DoD Directive 5500.01 (June 15, 2007), in which Deputy SECDEF England explicitly delegate to the General Counsel (Haynes) a great deal of authority over congressional testimony supplied by DoD.

It certainly seems like Haynes believes this to be the case, since he clearly used language ("you are not to appear") which commands rather than advises.

Jack L. Rivers Memo wrote on November 8, 2007 5:16 PM:

Time for Congress to confront DoD. For background on DoD "motivation" to suppress the witness, consider the following:

"Should any information concerning the exceptional techniques become public, it is likely to be exaggerated/distorted in both the US and international media. This could have a negative impact on the international, and even domestic support for the war on terrorism. It could likewise have a negative impact on public perception of the US military in general."

-- Jack L. Rivers, Major General, USAF; Deputy Judge Advocate General

However, even with a "loss of support" -- as measured by a 2006 voter backlash -- the US Congress still rubber stamps funding for illegal warfare.

Why is DoD -- in effect -- entering the political arena: Withholding needed information to oversee the JAGs, President, Congress, Judiciary, and legal community? DoD's actions today appears to have precipitated the very backlash they were hoping to avoid. Time for the DoD officials to explain "other views" they have on political matters: What steps do they believe are "permissible" to "maintain confidence" in DoD: Does the DoD believe an overt attack on Congress or the White House is "prudent" for the sake up "upholding confidence"? Pakistan's President is learning this will backfire.

Jack L. Rives Memo wrote on November 8, 2007 5:28 PM:

Rives' 6 Feb 2003 memo [at link above] to SAP/GC [in re DoJ/OLC "contentious" comments, see para 1.] has some other key phrases which bear repeating:

1. Adverse Judicial Review Contemplated, Discussed; Should have been Considered by JAG/OLC

"Although one or more of the aforementioned defenses to these accusations may apply, it is impossible to be certain that any of these defenses will be successful as the judiciary may interpret the applicable law differently from the interpretation provided herein."

2. ICC Judicial Review of Alleged War Crimes Discussed

Other nations may disagree with US "interpretations": "This places interrogators AND THE CHAIN OF COMMAND [emphasis added] at risk of criminal accusations abroad, either in foreign domestic courts or in international fora, to include the ICC."

Anonymous wrote on November 8, 2007 5:32 PM:

Correction to [ Jack L. Rivers Memo wrote on November 8, 2007 5:16 PM ]

Rivers should read "RIVES", remove the R.

Jack L. Rives' Memo wrote on November 8, 2007 5:37 PM:

Correction to [ Jack L. Rives Memo wrote on November 8, 2007 5:28 PM ]

Change: "Rives' 6 Feb 2003 memo" to read, "Rives' 5 Feb 2003 memo".

Correct memo date, 5th of Feb, not the 6th.

See link for copy of memo.

Sully18 wrote on November 8, 2007 6:01 PM:

JMOHR
Using the BS Bush slur,"DEMOCRAT", to try to insult the Democratic party is a slimeball,copycat tactic which shows what a dolt you really are.I am not pleased with the Democratic party because of the way they sold out Kucinich in 2004 after I had worked my ass off for his campaign.I became an Independent.
The fact that you changed to the Republican party even though you think that 90% of what they stand for is shit, leads me to believe that you are not very smart and will fit well with the Republicans.No girlie men in that camp.Just pathetic,greedy,disingenuous,sociopaths that are true hetrosexuals.How quaint.

Taft Memo To Haynes wrote on November 8, 2007 6:26 PM:

State Dept General Counsel William H. Taft, IV on 22 March 2002 wrote a memo to Jim Haynes. [ We're assuming for TPMM readers, "Jim Haynes" listed on the State Dept Memo is "William J. Haynes" DoD General Counsel. ] Hit the Link for confirmation this memo is real.

This memo may shed some light on the types of things Haynes was reviewing in re prisoner treatment; legal views he was getting from State (outside the JAGs); other information he and DoJ OLC were discussing in re prisoner treatment; and other things related to Haynes decision to prevent the witness from appearing today.

The memo from State essentially argues: Regardless what the views are on Prisoner STATUS relative to Geneva, the President concludes they shall be treated in accordance with Geneva.

- What happened to the State Department Memo: Did Haynes never read it, despite Taft drafting the memo?

- Does Haynes have an explanation why, despite this memo, GTMO/Abu Ghraib prisoners were not treated according to Geneva and abused?

- What is DoD's Haynes position on the US of US DoD aircraft and personnel to transport detainees-prisoners-POWs to Eastern Europe?

- After the Supreme Court ruled that GTMO prisoners were entitled to Geneva protections and the US President ordered prisoners to be moved from Eastern European detention centers. What role did DoD play in transporting prisoners from Eastern Europe to other detention centers; when did Haynes review these instructions related to DoD transport of prisoners of war; and what DoD medical review was done on these prisoners; when did Haynes review these DoD medical evaluations?

- Why, despite the Taft 2002 memo concluding the President would enforce Geneva, did Haynes allegedly not ensure that all DoD treatment was consistent with Geneva?

- How does Haynes, despite this 2002 Taft Memo, allegedly justify not acting in a timely manner in re: Ensuring all prisoner treatment was human; conversely, is it Haynes' view that waterboarding is humane?

- Can Haynes explain the alleged frivolous reason he's given to prevent the witness from appearing today?

- How does Haynes reconcile his position in the memo today with the prohibition against legal counsel asserting frivolous legal arguments?

- What review has Haynes made with private legal counsel on issues of a war crimes defense for allegedly making frivolous legal arguments to dissuade a witnesses from providing information to Congress in re alleged war crimes?

- How do we reconsider the information in the Taft Memo in light of the refusal to permit the witness to appear: Did the Witness have information that would suggest Haynes had not been truthful about when he was notified of particular legal issues he, as counsel, had a duty to stop, prevent, remove himself from?

- How does the Taft Memo -- and the assertion that prisoners 'were" being treated in conformance with Geneva, despite findings of fact/evidence/law that they were being abused -- fit into the rendition issue: Here we have evidence of a Memo asserting something was fully meeting the law; yet prisoners are known to have been moved out of Eastern Europe after the Supreme Court ruled the GTMO POWs were protected by Geneva.

- How can Haynes argue or anyone argue before the Supreme Court that these legal issues/events/facts are "state secrets", when Haynes should know that it is illegal to classify evidence of treaty violations, illegal conduct, or other misconduct by DoJ-State-DoD-CIA personnel?

Martial Law? wrote on November 8, 2007 6:56 PM:

Is what happened today, with a military person not being obliged to testify to congress tantamount to the first step in martial law?

If so, my guess is they will want to do this slowly - like cooking a frog.

We can't let that happen!

Working Group Memo wrote on November 8, 2007 7:11 PM:

Hit "Working Group Memo" for a sample working group memo; More: [ http://snipurl.com/powworkinggroupmemos ] Put aside the memos linked above; we've merely established there were several "working groups" related to prisoner treatment: Someone was talking immediately after 9-11 on "what to do".

Where this is going: Establishing a link between [a] alleged DoD efforts to silence witnesses in re alleged war crimes; and [b] alleged telecom-connected-FISA violations to "justify" those Geneva violations, despite [c] Presidential findings that prisoners were to be treated humanely under Geneva, per Taft Memo above, despite [d] evidence the prisoners were being abused.

1. Evidence

- Where are the meeting minutes of these working groups?

- Where are the travel orders, funds reimbursements, and budgeting documents related to the funding of this activity?

- Where are the Congressional Correspond logs related to these memos: When did Congress first learn of these memos: What was the IG response/action/reply (in DoJ, DoD, CIA, NSA) to Member of Congress inquiries; how was the WH notified of these Congressional concerns?

2. Contractor Names, Boards of Directors

- Which contractors were paid to provide administrative support for these working groups on detainee treatment?

3. Oversight Plan, Legal Compliance

- What was done to ensure [a] asserted compliance was consistent with [b] legal requirements; and that [c] the advertised prisoner treatment program -- as discussed at these working groups -- was consistent with actual practices?

- What oversight, review, and monitoring plan did the working group establish to ensure the working group recommendations were used, followed?

- How was the working group on prisoner treatment defined as "having met its goals": What had to happen; and when was the working group no longer needed?

4. NSA Domestic Surveillance Violating FISA

- How was the working group organized to provide media messages to the civilian media; and what was done to ensure this was not done in violation of the Smith Act barring US government from disseminating propaganda domestically at civilians?

- Which discussion groups and planning groups within DoD were organized to facilitate [a] media messages from this working group on prisoner treatment with [b] the various telecoms who are alleged to have done media analysis on public discussions of various national security issues?

- What technical method, contracting vehicle, and other process [a] gathered information from US civilians related to their comments on national security issues and media messages; and [b] provided this summary level data in the form of talking points to the GOP-WH-OVP-DOJ for purposes of dissuading Congressional oversight of these alleged war crimes?

- When did DoD realize that the public knew [a] media messages related to national security issues were [b] related to illegally classified domestic monitoring programs connected with the NSA; and [c] these NSA monitoring systems were linked with civilian contractors linked with the telecoms currently seeking immunity?

5. Linking FISA and Geneva: Thwarting Judicial Oversight of War Crimes in re Illegal Immunity By Using Non-Delegated Judicial Power

- Will the planned "immunity for telecoms" include NSA-linked contractors who did this analysis on American civilian's domestic communications; and provided the US government with talking points to dissuade Congressional-public oversight of the alleged illegal activity in re laws of war [FISA, Geneva]?

- When did DoD first work with the NSA contractors/intermediaries to attempt to exercise non-delegated judicial power to interrupt ongoing litigation against the NSA and telecoms?

- How was unlawfully-captured information used to "justify" abuse of Prisoners of war?

- When did DoD, DoJ, OVP, or WH-GOP Counsel first learn FISA violations (data collection) were linked Geneva violations (efforts to illegally abuse prisoners of war): Using illegally captured information to impose unlawful abuse against civilians?

8. Alleged DoD GC Motivation to Dissuade Witness From Appearing: Allegedly Suppressing A Link Between [a] Geneva Violations and [b] FISA Violations

- When was DoD GC first concerned that a discussion about waterboarding might raise questions about 'where the information came from' used to "justify" that illegal prisoner abuse: (Without Judicial review, FISA violations "justified" Geneva violations)?

Anonymous wrote on November 8, 2007 8:16 PM:

Anon above, I am interested particularly in two issues:

A. "the Smith Act barring US government from disseminating propaganda domestically at civilians" - because infractions here are likely part of the cover-up.

B. "Will the planned "immunity for telecoms" include NSA-linked contractors who did this analysis on American civilian's domestic communications; and provided the US government with talking points to dissuade Congressional-public oversight of the alleged illegal activity in re laws of war [FISA, Geneva]" - because this is the "hidden immunity" - the contractors who sifted the info and maybe other contractors who analyzed it.

Obviously all these illegal activities (you've mentioned) are linked. But the initial links, the ones that may motivate the citizenry, involve being manipulated by propaganda AND being surveilled by their own government, to facilitate the propaganda etc. - together with the war crimes which were prepetrated in the names of We the People - and for the twisted purpose of "keeping us safe."

Your points are all important. But I'm trying to digest something for popular consumption.

global yokel wrote on November 8, 2007 8:39 PM:

I continue to believe that Haynes, and Rumsfeld, and Yoo and all of the rest are terrified about the possibility that they might end up in orange jumpsuits and handcuffs in front of a tribunal at The Hague someday. So they continue to try to legitimize torture, not because they believe it to be a effective intelligence-gathering tool, but rather as a pre-emptive strategy to forestall their day of reckoning for the war crimes they have committed.

psyopswatcher wrote on November 8, 2007 11:11 PM:

Congress just raked Yahoo over the coals on Tuesday for turning in a Chinese dissident journalist who is in a chinese jail now. Yet US telecoms get immunity for domestic spying here?

What's up with that?

Anonymous wrote on November 9, 2007 12:51 AM:

In re November 8, 2007 8:16 PM

The key to remember: The contractors involved with "data mining-analysis-transfer-subsequent use" are on CONTRACT -- paper evidence outlining what they've done, their objectives, and the secrecy requirements. The key is to compare the Verizon-like-contract terms/language in re data protection (which we learned about in the State level litigation involving Maine) with the other contractors involved with the data mining. The contracts are not totally secret. Some of the terms and specific conditions may be hidden; but the names of the contractors are not unknown. The key is to remember:

- Physical paper contracts have to be written, reviewed, examined;

- Those contracts involve transfer of funds;

- There are security provisions which legal counsel must review;

- The subject of the contract -- the data analysis, reports, and data transmission -- occupy two things [1] Physical space; and [2] time requiring payment. People are physically doing things on this, but not do things on other things. It's possible to do a person-by-person head count/audit/manning review on a specific contract to find out exactly what each person was doing; what they were doing on a particular day; where they were; and how much they were getting paid.

The contracts -- regardless the destruction of that evidence -- occupied physical space and time. That evidence cannot be changed. There is historical billing information which can be traced to something. There are also progress reports, summary tables, and contract summary reports/samples outlining [a] information obtained; [b] briefings provided; and [c] subsequent use of the analyzed information.

Contractors who analyzed information may or may not be "in the loop" on the source of the information. Some information can be presented as if it were translated from another country. The key will be to look at which media messages were generated; the timing of the known information sent; and how key media messages issued were or were not linked with information deliberately sent at specific times. That data within their archives is either still there; or it has been destroyed. If they delete it, or attempt to break the link with the real events, they are more likely than not going to make errors in backdating/backfilling information. That's why the grand jury will want to look for inconsistencies. Data which is backfilled will not exactly match other time lines and data streams.

TheraP wrote on November 9, 2007 12:20 PM:

Thank you, Anon. It was actually my post at 8:16. And I will copy what you wrote for future reference. I think this merits running by Mrs. P. I'll try to do that.