It's been a banner week for Guantanamo Bay. First the Bush administration nixes reports that it plans to close the facility. Then the Defense Department announces a new detainee is on his way there. If that wasn't enough, according to a declaration filed in D.C. Circuit Court by a U.S. Army Reserve intelligence officer, the hearings that determine whether a detainee is properly classified as an "enemy combatant" are riddled with flaws.
Lieutenant Colonel Stephen Abraham was assigned to the Defense Department's Office for the Administrative Review of the Detention of Enemy Combatants (OARDEC) for six months in 2004 and 2005. In that capacity, Abraham worked closely with the administrative process known as a Combatant Status Review Tribunal (CSRT) -- the one-time, non-legal hearing for Guantanamo detainees that establishes whether or not a detainee should be considered an enemy combatant fit for prolonged detention. Specifically, Abraham's role was to coordinate with intelligence agencies in and outside of the Defense Department to "gather or validate information" suitable to the CSRTs. And there, Abraham found that the CSRT process is skewed toward keeping detainees at Guantanamo.
Sen. Ted Stevens (R-AK) had his son, former state Senate President Ben Stevens, head a board that distributed $12 million in federal grants to promote seafood companies that, at the same time, paid the younger Stevens upward of $775,000 in "consulting fees."
This arrangement has caught the FBI's attention. Last fall, at least three fisheries were issued grand jury subpoenas to hand over documents related to the lobbying and consulting work provided by the younger Stevens and a former aide to Sen. Stevens, Trevor McCabe. The subpoenas also sought any documents connected to the older Stevens. Two of the companies are based in Seattle, and another is in Juneau.
It's Friday afternoon. You know what that means: it's time for a senior Justice Department official to resign.
This time it's Acting Associate Attorney General William Mercer, who, not so coincidentally, was due to have a confirmation hearing before the Senate Judiciary Committee this coming Tuesday. Mercer is one of the senior DoJ officials Kyle Sampson claims to have consulted about the firings.
But rather than undergo an unpleasant round of questioning, Mercer has withdrawn his name from consideration and will return to his other job; he's the U.S. Attorney for Montana. Mercer -- much to the chagrin of the chief judge in his district -- has been pulling double duty since 2005. Considering that one of the supposed reasons for U.S. New Mexico David Iglesias' firing was that he was an "absentee landlord," Mercer was sure to have been asked about his own absenteeism.
Mercer follows the resignations of other DoJ purge figures Kyle Sampson, Monica Goodling, Michael Battle, Paul McNulty, and Michael Elston.
Earlier this month a statement signed by a Republican lawyer surfaced, tying Karl Rove to the prosecution of former Alabama Governor Don Siegelman (D). (The affidavit is available here.)
With just a few days left before he faces a sentence of up to 30 years in prison, Siegelman released a statement highlighting how his case has raised a number of serious questions that have all gone unanswered. Siegelman was found guilty of pushing HealthSouth CEO Richard Scrushy to contribute $500,000 to a state lottery fund in exchange for reappointment to a hospital board. The first puzzle he lists is: Why was the wife of a well-known Republican operative who had worked on Siegelman's opponent's campaign allowed to initiate the investigation:
Why did Leura Canary get anywhere near my case knowing her husbands’ ties to my campaign opponents? Why did she have to be “outed” before her undocumented “recusal” after driving the case for 8 months?
In the affidavit of the Republican lawyer, Dana Jill Simpson, she makes this decision even more questionable. The affidavit is a description of a conference call amongst several top strategists on the Bob Riley (R) gubernatorial campaign in 2002. Simpson said they discussed possible ways to force Riley's opponent, Siegelman, to concede the hotly contested election.
Simpson said that GOP operative and friend to Rove, William Canary, mentioned he had spoken with Karl Rove about getting the Department of Justice on Siegelman. Canary also said his “girls would take care of him,” referring to two US attorneys in the state, one of whom is his wife, Leura Canary, who was responsible for the initial Seigelman investigation.
Never in the history of the United States has anyone contended that the Vice President is outside the executive branch. Never. Not even during last call at a bar outside of the country's worst law school.
But then, in 2004, Dick Cheney needed to circumvent the National Archives' oversight of how his office handles classified information, and suddenly the vice president hovers in the constitutional equivalent of Purgatory, belonging to neither the executive nor the legislative branches. Poor Cactus Jack Garner: he thought the veep's job wasn't worth "a warm bucket of spit," when in fact the office bestrides constitutional governance like an all-powerful colossus.
It's hard to dignify Cheney's argument. But at her press conference today, White House spokeswoman Dana Perino managed to further undignify it, calling the question of the placement of the Vice President within the government " an interesting constitutional question that legal scholars can debate." To Perino, who generously conceded she is "not a lawyer," the role of the VP is "unique":
Rep. Tom Feeney (R-FL) filed papers with the House of Representatives establishing a legal defense fund earlier this week.
Federal investigators stepped up their probe of Feeney's ties to Jack Abramoff in April. Abramoff brought Feeney along on one of his infamous golf junkets to Scotland, this one in 2003. Feeney was one among three lawmakers on the trip -- the other two were ex-Reps. Bob Ney (R-OH) and Tom DeLay (R-TX).
As Roll Callreported in April, Feeney has made two payments totaling $23,000 to the law firm Patton Boggs for legal counsel to represent him for an ethics committee probe of the trip. The committee ruled in January that the trip was improper and fined Feeney $5,643. It would seem that Feeney needs more help paying to defend himself against possible criminal charges.
Not only is Guantanamo Bay going to continue on as the U.S.'s offshore indefinite-detention facility in the war on terrorism, but it's expanding -- at least by one.
As Paul flagged in the Must Read, President Bush's war cabinet was scheduled to debate shuttering Guantanamo Bay this morning at the White House, but once word of the meeting leaked to the Associated Press, administration hardliners scratched Guantanamo from the agenda. And as if to underscore the surprising resilience of the island prison, this morning, the Defense Department announced that Haroon al-Afghani, an Afghan who has "admitted to serving as a courier for al-Qaeda Senior Leadership (AQSL)," will be Guantanamo's newest addition:
There is significant information available that Haroon al-Afghani is a senior commander of Hezb-e-Islami/Gulbuddin (HIG), a declared hostile terrorist group associated with AQ in Afghanistan and commanded multiple HIG terrorist cells that conducted improvised explosive device (IED) attacks in Nangarhar Province. He is assessed to have had regular contact with senior AQ and HIG leadership.
Since 2005, the number of detainees sent to Guantanamo Bay has slowed to a trickle. The largest recent addition came in September, when 14 "high-value" detainees transfered from CIA custody to the island facility. These days, detainees are more likely to be sent from Guantanamo to prisons in their home countries. As a result, the announcement of al-Afghani's arrival makes for some interesting timing.
The CIA plans todeclassify hundreds of documents that detail a quarter century of the agency’s worst illegal abuses, including assassination attempts, domestic spying and wiretapping of journalists. (Washington Post)
Former Attorney General John Aschroft testified behind close doors yesterday in front of the House Intelligence Committee. According to the Committee chairman, Ashcroft corroborated previous sentiments from James Comey that a “robust and enormous debate” had occurred around the potential illegality of a warrantless wiretapping program. (Associated Press)
The House voted overwhelming to revive the Iraq Study Group and to seek new recommendations. Washington insiders suspect that former Mayor Giuliani will again be unable to join the ISG, as he will be picking up his laundry that day. (Washington Post)
A major meeting was to take place today amongst the president's national security and legal advisers, the AP reported late yesterday; and the closing of Guantanamo Bay detention facility was on the table. And "for the first time, it appears a consensus is developing, senior administration officials said Thursday."
That story broke around 6 PM last night. By 8 PM, the story had changed: there was no meeting, the White House said, and "no decisions on the future of Guantanamo Bay are imminent."
What happened? The Washington Postreports this morning that there really was supposed to be such a meeting. But "two administration officials" say that once word broke about the subject, and the apparent "consensus" that had been developing towards closing the facility, Gitmo was pulled off the table.
And the Post reports that the administration doesn't seem to be anywhere close to a resolution: Justice Department officials still don't want detainees to have access to habeaus corpus rights, and Homeland Security officials still oppose it "because it would mean bringing some of the people on the nation's terror watch list... inside U.S. borders."
And the vice president "has vehemently opposed bringing the detainees into this country."
In other words, there's the same split right down the administration that there's been since Robert Gates became Secretary of Defense. And that phantom "consensus" reported on last night would seem to be wishful thinking on behalf of those on Gates' side of the debate. Nobody told Dick Cheney that there was a consensus developing, apparently. Actually, a source tells the Post, it's more of a "tide":
"Of course people are talking about closing Guantanamo, of course," a senior administration official said. "[Defense Secretary Robert M.] Gates has said he wanted to close it down. [Secretary of State Condoleezza] Rice has spoken out on the issue. So far, it's a tide but not a wave. They don't want to leave this behind. They want to resolve this."
Note: Comments should be back up and working again after our technical problems yesterday, but there may still be delays in comments, once posted, appearing on the site.
Anchorage real estate developer Bob Penney, who testified before a grand jury about the bribery scandal in Alaska, is good to his friend Sen. Ted Stevens (R-AK).
So good that he brought Stevens in on a real estate deal that fetched the senior senator a 566% return on a $15,000 investment in just five years. The investment, reported by The Anchorage Daily News in 2004, sheds some light on the financial ties between the two (via Nexis):
Penney said he and his business partners invited Stevens to join them in "appreciation for all he's done for Alaska and the country. We respect him very, very much."
The group of investors purchased a 96-acre plot 30 miles outside of Salt Lake City, Utah in a growing area with a plan to sell off individual pieces over the course of ten years. Stevens' $15,000 ballooned to at least $100,000 and possibly as much as $250,000.
The real estate deal is not the only financial endeavor between the two. Penney is also part of a group of investors called Alaska's Great Eagle (a nod to Stevens' days as a pilot in WWII) who bought a race horse with the senator and former chief executive of Veco, Bill Allen.
According to a story just out from the AP, tomorrow morning may be the beginning of the end for the Guantanamo Bay detention facility:
The Bush administration is nearing a decision to close the Guantanamo Bay detention facility and move the terror suspects there to military prisons elsewhere, The Associated Press has learned.
President Bush's national security and legal advisers are expected to discuss the move at the White House on Friday and, for the first time, it appears a consensus is developing, senior administration officials said Thursday.
The advisers will consider a new proposal to shut the center and transfer detainees to one or more Defense Department facilities, including the maximum security military prison at Fort Leavenworth in Kansas, where they could face trial, said the officials. They spoke on condition of anonymity because they were discussing internal deliberations.
Consider the trigger pulled. Today the Senate Judiciary Committee broke an internal deadlock over President Bush's warrantless surveillance program, voting to subpoena Justice Department documents related to the program's origin. Attorney General Alberto Gonzales has consistently denied requests for the documents over the past two years.
The warrantless surveillance program returned to the center of political controversy last month, when former Deputy Attorney General James Comey dramatically testified that in 2004, as acting attorney general, he had refused to sign off on the then-secret program's legality. As a result, Comey testified, then-White House Counsel Gonzales and Chief of Staff Andrew Card pressed an infirm John Ashcroft to override Comey. Committee Chairman Patrick Leahy (D-VT) and ranking member Arlen Specter (R-PA) again requested documentation from Gonzales clarifying the legal arguments justifying the program, which allows the National Security Agency to intercept international communications believed to be related to terrorism without the approval of a Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court judge.
Last year, Halliburton lost billions of dollars of revenue with the U.S. Army discontinued a worldwide supply contract with the oil-and-defense-services company. Yet Halliburton continues to report massive profits. What gives? A new reported column by Bloomberg's Jonathan Weil proposes an answer: Halliburton may be cooking its books.
Through a Freedom of Information Act request, Weil got ahold of court papers filed by Halliburton's former director of technical accounting research and training, Anthony Menendez, who alleges that Halliburton reported "billions" of revenue from sales before the sales ever happened. For good measure, according to Menendez's court filings with an administrative-law judge for the Department of Labor in Louisiana, Halliburton retaliated against him after he went to the Security and Exchange Commission with his concerns last year.
Menendez described Halliburton's "bill and sale" practices like this:
"For example, the company recognizes revenue when the goods are parked in company warehouses, rather than delivered to the customer. Typically, these goods are not even assembled and ready for the customer. Furthermore, it is unknown as to when the goods will be ultimately assembled, tested, delivered to the customer and, finally, used by the company to perform the required oilfield services for the customer.''
If true, that would violate generally accepted accounting principles. For companies to recognize revenue before delivery, ``the risks of ownership must have passed to the buyer,'' the SEC's staff wrote in a 2003 accounting bulletin. There also ``must be a fixed schedule for delivery of the goods,'' and the product ``must be complete and ready for shipment,'' among other things.
Charles Mulford, a Georgia Institute of Technology accounting professor, reviewed Menendez's complaint for Weil. "I'm not using the 'fraud' word yet," he tells TPMmuckraker, but Menendez's allegations about Halliburton's bill-and-sale practices are "not in accordance with generally accepted accounting procedures."
You can read Menendez's complaint in three parts (I, II, III).
The D.C. Court has once again blocked the right of habeas corpus to Guantanamo detainees. (Think Progress)
Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice has ordered that posts in Baghdad be the top priority for hiring and appointment within the Department. How many of those new appointments will speak Arabic, we’re not sure. (Associated Press)
A court is preparing to hear arguments on a case that will decide whether the federal government can block states from investigating aspects of its terror fighting agenda. The Justice Department is hoping to prevent states from asking private companies if they illegally provided customer information to the NSA. (LA Times)
The CIA likely took tips from two psychologists –James Mitchell and Bruce Jensen– in designing its secretive, “enhanced” interrogation techniques. The Senate Armed Services Committee is interested in what role the two CIA contractors played. (Salon)
For weeks, General David Petraeus and Ambassador Ryan Crocker have dialed down expectations that their progress report on Iraq, scheduled to be delivered to Congress in September, will represent a decisive moment for the war. Today, in an interview with the Times of London, Petraeus went much further:
“That is a deadline for a report not a deadline for a change in policy, at least not that I am aware of. Ambassador Crocker and I intend to go back and provide a snapshot at that time, however focused the photograph is at that time and begin to describe what has been achieved and what has not been achieved and also to provide some sense of implications of courses of action. Neither of us is under any illusion.”
If Monica Goodling "crossed the line," as she famously admitted during congressional testimony last month, Bradley Schlozman appears to have flown over it.
The Washington Postfocuses on Schlozman's handling of the appellate section when he was a senior political appointee at the Civil Rights Division, and finds that even being a Republican wasn't enough to assure Schlozman of a lawyer's abilities -- you had to be his kind of Republican:
Schlozman raised the question of partisan politics bluntly in the fall of 2004, they said, when asking appellate supervisors about the "loyalty" of division lawyer Angela Miller, who had once clerked for David. B. Sentelle, a conservative federal appeals judge. He told Miller's bosses that he learned that she voted for McCain in the 2004 Republican primary and asked, "Can we still trust her?"
He also warned section chief Diana Flynn that he would be keeping an eye on the legal work of another career lawyer who "didn't even vote for Bush," according to colleagues who said they heard Flynn describe the exchange. Miller told several of the colleagues that she considered Schlozman's remarks a form of intimidation, and started looking for another job, the lawyers said.
Schlozman and several deputies also took an unusual interest in the assignment of office responsibility for appellate cases and, according to the lawyers and one of the supervisors, repeatedly ordered Flynn to take cases away from career lawyers with expertise and hand them to recent hires whose résumés listed membership in conservative groups, including the Federalist Society.
The Post also confirms something first reported by TPMmuckraker last week, that Schlozman had told a new hire in the appellate section that he was clearing out career lawyers in order to replace them with "good Americans."
Tomorrow at noon, Deputy Attorney General Paul McNulty will testify before a House Judiciary subcommittee about the U.S. attorney firings.
The last time McNulty testified before Congress in February, he made a number of statements that have been revealed to be false, including that the White House had very little to do with the firings. And former DoJ counsel Monica Goodling went after him with guns blazing when she testified before the House Judiciary Committee last month, saying that McNulty had not been "fully candid" in that testimony, implying that he knew a lot more about White House involvement then he had stated. Why was Goodling so aggressive towards McNulty? In a private conversation with Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-NY), McNulty had reportedly fingered Goodling and Kyle Sampson as being responsible for his incomplete testimony.
But in his written statement prepared for tomorrow's testimony, McNulty argues that "at all times, I have sought to provide Congress with the truth." He goes on:
And I also want to be clear that I do not believe, and have never believed, that anyone in the Department of Justice set out to mislead me so that I might provide Congress with inaccurate information about this matter. To the contrary, I believe that the thousands of documents that have been produced demonstrate only that in the weeks before my testimony, many in the Department struggled with the question of how best to provide Congress with accurate information about the removals of the U.S. Attorneys, consistent with our efforts to protect the reputations of the U.S. Attorneys involved.
So it would appear that McNulty will not be returning fire at Goodling tomorrow.
Did your supervisor at the Justice Department tell you that he was looking to hire a Republican? Or maybe he altered your performance evaluation in order to punish you for not toeing the line? Or maybe he inexplicably eliminated a large number of job applicants because they're Democrats?
Well, the House Judiciary Committee wants you to know that your complaint is safe with them. The committee has launched an effort to get into contact with Department employees who want to blow the whistle but are afraid they'll pay for it..
"This Web site is designed to receive on a completely confidential basis any information concerning the possible politicization of the United States Department of Justice since 2001," the page, called "Write Congress to Right Justice" and part of the committee's website, reads.
A senior aide to the committee told me that it was launched after the committee got calls from people "who indicated to us fairly strongly that they knew of people currently employed in the Justice Department who had info they wanted to provide us, but they were just scared to do it." If the committee made it clear that such tips would be handled confidentially, the aide was told, "we'd get a lot more information." The most smoke thus far, the aide said, was coming from the Civil Rights Division -- where Bradley Schlozman and Hans von Spakovsky once held sway -- but the committee is looking for tips from throughout the Department.
The site advises potential whistleblowers not to use their Department e-mail addresses to send in their tips -- to avoid "unfortunate retaliatory actions" at which a number of officials have proven adept. Anonymous tips will not be considered, but "similar confidentiality will apply to anyone identifying him or herself and requesting such confidentiality." The information, once verified, "will be included in matters that are investigated by the Committee [such as the U.S. attorney firings] and will be incorporated in the Committee’s reports and in legislative and oversight activities of the Committee."
Note: The TPMmuckraker tip line is, as always, open.
Prosecutors want to send the former #2 at the Department of Interior J. Steven Griles to jail for five months, arguing that Griles' lies to Senate investigators threw investigators off the scent of his ties to Jack Abramoff and he ought to be punished for it.
But Griles' lawyer Barry Hartman responded yesterday, saying that while Griles admittedly lied (he pled guilty after all) about the extent of his ties to Abramoff, those lies didn't constitute a cover-up. If investigators had "actually asked a question about a particular subject," Hartman writes, Griles would have fessed up. Too bad investigators didn't know the right questions to ask.
Hartman also disputed prosecutors' comparison of Griles to Scooter Libby and David Safavian -- two former administration officials convicted for lying to investigators who got harsh sentences (2 1/2 years for Libby, 1 1/2 for Safavian):
"Mr. Libby was convicted after trial of multiple counts of obstruction of justice, making false statements, and perjury in a grand jury investigation related to a very serious issue of national security and covert operations in foreign countries. Mr. Griles' concealment of a personal relationship and how it led to his meeting and knowing Mr. Abramoff is hardly comparable.
Mr. Safavian's conduct was also far more egregious than Mr. Griles'...."
In other words, Griles' committed at most the third most egregious felony by an administration official.
Griles' lawyer has asked that Griles be sentenced to community service, well, that he be sentenced to do what he does best, and that is lobby -- though on behalf of supposedly noble causes.
On June 5, less than thirty minutes before the North Carolina State Senate was scheduled to vote on a bill that would allow voters to register up until three days before an election (down from 25), the Republican state auditor sent out an email to legislators saying that he had "sensitive information" about voting irregularities. Lawmakers agreed to delay the vote.
So what was all the fuss about? His office's preliminary report had discovered tens of thousands of potentially invalid voters and nearly 400 votes by dead people, he announced. Clearly the scourge of voter fraud had hit North Carolina -- more registered voters could only logically mean more chances for fraud.
The Department of Justice also got into the act, writing (pdf) the board of elections about the state's voter list maintenance on April 18th. The letter seemed a precursor to other actions taken by the Civil Rights Division to force state's to purge voter rolls of illegitimate voters -- most notably in Missouri, where the Division lost its lawsuit.
But the director of the state election's board, Gary Bartlett, a Democrat, hit back, detailing in a 10-page letter how little the auditor, Less Merritt, appeared to understand election laws or process (e.g. those dead voters had voted by absentee ballot and then died before election day). Bartlett was similarly blunt in his response (pdf) to the Justice Department.
The auditor so far doesn't have an answer to Bartlett's response.
As TPMmuckraker noted on Monday, some signs point to a possible distinct set of detention and interrogation rules for Special Operations Forces. However, in a confirmation hearing last week, the incoming heads of the Pentagon's special operations and low-intensity conflict directorate and Special Operations Command both told the Senate Armed Services Committee their forces will follow the same rules as the rest of the military.
The relevant exchange between Mike Vickers, nominated to be assistant secretary of defense for SO/LIC (as it's known), Vice Admiral Eric Olson, nominated to be SOCOM chief, and Senators Jack Reed (D-RI) and John Warner (R-VA) is below.
Former Orleans Parish School Board president and self-styled corruption fighter Ellenese Brooks-Simms will plead guilty in federal court today to charges that she accepted more than $100,000 in bribes from Mose Jefferson -- the eldest brother of indicted U.S. Rep. William Jefferson -- in exchange for supporting a multi-million dollar math curriculum contract, according to sources close to the case....
This month, in the 16-count indictment handed up against William Jefferson in Virginia, [Mose Jefferson] emerged as a key player who was hired by firms that his brother, the congressman, allegedly helped with trade deals.
Just to help you tell the two brothers apart: William is accused of accepting bribes, and Mose is accused of giving them.
The D.C. Court has once again blocked the right of habeas corpus to Guantanamo detainees. (Think Progress)
Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice has ordered that posts in Baghdad be the top priority for hiring and appointment within the Department. How many of those new appointments will speak Arabic, we’re not sure. (Associated Press)
A court is preparing to hear arguments on a case that will decide whether the federal government can block states from investigating aspects of its terror fighting agenda. The Justice Department is hoping to prevent states from asking private companies if they illegally provided customer information to the NSA. (LA Times)
The CIA likely took tips from two psychologists –James Mitchell and Bruce Jensen– in designing its secretive, “enhanced” interrogation techniques. Both men are currently under investigation for their actions. (Salon)
It's a good time to get a deal on a company when the top two executives just pled guilty to federal bribery charges, apparently.
CH2M Hill, a Colorado-based corporation that sells infrastructure and environmental cleanup services, is in the midst of acquiring Veco for $365 million. The Anchorage Daily Newsreported that talks to buy out Veco started within a week of chief executive Bill Allen and vice president Rick Smith pleading guilty to federal bribery and conspiracy charges.
Former White House aide I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby, who faces prison soon in the CIA leak case, asked a federal appeals court Tuesday to step in and delay the sentence.
State Rep. Vic Kohring (R-AK), indicted last month on federal bribery charges, has officially stepped down.
Last week, Kohring had reached out to members of his Wasilla district and urged them in an op-ed piece to email and call in their thoughts on whether he should stay in office while he battled the charges.
In his resignation speech yesterday, he didn't mention constituent input (or the 50 voters outside the luncheon wielding "Resign Now Vic" signs), but told the Associated Press:
"I take the job as a legislator very seriously, but my life is on the line, so I have chosen to defend myself so I can prevail in court," Rep. Vic Kohring told The Associated Press. "It's a very, very ugly decision to have to make, frankly."
"Resigning by no means suggests guilt. It simply means I take the federal charges extremely seriously and intend to make every effort to prove I'm innocent in court," Kohring said. "I honestly, in my heart, feel that I am innocent."
Kohring was indicted in early May along with two former state lawmakers as part of the ongoing Veco investigation in Alaska. The three are accused of taking bribes in exchange for voting on a petroleum tax to benefit the oil services company.
Officials from the Justice Department and the Inspector General’s office informed Congress that although government contractors commit fraud in Iraq, the problem is not nearly as severe as many critics have suggested. But that's certainly not due to overzealous enforcement: the Justice Department has opted out of at least 10 whistle-blower suits that alleged fraud in Iraq reconstruction. As one critic put it at the hearing: there "isn't much of an incentive not to steal. At this point, there is nothing more profitable than fraud." (Associated Press, Boston Globe)
Susan Ralston, former aide to Karl Rove, gave a deposition to the House Oversight Committee last month. Excerpts from her testimony show that Rove never stopped using his RNC email account. Even sadder, Ralston confirmed suspicions that Mr. Rove might indeed be a BlackBerry addict. You can read Ralston's deposition (she was not asked about her other former boss, Jack Abramoff) here (pdf). (CREW)
Harper’s Ken Silverstein went undercover to explore the nature and transparency of lobbying firms who service corrupt, authoritarian regimes. The whole article is worth a diligent read, and an excerpt can be found here.
(Harper's Magazine)
Here’s a new easy rule for lawmakers on whether to accept gifts suggested (sub. req.) by the House Ethics Committee: if you aren’t sure its ethical, don’t do it. Thank goodness we have finally cleared that up. (Roll Call)
According to John A. Rizzo, the longtime CIA attorney nominated to become general counsel, the agency might -- just might -- have the power to detain a U.S. citizen overseas at the direction of the president.
Rizzo's statement came at the end of his two-hour Senate confirmation hearing yesterday, in which he equivocated on what he thought of the Justice Department's shifting definitions of torture and whether any top al-Qaeda detainees in CIA custody were in fact abused. Responding to a question from Sen. Ron Wyden (D-OR) about presidential authority to order CIA to take an American citizen overseas into custody, Rizzo replied, "it would be extremely problematic in terms of the rights of an American citizen for CIA to capture him overseas."
The answer Wyden was hoping for was "no," and he didn't hear it. "But you say it could be done."
"I don't want to say it could be done," Rizzo parried.
"You just said 'extraordinary circumstances,'" Wyden replied.
"I meant it would be extraordinarily difficult in terms of the rights of a citizen for due process for the president to direct CIA to capture an American citizen overseas," Rizzo said.
Wyden said he'd press the subject in closed session. While CIA has not been accused of detaining a U.S. citizen overseas, the Justice Department has claimed in court that the indefinite detention without charge of U.S. citizens Yaser Hamdi and Jose Padilla was a plenary presidential war power. (The Supreme Court rejected the argument in Hamdi's case and Padilla was eventually charged in a civilian court.) Additionally, the Saudi government detained U.S. citizen Ahmed Omar Abu Ali for 20 months without charge, a circumstance known to the FBI, before he was charged in U.S. courts in February 2005 -- and ultimately convicted -- of plotting to assassinate President Bush. None of these cases involved the CIA, but the Bush administration has consistently maintained that U.S. citizens can be treated as unlawful combatants, and therefore subject to detention without charge.
If confirmed, Rizzo's first big challenge will be reviewing a new set of CIA authorities for detention and interrogation for their legality, pending a forthcoming executive order.
The D.C. Court has once again blocked the right of habeas corpus to Guantanamo detainees. (Think Progress)
Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice has ordered that posts in Baghdad be the top priority for hiring and appointment within the Department. How many of those new appointments will speak Arabic, we’re not sure. (Associated Press)
A court is preparing to hear arguments on a case that will decide whether the federal government can block states from investigating aspects of its terror fighting agenda. The Justice Department is hoping to prevent states from asking private companies if they illegally provided customer information to the NSA. (LA Times)
The CIA likely took tips from two psychologists –James Mitchell and Bruce Jensen– in designing its secretive, “enhanced” interrogation techniques. Both men are currently under investigation for their actions. (Salon)
CIA General Counsel-Designate John A. Rizzo didn't just equivocate on whether he agreed with the Office of Legal Counsel's narrow definition of torture from August 2002. In his confirmation hearing today, Rizzo was all over the map about what the CIA actually did with detainees in its custody.
When Sen. Carl Levin (D-MI) asked Rizzo whether he thought in 2002 that the CIA's interrogation regime was "humane," Rizzo -- who was acting general counsel for much of the time, and took part in deliberations about the legality of that regime -- replied that "We believed then, and we believe throughout the process, that the CIA (interrogation) program as it was conceived -- that the procedures, and the criteria, when taken in toto, leads to the conclusion, justifies the conclusion, that it was from the outset, and (in its subsequent implementation) was conducted in a humane manner." Yet the CIA, based in part on legal guidance delivered by the general counsel's office, authorized its interrogators to force detainees to stand for up to 40 hours; chill their cells to 50 degrees while dousing their naked bodies with cold water; and to simulate drowning them. Whether Rizzo actually believes such practices are humane, he conceded that "there had been some concerns that were expressed" by CIA interrogators who feared prosecution for carrying out the authorized interrogations.
But who was the subject of the "humane" interrogation regime? Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) asked Rizzo if it was his opinion that the Geneva Convention's Common Article 3 -- which protect combatants from "outrages upon personal dignity, in particular humiliating and degrading treatment" -- applied to the fourteen high-value detainees transfered from CIA custody to Guantanamo Bay last year. Those detainees are the U.S.'s highest-level al-Qaeda captives, and they include 9/11 mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammed. Rizzo first said that "Common Article 3 were certainly applied to the fourteen" -- but then added that it wasn't until the Supreme Court ruled in Hamdan v. Rumsfeld that Common Article 3 applies to al-Qaeda. That ruling was handed down in July 2006. "I can't tell you, before the Hamdan decision, that those standards were applied to enemy combatants before then," he said.
Just three months after the Hamdan ruling, CIA remanded the fourteen to the custody of the Department of Defense. The only acknowledged detainee held by CIA after the Supreme Court applied Common Article 3 to al-Qaeda is Abu Hadi al-Iraqi, an aide to Osama bin Laden, whom the CIA sent to Guantanamo in April.
Over the course of the federal probe in Alaska, it's become clear that oil services company Veco dabbled in shady dealings -- some connected to Sen. Ted Stevens (R-AK) and his son Ben, a former state senator. Two top executives, who've pled guilty to bribing state lawmakers, have also played general contractor for Sen. Stevens and doled out $240,000 in "consulting" fees to his son. Veco has contributed more than $70,000 to Stevens' campaigns over the years (making the company his second largest donor), and $25,000 more to his political action committee.
But what has Veco fetched in return?
As easy as it has been to document Alaska lawmakers who've fed their campaign funds and lined their pockets with Veco money, it's less obvious how the company has directly benefited in return. Here's a glimpse at what Sen. Stevens has done directly for the company. Back in 2003 The Los Angeles Times ran a story about family ties amongst lawmakers and corporations (via Nexis):
VECO had helped build a $70-million pipeline for Pakistan, but the government was slow to pay. As it happened, Pakistan desperately needed congressional help on a trade issue, and Ted Stevens was positioned to block the necessary legislation. Before long, Pakistan's representatives in Washington concluded that their trade bill would go nowhere until Pakistan settled with VECO and its partners. Pakistan agreed to arbitration. The bill sailed through.
There are about 200 Foreign Service Officers in the U.S. Embassy in Baghdad. How many of them do you figure are fluent in Arabic? The question was posed in today's State Department press briefing, and here's the answer:
Question: How may Arabic speakers with 3/3 levels of proficiency are currently serving at Embassy Baghdad?
Answer: We currently have ten Foreign Service Officers (including the Ambassador) at Embassy Baghdad at or above the 3 reading / 3 speaking level in Arabic. An additional five personnel at Embassy Baghdad have tested at or above the 3 level in speaking. A 3/3 indicates a general professional fluency level.
Good to know that one of them is Ambassador Ryan Crocker. Crocker sent a cable to Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice on May 31 complaining that the Embassy does "not have the Department's best people."
Former Capitol Hill aides to Sen. Ted Stevens are being questioned by the FBI as part of an investigation into the senator's relationship with a wealthy contractor.
A lawyer close to the case, speaking on condition of anonymity because the investigation is still under way, confirmed the FBI had recently questioned former Stevens aides about Bill Allen, a contractor who has pleaded guilty to bribing Alaska legislators.
CIA general counsel designate John A Rizzo wasn't willing to say much during an open session before the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence today, but he did make one major admission: he had not objected to the Department of Justice’s controversial August 1, 2002 memorandum defining torture as equivalent to “organ failure, impairment of bodily function, or even death”... except when he did, albeit two years later.
Not that he thought his 2002 decision was wrong: “I did not, certainly, object,” Rizzo told Senator J. Rockefeller. “My reaction was it was an aggressively expansive reading but I cannot say I had any specific objections to any specific parts of it.” However, Rizzo added that he “did agree” with the Justice Department’s 2004 revision of the definition of torture – which overrode the very 2002 memorandum to which Rizzo didn’t “specifically object.”
Several senators were distressed and confused by Rizzo’s subsequent embrace of DoJ’s 2004 revision on the definition of torture. Sen. Carl Levin (D-MI) implied that Rizzo had told Levin in private that he had in fact defended the 2002 memo’s extreme definition of torture. “Did you not tell me that you thought that was a reasonable statement?” Sen. Levin asked. “If I did Senator, I meant to put it in a different context,” Rizzo replied.
Sen. Ron Wyden (D-OR) asked Rizzo if he now thought he should have objected in 2002 to what Rizzo himself called the DoJ’s “overbroad” definition of torture. “I honestly can’t say I should have objected at the time,” Rizzo said. Sen. Wyden said he found Rizzo’s statement “unfortunate.”
When a Justice Department official asked eight U.S. attorneys for their resignations last December, most of them went quietly (initially at least), agreeing to resign on relatively short notice and with no public fuss. But one U.S. attorney, Carol Lam in San Diego, had contentious private exchanges with Department officials about her end date.
An email released to Congress last week shows just how heated those discussions got. When Lam delayed announcing her date of resignation -- wanting more time to tend to several high profile cases, the expanded Duke Cunningham investigation among them --, Justice Department officials prepared to have the president fire her immediately.
The email was amongst those (pdf) released by the Justice Department to Congress last week. Writing to William Kelley, an attorney in the White House counsel's office, Kyle Sampson, Alberto Gonzales' former chief of staff and the orchestrator of the U.S. attorney firings, wrote:
FYI – our USA in SD is refusing to resign (though we’ve given her until 5pm eastern); recommendation that she be removed immediately should be over to you by the end of the day.
The January 16th email was written just as the U.S. attorney firings controversy was beginning to simmer. On January 12th, The San Diego Union-Tribune first reported Lam's firing. The next day, the paper quoted the head of the San Diego FBI office as saying "I guarantee politics is involved” in Lam's firing. And on January 16th, Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) made her way to the Senate floor to announce her concern and suspicion about the U.S. attorney firings (which had just become public).
If Lam had not announced her resignation that day, apparently, the Justice Department would have moved to have her fired -- something that can only occur by presidential order. Lam, however, gave in and announced on January 16th that she would be stepping down February 15th.
The announcement followed a number of apparently acrimonious discussions Lam had with Michael Elston, the chief of staff to the deputy attorney general. As Lam detailed in written testimony to Congress, Elston had warned Lam since early January that her requests for more time based on "case-related considerations" was "'not being received positively'" at the Department. He told Lam to “stop thinking in terms of the cases in the office," that she had to depart in "a matter of weeks, not months," and that "these instructions were 'coming from the very highest levels of the government.'"
The email released last week shows just how close the "highest levels of the government" came to firing Lam when she insisted on an "orderly transition" (her words) for pending investigations.
It's clear that the Justice Department was in a hurry to have Lam and the other fired U.S. attorneys step down. What's not clear is why.
If you're a CEO looking to help preserve fish habitats and catch a 60 pound salmon in one weekend, Bob Penney is your man.
He is also old friends with Sen. Ted Stevens (R-AK). The Anchorage Daily Newsreported this weekend that Penney testified before a grand jury in Alaska a few weeks ago as part of the ongoing federal inquiry into corruption in the state.
Penney is a fresh face in the probe that has grabbed Stevens, and had already touched the senator's son, Ben Stevens; several other state lawmakers; and two top oil services executives at Veco, both of whom have pled guilty to federal corruption charges.
The longtime Alaskan entrepreneur is known for founding the Ted Stevens Kenai River Classic over ten years ago to help protect the sports-fishing river that is home to a wild salmon run. The weekend event now draws politicians from as far away as Washington and executives from donors like Veco, Lockheed Martin, Boeing and Shell.
Across the Atlantic, stories continue to churn around the U.K. defense giant BAE Systems' alleged payment of $2 billion in kickbacks over 20 years to Prince Bandar bin Sultan, the former Saudi Ambassador to the United States, in a massive U.K.-Saudi arms deal in the 1980s. The Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development's panel on bribery is scheduled today to inquire why the British government abruptly ended its Serious Fraud Office inquiry into BAE last year. And if that doesn't provide enough grist for the story mill, later this month -- and probably this week -- U.K. Attorney General Lord Goldsmith will try to explain to parliament his role in the BAE scandal.
So why the comparative silence over here? After all, from 1983 to 2005 -- during the period in which he allegedly received BAE's bribes -- Bandar was one of the most powerful individuals in Washington. And it was Riggs Bank, the collapsed, CIA-tied Washington financial powerhouse, where BAE allegedly sent money to Bandar, despite the sale proceeding from London and Riyadh. Finally, BAE is trying to purchase Armor Holdings, a leading U.S. defense firm that produces vehicle armor for Humvees and Strykers, putting a company allegedly involved in bribery in the regulatory crosshairs.
For starters, it's not clear that the Justice Department in fact has opened an investigation into BAE. The U.K.'s Serious Fraud Office has reportedly accused BAE of bribery in six countries, which should be enough to prompt an inquiry into whether BAE is in violation of the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act, a law banning companies that pay bribes from the U.S. market. The Los Angeles Times reported last week that an investigation has begun, but the Guardian reported yesterday only that the Justice Department is "on the verge" of investigating BAE. (DoJ hasn't clarified matters to TPMmuckraker.) What's more, even if the Justice Department does investigate BAE, that's no guarantee that it can bring a case against the company -- and thereby reveal details about Bandar's role in the scandal.
As the Anchorage Daily Newsreported yesterday, a federal grand jury has been investigating Sen. Ted Stevens' (R-AK) ties to the corrupt Alaskan oil company, Veco. Both the former CEO and vice president have pled guilty to corruption charges.
But just as surprising as the fact of the investigation is the location of it: far away from Alaska, in Washington, D.C.
The heavy lifting in the probe so far has been done by a grand jury in Anchorage, Alaska. That investigation has resulted in a number of guilty pleas by executives and indictments of state lawmakers.
But the existence of the second grand jury raises the question of why prosecutors split the investigation. ADN went to the experts and came up with a number of theories:
Legal experts in corruption cases said that while it's unusual for prosecutors to use grand juries in separate jurisdictions in an investigation, they may have sound reasons. The experts also cautioned that even though prosecutors may be presenting evidence to a grand jury, that doesn't mean crimes have been committed.
Paul Butler, a law professor at George Washington University and a former federal attorney who prosecuted a U.S. senator and several FBI agents, said it could simply be a matter of convenience for witnesses.
Jules Epstein, a law professor at the Widener University School of Law in Wilmington, Del., and a criminal defense lawyer, said the grand juries could be investigating separate, unlinked crimes.
Peter Henning, a law professor at Wayne State University in Detroit, said prosecutors might bring a case against a popular elected official in Washington to avoid being "home-courted."
Given that witnesses in the probe have been flying out from Alaska to testify, I think it's fair to discount the "convenience" explanation.
But that prosecutors might have chosen D.C. as the venue to make their case against Stevens -- and perhaps his son, Ben, a former state senator, who's been implicated in charging documents -- makes a whole lot of sense. There's simply not a more powerful figure in Alaska (or perhaps in the history of Alaskan politics) than Sen. Stevens, who's served in the Senate since 1968, and who even, back in 1958, played a role in shepherding Alaska to statehood while working at the Interior Department.
Four years after the invasion, five months after the surge began and one day into a new anti-al-Qaeda offensive in Diyala Province, and Iraq is "at risk" of becoming a failed state, according to an index compiled by Foreign Policy magazine and the Fund For Peace.
A ranking list of what the two organizations specify as the criteria for failed statehood -- factionalized elites, refugees and displaced persons, the delegitimation of the state, external intervention and eight others -- place Iraq as the second-most state at risk of failure. That's ahead of such failed-state perennials as Somalia, the Ivory Coast, Haiti and the Democratic Republic of the Congo. The only state considered worse off than Iraq is Sudan, where the Khartoum government is pursuing a genocide in Darfur. Perhaps as ominous: Afghanistan is number eight on the failed-state index.
Welcome back to the heady nine months after 9/11, when the Bush administration feverishly debated what constituted acceptable treatment for al-Qaeda detainees. After a nearly six-year cycle of impunity, scandal and retrenchment, the CIA is again seeking guidance from the White House and the Justice Department about the legality of a detention and interrogation regime with which it has grown increasingly uncomfortable. And a congressional nomination hearing this afternoon for the agency's proposed top lawyer should give senators insight into what the new rules for interrogation will be.
Many within the CIA, for years, have been uncomfortable with the guidance it received from the Justice Department about interrogations. In August 2002, the Office of Legal Counsel famously ruled that nothing short of "organ failure, impairment of bodily function, or even death" constituted torture, thereby blessing as legal interrogation techniques -- like waterboarding, which simulates drowning -- that fall short of that redefined standard. The worry within CIA was that, inevitably, word of the agency's expanded interrogations would leak out, prompting an Abu Ghraib-style outrage and leaving CIA interrogators vulnerable to prosecution by the very Justice Department that initially blessed the new regime. That fear compounded in late 2004, when the OLC revised its definition of torture without clearly defining it, further troubling CIA interrogators.
Steven Griles argued yesterday that he should be assigned to community service in lieu of imprisonment. Conveniently, Griles suggested he volunteer for the American Recreation Coalition, a powerful pro-consumer lobbyist group that benefited from Grile’s time in the Department of the Interior. (Project on Government Oversight)
Ryan Crocker, the U.S. ambassador to Iraq, has told Condoleezza Rice that he lacks enough qualified staffers to effectively run an embassy, a problem that is compounded by overly restrictive security rules. (Washington Post)
The scandals surrounding Sen. Ted Stevens (R-AK) goes international. Check out a no-bid contract that allowed an Inupiat Eskimo firm to feed Bolivian soldiers as part of the War on Drugs. (Salon)
Are you searching for meaning in the U.S. Attorney scandal? Wondering why Monica Goodling mentioned vote caging? Two McClatchy reporters field some great questions here. (McClatchy Newspapers)
Last week, Hans von Spakovsky testified before the Senate Rules Committee that he'd been something of a wallflower when he worked at the Justice Department's Civil Rights Division. His critics had it all wrong, he said. Despite claims that he'd led the Department's efforts to overturn the voting rights section's traditional work protecting African-American voters -- using the division's power instead to spread the myth of voter fraud and purge state voter rolls -- von Spakovsky said that he'd merely been there in an advisory capacity. People asked his opinion and he gave it, that's all.
But those who actually worked under him in the voting rights section say otherwise, calling him the de facto head of the section.
And in a letter to the Senate Rules Committee yesterday (the committee is considering von Spakovsky's nomination to be a commissioner at the Federal Election Commission), a group of former voting rights professionals in the Department laid out the numerous areas where von Spakvosky had been less than forthright in his testimony. You can read the letter here.
We've already noted one area where von Spakovsky's testimony is highly disputable. McClatchy, reporting on yesterday's letter, highlights another.
Under questioning from Sen. Dick Durbin (D-IL) about the Civil Rights Division's failure to file discrimination cases on behalf of African-American voters while he was there, von Spakovsky argued that Durbin had it all wrong. They'd actually filed two cases (von Spakovsky didn't mention that one of those was actually initiated during the Clinton administration), and there were two other cases that the leadership at the Department had approved for filing, but that hadn't moved forward. He was all for protecting African-American voters, really.
A former Justice Department political appointee blocked career lawyers from filing at least three lawsuits charging local and county governments with violating the voting rights of African-Americans and other minorities, seven former senior department employees charged Monday....
Von Spakovsky blocked a major suit against a St. Louis suburb and two other suits against rural governments in South Carolina and Georgia and halted at least two investigations of election laws that appeared to suppress minority voting, one of them in Wyoming, said Joseph Rich, the former voting rights section chief....
Monday's letter included the first allegations that von Spakovsky torpedoed suits and investigations over alleged state, county or local laws that diminish the voting strength of African-Americans, Native Americans or other minorities or prevent them from voting altogether.
Von Spakovsky, the letter said, stripped the voting rights section chief of his authority to open investigations of discrimination without his superiors' approval.
As McClatchy reported last week, despite Democratic opposition to von Spakovsky's nomination, Republicans may be able to protect him by legislative maneuvering. Regardless of von Spakovsky's fate, though, his nomination, along with the U.S. attorney firings investigation (which has shined a light on von Spakovsky's former colleague, Bradley Schlozman), is proving a valuable opportunity to expose what's been happening at the Civil Rights Division under the Bush administration.
It's good to have an international rainmaker for a father.
So far, Prince Bandar bin Sultan, the former Saudi ambassador to the U.S., has denied all accusations that he received up to $2 billion in kickbacks from British defense giant BAE for a massive British-Saudi arms deal. That's been a pretty tenable line to maintain, since neither the BBC nor the Guardian, which broke the story, have disclosed the basis for their reports. But that was before anyone learned about the December 1996-January 1997 honeymoon of Bandar's daughter, Princess Reema.
Reema and her husband, another Saudi royal, celebrated their nuptuals with a six-week trompe through some of the world's most expensive hotels in Singapore, Australia, Malaysia, Bali and Hawaii. Their wedded bliss included a private Gulfstream flight to the Great Barrier Reef. And according to Peter Gardiner, managing director of the travel firm that booked the honeymoon, the nearly half-million-dollar affair was entirely paid for by BAE. Gardiner tells the Sunday Times:
“They were a young, attractive couple in love and on a dream honeymoon. They knew nothing about BAE paying and must have believed it was their parents paying. I was instructed by BAE not to discuss payments with them – or with anyone. I was told by BAE to give them the very best,” Gardiner said.
BAE's accounting for the trip appears brazen. Documents obtained by the UK's Serious Fraud Office show that Gardiner's company, Travellers World, billed BAE with statements reading "HM.Aus," for "Honeymoon, Australia." When Reema's husband needed to find a place in Australia where he could watch the Dallas Cowboys live on cable, Travellers World arranged it, and BAE paid about $12,000 for three hours of gridiron drama.
Last week, the Los Angeles Timesreported that BAE is under investigation by the Justice Department for potential violations of the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act, a law preventing access to U.S. markets for companies involved in bribery. BAE told the Sunday Times it denies any wrongdoing.
For months, sectarian acrimony in the Iraqi parliament has stalled passage of an oil law -- a crucial "benchmark" for national unity. That's been especially distressing to U.S. officials, who frequently invoke the oil law's potential for fostering national unity. One of its chief proponents, former U.S. ambassador Zalmay Khalilzad, wrote in a valedictory March op-ed that the measure represents "the first time since 2003 that all major Iraqi communities have come together on a defining piece of legislation."
But UPI energy correspondent Ben Lando, perhaps the most diligent and thorough reporter focusing on the oil law, points out that the actual text of the legislation doesn't represent anything of the sort. For starters, the law punts on the hard questions:
A separate revenue-sharing law would decide how the oil revenue is spread around the country. It is currently being negotiated, though far behind the hydrocarbons law in the Iraqi legislative process. ...
Only a small portion of the law mentions revenue, and explicitly states that, according to the Iraqi Constitution, a separate "federal revenue law" is required to dictate how the revenue is spent.
Got that? The law doesn't even establish who owns the revenue generated by oil sales -- the mechanism that's supposed to mollify Sunnis in the oil-starved center-west of the country -- and it's still bottled up in the Iraqi parliament. Talk about a benchmark that marks few benches.
The Los Angeles Timesdetails the growing number of cases where defense lawyers "are citing the furor over the U.S. attorney dismissals as evidence that their cases may have been infected by politics."
Sy Hersh's piece on the stifling of General Antonio Taguba's inquiry into Abu Ghraib begs a big question: What would Taguba have uncovered if he had been free to investigate?
Buried within three of the Pentagon's official investigations into torture, there's plenty of circumstantial evidence to suggest that the answer is a separate, harsher set of rules for detainee and interrogation operations led by Special Operations Forces -- the elite units specializing in unconventional warfare -- than those that apply for the rest of the U.S. military. Yet none of the inquiries follows through on how highly trained SOF units, increasingly important in the war on terrorism, could have created detention facilities so brutal as to give them the motto "No Blood, No Foul" absent official guidance.
In 2004, in order to undercut calls for an independent inquiry into Abu Ghraib, Donald Rumsfeld appointed a panel chaired by ex-defense secretary James Schlesinger to investigate the Defense Department's detainee operations. Schlesinger found (pdf) that, essentially, there were two distinct sets of rules for interrogating detainees in Defense Department custody: one for the detainee population at Guantanamo Bay, where the Bush administration decreed that the Geneva Conventions don't apply, and another for department operations everywhere else. Outside of Guantanamo Bay, military interrogators were supposed to rely on an Army field manual, known as FM 34-52, that complied with the Geneva Conventions. For years, the Pentagon's line was that the only set of authorizations for interrogations were FM 34-52, or the enhanced techniques to be used only at Guantanamo -- nothing else. (Last year, the Army updated FM 34-52, rechristening it FM 2-23.2 and intending the Geneva-compliant manual to apply in Guantanamo as well.)
Except that Schlesinger's report hinted at another set of rules for interrogations. During December 2002 and January 2003, Rumsfeld furiously reviewed and revised the procedures for interrogations in Guantanamo Bay -- but it turned out that those techniques didn't remain in the island prison. In late January 2003, intending to facilitate Rumsfeld's review, the U.S. command staff in Afghanistan provided to U.S. Central Command "a list of techniques being used in Afghanistan, including some not explicitly set out in FM 34-52." Schlesinger never specified what the techniques were. But he wrote that they were subsequently "included in a Special Operations Forces (SOF) Standard Operations Procedures document published in February 2003."
President Bush has claimed that his executive powers allow him to bypass more than 1,100 laws enacted since he took office -- in what are called "signing statements." But what has been unclear ever since The Boston Globe's landmark story on the statements (which won Charlie Savage a Pulitzer) is just what effect these obscure little statements, published in the federal register, have.
Sen. Robert Byrd (D-WV) and House Judiciary Chairman John Conyers (D-MI) wanted to know just that, so they asked for an analysis by the Government Accountability Office, the nonpartisan investigative arm of Congress, of last year's appropriations bills. The report, released today, is sure to lead to further investigation.
The agency examined a sample of appropriations bills from last year, focusing on 19 provisions that were affected by a presidential signing statement added to a bill -- in each case, Bush invoked the "unitary executive" theory or some other justification for disputing the bill. The result: of the 19 provisions, six were not executed as authorized by Congress.
Email messages sent by White House officials using Republican National Committee addresses have been extensively destroyed, according to an early report on the ongoing investigation released today by the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform.
The full report is here (pdf) and the executive summary is available here.
Fisheries Netted In Federal Alaska Probe
DoJ Purge Figure Withdraws Nomination
Former Alabama Governor Speaks Out Before Sentencing
Florida Rep Starts Legal Defense Fund
The Daily Muck
Today's Must Read
Stevens' Friend That Testified Is Also Business Partner
And Out Come The Subpoenas
Halliburton Accused of Accounting Irregularities
Petraeus: September "Not A Deadline For Change In Policy"
Today's Must Read
McNulty: "I Testified Truthfully"
House Dems to DoJ Whistleblowers: Send Us Your Tips
Griles' Lawyer: He's No Libby
Indicted Alaska Rep "Feels" Innocent, But Steps Down
Today's Must Read
Veco Gives, But What Does It Receive?
AP: FBI Questions Former Stevens Aides
U.S. Attorney Resignation Made on Threat of Immediate Firing
How Many Investigations Into Bandar's Favorite Defense Firm?
2nd Strain of Probe Proceeds Far from Stevens' Sway
Today's Must Read
Separate Interrogation Rules For Special Forces?
Report: Bush "Signing Statements" May Have Affected Implementation of Laws