Seriously Though, Can We Impeach Now?
The CIAs destruction of torture tapes is going to be the big news of 2008. We learned a week ago that the CIA destroyed taped harsh interrogations of detainees. How harsh? I dont know. I would probably know more if they had not actually been destroyed. But what I do know is that there are only two reasons to destroy the tapes:
1) A prisoner said something that we dont want people to hear. (For example, 9/11 was financed by the Royal Family of Saudi Arabia.)
2) The interrogation was illegal and our government is protecting itself from being prosecuted for war crimes.
The right wing would like us to believe that the tapes were destroyed to protect the identity of the agents, which is complete and total horseshit. If that were the case then almost every document in the CIAs possession would need to be destroyed.
The exciting thing about this very, very bad scandal is that it keeps blowing up. First the Justice Department warned a federal judge to back off looking into whether or not the destroying the tapes violated a court order. Then the Justice Department told Congress to back off, as if Congress does not have an obligation to look into these sorts of things. Take a look at The Constitution kids, its called oversight.
Now comes the best news yet, though it is not surprising. It seems the destruction of the tapes information chain goes all the way to the White House. Four White House lawyers, former Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, former White House counsel Harriet Miers, Dick Cheneys current Chief of Staff, David S. Addington and John B. Bellinger III, were a part of the discussions on whether or not the tapes should be destroyed. Guess what they decided?
One former senior intelligence official with direct knowledge of the matter said there had been vigorous sentiment among some top White House officials to destroy the tapes. The former official did not specify which White House officials took this position, but he said that some believed in 2005 that any disclosure of the tapes could have been particularly damaging after revelations a year earlier of abuses at Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq.
Some other officials assert that no one at the White House advocated destroying the tapes. Those officials acknowledged, however, that no White House lawyer gave a direct order to preserve the tapes or advised that destroying them would be illegal.
Not illegal? Seriously? Did they give a little wink, wink, nudge, nudge when they didnt give a direct order to preserve or when they didn't say destroying them would be illegal? Sadly for them, a strong case can be made that the destruction was illegal.
The government was prohibited from destroying any evidence that could be relevant to mistreatment or abuse at the Navy base in Cuba. But the two victims on the tapes were tortured overseas in secret CIA prisons. How awesome of a loophole is that?
One prisoners attorney is not pleased.
"We have a smoking gun, as it were, with respect to the government's destruction of potentially relevant evidence," Remes said.
On Friday, the federal judge overseeing the case was hesitant to investigate why the tapes were destroyed because the Justice Department is conducting an investigation. You know, the same Justice Department who could be implicated in the destruction of the tapes. Dizzy yet?
How many different ways is the Bush administration going to be able to hide their criminal activity? We know the White House cannot be trusted to investigate itself and we certainly can no longer trust the Justice Department. It is time for an independent prosecutor, you know, those guys that spent eight years inside Clintons asshole.
The ACLU has asked a federal judge to hold the CIA in contempt for destroying the tapes because the group believes by destroying the tapes, the CIA violated court orders in a Freedom of Information Act case regarding interrogation. I dont know what lunatic would hold the CIA in contempt and I wish them good luck with that.
Now that makes two different courts that had valid reasons to look into the destruction of the tapes. But that is not all.
The C.I.A. never provided the tapes to federal prosecutors or to the Sept. 11 commission, and some lawmakers have suggested that their destruction may have amounted to obstruction of justice.
It just keeps going and going. Some members of our government did not think the tapes should have been destroyed.
John D. Negroponte, who was director of national intelligence at the time the tapes were destroyed, sent a memorandum in the summer of 2005 to Mr. Goss, the C.I.A. director, advising him against destroying the tapes.
Yeah, probably because our country wouldnt have given a shit if they just kept the tapes or even showed them on Fox News. But once you go into the obstruction of justice world, peoples ears prick up and they become interested.
As far as our president goes, he is using a method that was made famous by Ronald Reagan.
Ms. Perino stopped short of denying any White House involvement, saying only that Mr. Bush has no recollection of being made aware of the tapes or their destruction before yesterday when Mr. Hayden briefed him.
Get that? Could that statement be any more carefully crafted? She could have easily said that, Bush didnt know anything about the tapes destruction. But she went with the He doesnt remember anything route, which is highly dubious considering four lawyers in the White House were involved. The White House is being careful because at some point the press may uncover evidence that Bush was told and now he can say, I dont remember that. Hi, Ronald Reagan.
This is what the White House is saying: The president does not know anything, yet his own staff and legal team worked for years determining whether or not to destroy the tapes.
One of the principles of law, especially when you are involved in a potentially illegal action, is to keep a client informed and involved in the process.
Good luck with that, George. Another big, big problem for Bush is that his new mantra may come back to bite him in his anus.
The United States does not torture.
How many times has he made that public statement? If anyone with a soul saw these tapes, they would quickly conclude the president of the United States is a lying motherfucker. And let us not forget that the Department of Justice under Bush was created to protect him from the rule of law, instead of enforcing the rule of law.
This story is just getting started and it is actually a big one. Sit back and enjoy.
Kid Cooler Than You Calls the White House
When Vífill Atlason, a 16-year-old high school student from Iceland, decided to call the White House, he could not imagine the kind of publicity it would bring.
Introducing himself as Ólafur Ragnar Grímsson, the actual president of Iceland, Atlason found President George W. Bush's allegedly secret telephone number and phoned, requesting a private meeting with him.
"I just wanted to talk to him, have a chat, invite him to Iceland and see what he'd say," Vífill told ABC News.
This sounds like a movie Mathew Broderick would've starred in back in the '80s. Or, at the very least, starring one of the many Broderick-lites of that era, possibly Jon Cryer. The trailer would've feature no less than two wailing guitar chords, three high-fives and one stodgy, uptight guy doing a double-take.
A White House official, who asked not to be identified, denied the young man had accessed a private number but instead dialled 202-456-1414, the main switchboard for the West Wing.
Vífill's mother, Harpa Hreinsdottir, a teacher at the local high school, said her son did, in fact, get through to a private phone. "This was not a switchboard number of any kind," she told ABC News, "it was a secret number at the highest security level."
(NOTE: Just so that you have absolutely no reservations about enjoying my string of half-assed jokes, know that this is totally verifed later in the story.)
I know voice-wise, age 16 doesn't sound like 10, but it also doesn't sound too much like fucking 64, the actual age of Grímsson. How did he pull this off? Did he use the tried and true sitcom trick of putting your hand or a small towel over your mouth? (Or is that the one for pretending to be sick?)
Did he just mimic a deep, grown-up voice? I mean, no one actually sounds like that, right? The best I can think of is he used one of those "robotic" voice changer things kidnappers in movies use. Or maybe he pretended to have a sore throat and only spoke in whispers?
That's a tough hole to crawl out of, two seconds into a conversation. "It's me, the president! Also, um, er, don't be alarmed, but I'm very sick. Also, if a middle-aged woman picks up the line and asks if I've brushed my teeth yet, it's just my vice-prez messing around... Soooo, what up, yo?"
Vífill claims he was passed on to several people, each of them quizzing him on President Grímsson's date of birth, where he grew up, who his parents were and the date he entered office.
"It was like passing through checkpoints," he said. "But I had Wikipedia and a few other sites open, so it was not so difficult really."
Apparently, in the White House, National Security just means that crappy Martin Lawrence movie
Look, I'm not saying we should over think this thing but, maybe we could work out some sort of a code or password here, just in case? You know, on the off-chance other people know about this "Wikipedia."
I mean, even Blockbuster makes me give them my phone number when I forget my card...
Or, maybe you spring for the Caller ID. Is that so unreasonable? Getting that thing that my 13-year-old cousin refuses to make a move without. Again, I know this isn't exactly as high profile a place as my local video store but it's probably worth the extra 11 cents a month.
When he finally got through to President Bush's secretary, Vífill alleges he was told to expect a call back from Bush.
"She told me the president was not available at the time, but that she would mark it in his schedule to call me back on Monday evening," he said.
I know jokes about Bush's intelligence are beyond lame at this point but if the kid got this far he very well could've ended the world. If no one prior to Bush was able to suss out the kid's true identity do we really think Bush stood a chance.
Honestly, what wouldn't be a realistic example of what the kid could've talked Bush into? Is there a single scenario that seems far fetched? From building a fort behind the Lincoln Memorial to melting down Fort Knox's gold to make "super-secret" badges for the awesome new club they formed, anything was possible.
Instead, the police showed up at his home in Akranes, a fishing town about 48 kilometers from Reykjavik, and took him to the local police station, where they questioned the 16-year-old for several hours.
"The police chief said they were under orders from U.S. officials to "find the leak" -- that I had to tell them where I had found the number," he said. "Otherwise, I would be banned from ever entering the United States."
Vífill claims he cannot remember where he got the number.
"I just know I have had it for a few years," he told ABC. "I must have gotten it from a friend when I was about 11 or 12."
"A friend" a.k.a the world's worst recess trade-maker.
"Trade you this top-secret White House phone number for yer math homework and that slinky?" "Done!"
Atlason's mother Harpa, who was not home at the time, said she was shocked to find her son had been taken away by the police but could not quite bring herself to be angry with her son.
"He's very resourceful you know," she said. "He has become a bit of a hero in Iceland. Bush is very unpopular here."
"Here" = Earth
When ABC verified the number, it was the Secret Service Uniform Division, which handles security for the president.
Holy shit...
Yes, a division so "secret," so elite... that they've yet to verify if Iceland's a country with an adult president.
"If the number were not top secret, why would the police have told me that I will be put on a no-fly list to America?" Vífill asked.
"I don't see how calling the White House is a crime," he added. "But obviously, they took it very seriously."
Calls to the Secret Service press office were not returned.
Have the kid call again, he didn't seem to have much trouble getting through.
TheCoolerKing is steeling himself for the inevitable letdown that is December 26th.
Worst President Ever. Worst Administration Ever.
It is one thing to just make bad decisions based on your flawed ideology. There are many presidents in our past who have fucked up continually. Herbert Hoover's poor decision making led to the worst economic period in our history. Warren Harding was famously corrupt and Richard Nixon was forced to resign for his shenanigans. But Bush and his cronies have done something puts them to shame. For political purposes they continue to harm the security of our nation. Its about scoring points for them, nothing else.
First came the leaking of CIA agent Valerie Plames name to the press. Why? To get back at her husband, who had foolishly told the truth to the press about Iraqs total non-involvement of securing Uranium for Niger. Plame just happened to be part of a clandestine operation monitoring Irans nuclear weapons pursuits.
Several intelligence officials described the damage in terms of how long it would take for the agency to recover. According to their own assessment, the CIA would be impaired for up to "ten years" in its capacity to adequately monitor nuclear proliferation on the level of efficiency and accuracy it had prior to the White House leak of Plame Wilson's identity.
Now we find out the Bush administration leaked national security information to Fox News and destroyed a private intelligence companys surveillance of al Qaeda. On September 7th, the SITE Intelligence Group informed the Bush administration they had obtained an Osama bin Laden video. Two senior administration officials were given access, with one condition: DO NOT reveal the existence of the tape until al-Qaeda releases it. Any revelation would reveal sensitive details about the company's methods in acquiring the video.
So, what did the Bush administration do? They leaked the tape to the media. Twenty minutes after the White House was alerted to the existence of the tape, Intelligence agencies began downloading the video from the SITE website.
By mid-afternoon that day, the video and a transcript of its audio track had been leaked from within the Bush administration to cable television news and broadcast worldwide.
The founder of the company, the SITE Intelligence Group, says this premature disclosure tipped al-Qaeda to a security breach and destroyed a years-long surveillance operation that the company has used to intercept and pass along secret messages, videos and advance warnings of suicide bombings from the terrorist group's communications network.
Nice work, boys. Thanks for your continued incompetence for political reasons. Why am I so certain it was released for political reasons? Because of the timing. As I noted in an article from September, the timing of the Osama tape release was extremely suspicious, arriving just two days before General Petreaus spoke to Congress. The General and Bush have been making a hard media push to convince America that al-Qaeda is the big bad in Iraq. And it never hurts to have an Osama tape pop up when you want to justify your bullshit wars. Who cares if it undermines a great terrorist intelligence source?
Al-Qaeda supporters, now alerted to the intrusion into their secret network, put up new obstacles that prevented SITE from gaining the kind of access it had obtained in the past, according to Katz.
"Techniques that took years to develop are now ineffective and worthless," said Rita Katz, the firm's 44-year-old founder, who has garnered wide attention by publicizing statements and videos from extremist chat rooms and Web sites, while attracting controversy over the secrecy of SITE's methodology. Her firm provides intelligence about terrorist groups to a wide range of paying clients, including private firms and military and intelligence agencies from the United States and several other countries.
Yeah, but the White House needed to show that the threat was out there. Although, White House spokeswoman Dana Perino today said the administration is concerned about the leak.
"To the extent that we have Americans coming forward to provide us information, whether it be a private citizen or a private corporation or anybody in America who can provide the government information, we take it very seriously that they should: one, feel comfortable in providing that information that their sources will be protected and that we will act on it if necessary," Perino said. "We appreciate what they did. This was a cause of concern that the information was leaked."
Riiiight. Im sure whoever had a hand in it will be fired, also.
FearTheReaper thinks anyone who doesn't believe the White House leaked Valerie Plame's name is a fucking moron.
GOP Civil War Kicks Off
As I have said before, the only way for Republicans to survive the 2008 elections will be to crush the White House. The administration is behaving like a reckless, drunk, angry 11-year old boy and will drag the rest of the GOP down to depths never before seen if it continues on its current path. Republicans in Congress just seem to be waking up and realizing this President will not alter policies to save them from hemorrhaging seats next year. Suddenly the Republicans on the hill are growing balls and the White House is not happy about it.
Eleven moderate Republican Congressmen went to the White House this week to let the President know they expected a change in course in Iraq. The did not hear what they wanted to hear, and after the meeting Republican Tom Davis of Virginia said Bush is in a bubble. They then leaked the meeting to the press and the White House is not pleased.
White House political adviser Karl Rove, furious that Republican moderates had divulged a confrontational meeting they had on Tuesday with Bush on the war, started yesterday with an angry conversation with the meeting's organizer, Rep. Mark Steven Kirk (R-Ill.), according to several GOP lawmakers. Dan Meyer, the White House's chief lobbyist, called the other participants to express the administration's unhappiness.
DO NOT SPEAK ABOUT THE KING UNLESS HE GIVES PERMISSION! Rape their wives and cut off their feet but let them live.
Sith Lord Dick Cheney let the Republicans in Congress know exactly where they stand with the administration.
Vice President Dick Cheney did not mince words in an interview with the Fox News Channel. We didnt get elected to be popular, Mr. Cheney said. We didnt get elected to worry just about the fate of the Republican Party.
Um, Dick, you are gonna need them on your side or you will be eating your own assholes for the couple of years. Thats how the government was set up by the Founding Fathers. Turns out they wanted to avoid everything that you are.
The Republicans in Congress are giving the White House plenty of warnings that they need to make a change. House Minority Leader John Boehner recently said:
"By the time we get to September or October, members are going to want to know how well this is working, and if it isn't, what's Plan B."
And Senator Lott also made his stance known:
"This fall we have to see some significant changes on the ground."
And now they are asking for face-to-face meetings with the President to express their displeasure only to be rebuffed. Apparently the White House did not understand what it meant when the RNC leaked the information about Rove using their servers for his emails. Let me spell it out for you: You have served your purpose. You may be in the White House but we will kill you for the partys survival.
On the other side is a White House so ruthless that they leaked the name of a CIA agent for payback. 2008 will be a glorious year for liberals. If you thought Republicans were savage when attacking the left, wait you see them go after their own.
Tony Snow More Cancery Than Before
Tony Snow went in for surgery yesterday and the news is not good. Doctors removed a small growth from his pelvic area and tests revealed it was cancerous. It was also discovered the cancer has metastasized to his liver.
This is sad news because there are so many people in the White House that cancer should visit but Snow is not one of them. Several names come into my head; El Presidente, El Vice Presidente, Rove, Rice, Scooter, Fielding, Bolton. But Snow is just their mouth clown, not a creator of the incompetence and anti-American bullshit that pours out of the White House. Lately I have come to feel sorry for him because of all the crap he is being forced to spew.
Snow had colon cancer two years ago and had his entire colon removed, which probably does not make shitting very fun. He underwent six months of chemotherapy. His survival depends on how much of the liver is affected and if it has spread to other parts of the body.
Bush spoke to Snow this morning. Not surprisingly, the President is going to pray.
The president spoke with Snow early Tuesday, and said he looks forward to the day that his spokesman "comes back to the White House and briefs the press corps on the decisions that I'm making."
"His attitude is, one, that he is not going to let this whip him, and he's upbeat. My attitude is that we need to pray for him, and for his family," Bush said. "And so my message to Tony is, 'Stay strong; a lot of people love you and care for you and will pray for you.' "
Aw, hes nice. Im sure that warmed Tonys heart. Snow is 51, is married and has three kids, 10, 11 and 14.
The news comes only one week after John Edwards wife, Elizabeth, announced that her breast cancer has returned and is incurable, but treatable. His decision to continue on with his campaign has been met with quite a bit of criticism from several right wing pundits, like drug addict Rush Limbaugh. They apparently believe people with cancer should stop working and crawl into a hole and die. Thats what Jesus would have done.
White House Decides One Branch Of Government Is Best
George Bush is king. It happened yesterday, while we were all going about our business. Tony Snow broke the news to us on almost every news show and even during a White House press conference.
Snow to MSNBC: Theres another principle, which is Congress doesnt have the legislative I mean oversight authority over the White House.
Snow to MSNBC: First, the White House is under no compulsion to do anything. The legislative branch doesnt have oversight.
Snow to Fox: Congress doesnt have any legitimate oversight and responsibilities to the White House.
Snow to NBC: "Congress doesn't have any legitimate oversight and responsibilities to the White House."
Snow to NBC: "First, the White House is under no compulsion to do anything. The legislative branch doesn't have oversight."
Snow to ABC: "The executive branch is under no compulsion to testify to Congress, because Congress in fact doesn't have oversight ability."
MR. SNOW: Congress
does not have constitutional oversight responsibility over the White House, which is why by our reaching out, we're doing something that we're not compelled to do by the Constitution, but we think common sense suggests that we ought to get the whole story out, which is what we're doing.
Um. Okay. Now Im not sure what to do. When someone tells you everything you learned as a child about your government is wrong and that person is IN CHARGE, what do you do? This is quite simply freaky and disturbing.
The president has declared himself above the laws of our country and has said he will not be a part of our system of government. I dont give a shit if you are conservative or liberal or moderate, you should understand we are walking into some very strange territory and anyone who supports this bullshit should be cast into the sea. (Do we do that?)
Oversight is real. The Supreme Court has ruled on it, on more than one occasion.
In affirming Congress' oversight powers, the Supreme Court in McGrain v. Daugherty stated that "the power of inquiry with process to enforce it is an essential and appropriate auxiliary to the legislative function." In Watkins v. United States the Court described Congress' oversight power by stating that the "power of the Congress to conduct investigations is inherent in the legislative process. That power is broad." The Supreme Court also observed that "a legislative body cannot legislate wisely or effectively in the absence of information respecting the conditions which the legislation is intended to affect or change."
Dont sit back and think, wow, this is so out of character. We have been heading toward this for quite some time. Bush lied to get us into a disastrous war, he has been illegally tapping our phones, illegally looking at our internet exchanges, he broke campaign funding laws, he is writing his own little additions on laws passed by Congress, he has violated the anti-torture statute, as well as international torture laws, he has suspended habeas corpus and outed a CIA agent. Representative John Conyers believes Bush has broken 26 laws.
Put aside the fact that this makes the White House seem like it really has something to hide, that they are so guilty and have committed such crimes that they have to defy the Constitution.
Ask yourself this: What does happen when a sitting president decides hes not going to play by the rules set forth by our Constitution? What happens when a President just says, Im not going to do that? Not follow laws, just going to do what he wants to do. Welcome to scary territory.
White House All Tapped Out of Intelligence
Last year's biggest and most troubling political scandal from the perspective of civil libertarians and privacy advocates alike was the revelation that the Bush White House was illegally spying on US citizens by setting up wiretaps without the express authority of the FISA court set up just for this purpose. The hammer finally came down today, with a federal court smacking Bush upside the head with a ruling that his wiretap program violated first and fourth amendment rights.
Judge Anna Diggs Taylor of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan on Thursday ordered the NSA and its agents, employees, representatives and any other persons or entities in active concert or participation with the agency to halt the so-called Terrorist Surveillance Program.
The program allowed the NSA to monitor communications between U.S. residents and people in other countries with suspected ties to terrorist group al Qaeda, without getting court-ordered warrants.
The program, authorized by U.S. President George Bush in 2002, violates the U.S. Constitutions guarantees of freedom of speech and association and its prohibitions against unreasonable searches and seizures, Taylor wrote in her order. The NSA program also violates the separation of powers clause in the Constitution, she wrote, as well as the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, which set courts to issue warrants for wiretaps focused on counterintelligence.
The public interest is clear, in this matter, Taylor wrote. It is the upholding of our Constitution.
It's nice to see someone in power finally take the perspective that the Bush administration's long standing National Security trump card in fact does not hold sway over constitutional limitations on his power. Gonzales' argument essentially boiled down to the program''s efficacy and how it has made Americans safer by stopping would-be terrorists. Despite his and his boss' disdain for the separation of powers and the constitution that created them, one might expect the Attorney General to be familiar enough with the document to realize that the courts are not there to enforce the laws in the most effective fashion, but to decide whether their enforcement or existence is legitimate in the first place. In this case, they're not. Not surprisingly, the White House disagrees.
We couldnt disagree more with this ruling, [White House spokesman Tony] Snow added. The whole point is to detect and prevent terrorist attacks before they can be carried out. Thats what the American people expect from their government, and it is the Presidents most solemn duty to ensure their protection.
The U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) said Thursday it has already appealed Taylors order. The NSA program is a critical tool that ensures we have in place an early warning system to detect and prevent a terrorist attack, the DOJ said in a statement.
Too fucking bad. You know what would be a really effective way to stop terrorism in the US? To lock up every single civilian and keep them all under nonstop surveillance, with all communications monitored constantly. I'll bet that would reduce terrorism. But the fact is, that's not the country that we've chosen to create, and even with the gaping security holes that riddle our society the US has managed to last quite a while with a remarkably low number of terrorist attacks against it. And that's with constitutional restrictions on legislative and executive powers intact. Knowing that, even the national security argument is in no way a compelling reason to toss aside our constitutional liberties, and it's nice to see the courts agree.