Please tune in this Wednesday, September 17, 2008 to hear an interview with Canadian rendition survivor Maher Arar and CCR attorney Maria LaHood on Fresh Air from WHYY.
Hear Arar and LaHood speak to Fresh Air’s Terry Gross about how U.S. officials sent Arar to Syria to be tortured, his struggle for justice, and the Second Circuit Appellate Court’s extremely rare order last month that approximately 12 judges will rehear Arar’s case on December 9, 2008.
Mr. Arar and CCR seek to hold accountable the high-level administration officials responsible for sending him to be tortured and detained in Syria for a year – a practice known as extraordinary rendition.
In 2002, Maher Arar, a Canadian citizen, was detained at a New York airport on his way home from a family trip. He was interrogated by U.S. officials about alleged links to al-Qaeda and was prevented from getting assistance from a lawyer. He was then delivered to Syria, a country renowned for torture. Mr. Arar was interrogated, brutally tortured and held in a grave-like cell in Syria for over ten months. No country, including the U.S., has ever charged him with any crime.

CCR originally filed the case in the Eastern District of New York in January 2004; the first ruling, in February 2006, dismissed the case because letting it proceed might harm national security and foreign relations. CCR appealed the decision, arguing before a three-judge panel in November 2007, but the Court of Appeals issued a 2-1 decision in June 2008 along similar lines. The dissenting judge found that the majority decision gives federal officials the license to “violate constitutional rights with virtual impunity.”
In stark contrast to the response of the U.S. government, the Canadian government conducted an exhaustive inquiry in response to public outcry, found that Mr. Arar had no connection to terrorism, and, in January 2007, apologized to him for its role in what happened and awarded him $10 million compensation.

http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/index.html?source=newsletter

PR Push for Iraq War Preceded Intelligence Findings

“White Paper” Drafted before NIE even Requested

For more information contact:
John Prados – 202/994-7000

http://www.nsarchive.org

Washington, DC, August 22, 2008 – The U.S. intelligence community buckled sooner in 2002 than previously reported to Bush administration pressure for data justifying an invasion of Iraq, according to a documents posting on the Web today by National Security Archive senior fellow John Prados.

The documents suggest that the public relations push for war came before the intelligence analysis, which then conformed to public positions taken by Pentagon and White House officials. For example, a July 2002 draft of the “White Paper” ultimately issued by the CIA in October 2002 actually pre-dated the National Intelligence Estimate that the paper purportedly summarized, but which Congress did not insist on until September 2002.

A similar comparison between a declassified draft and the final version of the British government’s “White Paper” on Iraq weapons of mass destruction adds to evidence that the two nations colluded in the effort to build public support for the invasion of Iraq. Dr. Prados concludes that the new evidence tends to support charges raised by former White House press secretary Scott McClellan and by the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence in its long-delayed June 2008 “Phase II” report on politicization of intelligence.

Visit the Web site of the National Security Archive for more information about today’s posting.

http://www.nsarchive.org

PR Push for Iraq War Preceded Intelligence Findings

“White Paper” Drafted before NIE even Requested

For more information contact:
John Prados – 202/994-7000

http://www.nsarchive.org

Washington, DC, August 22, 2008 – The U.S. intelligence community buckled sooner in 2002 than previously reported to Bush administration pressure for data justifying an invasion of Iraq, according to a documents posting on the Web today by National Security Archive senior fellow John Prados.

The documents suggest that the public relations push for war came before the intelligence analysis, which then conformed to public positions taken by Pentagon and White House officials. For example, a July 2002 draft of the “White Paper” ultimately issued by the CIA in October 2002 actually pre-dated the National Intelligence Estimate that the paper purportedly summarized, but which Congress did not insist on until September 2002.

A similar comparison between a declassified draft and the final version of the British government’s “White Paper” on Iraq weapons of mass destruction adds to evidence that the two nations colluded in the effort to build public support for the invasion of Iraq. Dr. Prados concludes that the new evidence tends to support charges raised by former White House press secretary Scott McClellan and by the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence in its long-delayed June 2008 “Phase II” report on politicization of intelligence.

Visit the Web site of the National Security Archive for more information about today’s posting.

http://www.nsarchive.org

This weekend I asked a Democrat family member what he thought about Nancy Pelosi’s behavior on the House floor Friday afternoon: banging the gavel right in the midst of an oil drilling debate, having the lights, the microphones, and C-SPAN’s……

I wonder if you would continue to blindly support the idiot in the white house if YOUR family was targeted by wiretapping programs?

I wonder if you would continue to blithely walk thru life with your neocon blinders on if your family member had been killed in a war that never should have been started in the first place?

I noticed the same thing. I have heard little of it anywhere. I think this is a very big deal as it’s an attempt to rebalance powers, would provide vital information on many important issues, and we need to know what the justice dept. will do. I thought this was strange as well. I will look at the Brad Blog. Thanks,

Jill

14 Responses to Bush Administration Officials Bar Lawyer Applicants on the Basis of Political Beliefs

Patty C 1, June 25, 2008 at 1:13 pm

Front Page News type material right here, rafflaw. It’s the end of June, already. Where’s JT?

http://www.boston.com/news/nation/washington/articles/2008/06/24/judge_challenges_bushs_immunity_claim/

Judge challenges Bush’s immunity claim
Privilege asserted for top advisers
By James Rowley
Bloomberg / June 24, 2008

As Prof. Turley and others have said we are definitely in a Constitutional Crisis. Since insurrection won’t work for us, we are limited to the Law and the Ballot in the short term.
While the legal process grinds on we must turn to the electoral process and get Obama in there. We can hope that as a Constitutional Law Professor he has a clearer understanding of the separation of powers. If McCain prevails, he has shown enough obeisance to the Imperial Presidency Crazies, to continue down the same road towards the destruction of the Constitution.

This battle doesn’t end with a Democrat being elected this November though, it only marks the beginning of a long process. We must work to empower and elect people who have appreciation for what this Country, under Constitutional law can be. Party or political philosophy not withstanding.

Along with this though comes the re-education of our citizenry and establishment of a truly free press/media. This means the return of Social Studies and Civics to our schools, a re-imposition of the “Fairness Doctrine” and the use of anti-trust laws to break up media conglomerates. I don’t know if this is at all possible, but to not try, or settle for less means that we must bear a share of the guilt for the loss of our civil liberties.

’1000 Lawyers’ statement sent December 21, 2007…

http://www.thenation.com/blogs/notion?bid=15&pid=262693

We are lawyers in the United States of America. As such, we have all taken an oath obligating us to defend the Constitution and the rule of law…. We believe the Bush administration has committed numerous offenses against the Constitution and may have violated federal laws…. Moreover, the administration has blatantly defied congressional subpoenas, obstructing constitutional oversight …. Thus, we call on House Judiciary Chairman John Conyers and Senate Judiciary Chairman Patrick Leahy to launch hearings into the possibility that crimes have been committed by this administration in violation of the Constitution…. We call for the investigations to go where they must, including into the offices of the President and the Vice President. — American Lawyers Defending the Constitution

Over one thousand lawyers – including former Governor Mario Cuomo and former Reagan administration official Bruce Fein – have signed onto the above statement demanding wide-ranging investigative hearings into unconstitutional and potentially criminal activity by the Bush administration.

In a conference call with reporters yesterday, Michael Ratner, president of the Center for Constitutional Rights and winner of the 2007 Puffin/Nation Prize for Creative Citizenship, said: “The majority of lawyers in this country understand that the Bush administration has really gone off the page of constitutional rights and off the page of fundamental rights, and is willing to push the Congress to restore those rights.” Ratner said he was “dismayed” that a Democratic majority has failed “to push on key illegalities… the torture program, and now the destruction of the tapes involving the torture program; the warrantless wiretapping, the denial of habeas corpus, the secret sites/rendition program, special trials, and of course what we now know is the firing of US Attorneys scandal…. The minimal that absolutely is needed to get us back on the page of law is to have serious investigative hearings that go up the chain of command and figure out who is responsible for what.”

Ratner noted that even with regard to the US attorney’s investigations, where Congressional committees held Harriet Miers, Josh Bolten, and Karl Rove in contempt, leadership has failed to enforce these actions by bringing the resolutions to a vote. “Just announcing that investigations will be held and subpoenas will be issued is terribly insufficient unless Congress is willing to enforce the subpoenas by issuing contempt citations,” Ratner said. “Congress has a constitutional duty to oversee the activities of the executive branch and our entire system of government is threatened when Congress simply folds before an obstinate executive. Issuing contempt citations against Bolten, Miers, and Rove should be Congress’s first order of business in 2008.”

Marjorie Cohn, president of the National Lawyers Guild, discussed the administration’s torture program violating three US-ratified treaties and the US torture statute; the illegal War in Iraq violating the US-ratified UN Charter as a war of aggression; and Attorney General Michael Mukasey’s conflict of interest in overseeing investigations into the torture program and the destruction of the CIA interrogations tapes.

Also speaking with reporters was Jesselyn Raddack, a former Justice Department ethics lawyer who served as an advisor during the interrogation of John Walker Lindh (the “American Taliban”). Raddack said, “My e-mails documented my advice against interrogating Lindh without a lawyer, and concluded that the FBI committed an ethics violation when it did so anyway. Both the CIA videotapes and my e-mails were destroyed, in part, because officials were concerned that they documented controversial interrogation methods that could put agency officials in legal jeopardy…. ” Raddack pointed to the Department of Justice’s investigations of Enron and Arthur Anderson for obstruction of justice and destruction of evidence, and the need for the same aggressive oversight and legal proceedings in these scandals.

This is a vital effort by those charged with defending our constitution, as Ratner said, “This lawyers’ letter and the growing number of signatures we’ll have on it, and prominent people – it’s a way of saying to Congress, ‘You need some backbone. You need to have a serious investigation, wherever it might go, on these issues that really have taken the United States out of the mainstream of human rights.’ It’s absolutely critical… We’ve opened up the door to illegality…. Unless we have accountability on those illegalities, we’re going to be facing a very bleak future in which fundamental rights will not really be obeyed.”

Comments (235)

If people would think about it, everything that comes out of Pelosi’s mouth gets the dems all fired up…but there never is any follow through….FISA is wrong…I will filibuster FISA (Obama)…and when it came to voting the dems agreed with Bush…they new that it really was needed and that it did not infringe on everyday Americans…there are so many things I could point out that Pelosi and the dems have done this on….think people…Pelosi was hurting the republicans in the polls and in the approval ratings in doing this…never any follow through…it is just a power struggle and we were being used to help her get more…Well the surge worked, FISA was needed, Did Bush do anything that they really could impeach him for? How in the hell would we really know because we have been being lied to and used…Now it is Pelosi who has the low ratings and she deserves it…

we have to try to get both sides of the story and stop being fed what Pelosi and her Washington buddies wants us to believe.

If you are reading this you have the internet, there is no excuse to not look things up for yourself…look into the oil lease thing and find out if the land is being used or not and if not why? You will be surprised…..duped again!

I also think her comments are surreal. Some of what she said didn’t hang together, ie: the word “ovation” in the middle of nowhere. I was only half kidding about, “this is your brain on drugs”. I really don’t know what to make of it. She does seem out of touch with reality (in addition to being a flat out liar). It’s quite disturbing.

“Bob Esq.,

Did you emphasize the STATE law? If so, do you have some ideas?”

Just the same ideas I’ve had for years; concisely presented by Vincent Bugliosi:

“You’ve got to realize, there’s no statute of limitations for the crime of murder. So this could very well happen. At this stage of my life, I cannot engage in fanciful reveries. This is a very real thing that we’re talking about here. I’ve established jurisdiction on a federal and state level for the prosecution of Bush for two crimes: conspiracy to commit murder and murder. On a federal level, we’re really only talking about the Attorney General in Washington, D.C., operating through his Department of Justice. But on a STATE level, I’ve established jurisdiction for the attorney general in each of the fifty states, plus the hundreds of district attorneys in counties within those states, to prosecute George Bush for the murder of any soldier or soldiers from their state or county who died fighting his war in Iraq.”

http://www.democracynow.org/2008/6/13/citing_iraq_war_renowned_attorney_vincent

Did you emphasize the STATE law? If so, do you have some ideas? There are judges who will take on this administration but getting the federal justice dept. to do anything except protect the guilty seems impossible. As Susan pointed out, that’s no accident. And as Gyges and other say, it is a Constitutional Crises.

rcampbell,

Will Kucinich be giving info about how his talk with Nancy went? I’m certain she’ll be just SHOCKED to hear that any laws were broken by this crew!

Jill

Who would you trust more: someone randomly selected, or someone who has crawled their way into the political system one lie at a time.

“If the Democratic leadership fails to take any steps to curb the unconstitutional actions of the executive branch, do the American people have any remedy?”

PROFESSOR TURLEY:

“The President’s political authority is controlled by the impeachment decision while the President’s (and Vice President’s, etc.) individual accountability is controlled by STATE and federal law. The accountability of all federal officers as citizens to the CRIMINAL LAWS is the unifying theme of our system. This point was made most eloquently in 1882 in United States v. Lee:

‘No man in this country is so high that he is above the law. No officer of the law may set that law at defiance with impunity. All officers of the government, from the highest to the lowest, are creatures of the law and are bound to obey it.

It is the only supreme power in our system of government, and every man who by accepting office participates in its functions is only the more strongly bound to submit to that supremacy. . . .”
( From Pillar to Post: The Prosecution of American Presidents, by Professor Jonathan Turley, 37 Am. Crim. L. Rev. 1049)

“Deserve’s got nothin’ to do with it.” (William Munny)

http://www.democracynow.org/2008/6/13/citing_iraq_war_renowned_attorney_vincent

Professor Turley,

I am a former adjunct law school professor and a practicing attorney. I am deeply concerning about our country’s constitutional state of affairs, and am grateful for your cogent statements in this regard.

I have a question: If the Democratic leadership fails to take any steps to curb the unconstitutional actions of the executive branch, do the American people have any remedy? Is there a way to remove, impeach or recall congress people who are blocking impeachment? Is there another way to hold a rogue executive branch accountable?

I asked this question to Professor Tribe from Harvard, and he replied that there was no redress, and that “that’s the way the constitutional cookie crumbles” (actual quote).

Do you agree? I hope that Professor Tribe e is wrong, and that the American people do have some procedure for obtaining a remedy.

Thank you in advance for considering my question.

It ALWAYS boils down to self-interest. That’s why the Constitution was designed the way it was, and in theory, still should be operationally functional.

When the elected officials uncouple from the citizenry, this is the inevitable result.

The question in my mind is only on how we recover and restore it?

We didn’t revolt – the government revolted from the people.

Those are three crimes against the Constitution that Bush swore to uphold and protect against all enemies foreign and domestic. That’s an oath he swore at least twice. In public with -VERY MANY- witnesses.

And those are just three of them.

I could have mentioned torturing: no unusual and cruel punishment.

That would make Bush the worst politician alive today if it wasn’t for Pelosi who clearly defends him after he clearly perjured himself twice. Once in a time of war.

If Bush is not held to the standard of the law, why would anybody else have to suffer its consequence?

There are plenty of libertarians who recognize that violating FISA, to which Bush has admitted, is a crime. It doesn’t have anything to do with “the left” or “the right.”

For those who haven’t looked at Pelosi’s background, I’d encourage you to do so. I’d post the info here, but I don’t want to be further labeled as an “anti-Semite”. Suffice it to say, I wondered why she was such a strong Zionist.

Ideal order of impeachment: Dick, then George, then Nancy.

https://ecf.dcd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/show_public_doc?2008cv0409-49

If I was more cynical, I would swear she was in the pocket of Bush or being paid off by someone else.