During the period of November 2008 to January 2009, when Barack Obama was still a President-Elect and George W. Bush was the lamest of lame ducks, speculation was rampant that Scooter Libby would top the list of last minute pardons. I didn't put much stock in such predictions because it seemed so pointless: the sentence had already been commuted, Libby would never serve a day for his crimes. The one felon I was certain would get a pardon was Larry Franklin. It seemed to me Bush had the most to lose from not pardoning him. To review:
Lawrence Anthony Franklin is a former U.S. Air Force Reserve colonel who has pleaded guilty to passing information about U.S. policy towards Iran to the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), the foremost pro-Israel lobbying organization in the U.S, while he was working for the Defense Department. He claims this was an attempt to get the information to the United States National Security Council, which he was not able to do through regular Pentagon channels. Two former employees of AIPAC (Steven J. Rosen and Keith Weissman) also faced charges (that would later be dropped) that they assisted him in the AIPAC espionage scandal and passing classified national defense information to an Israeli diplomat Naor Gilon. On January 20, 2006, Judge T.S. Ellis, III sentenced Franklin to 151 months (almost 13 years) in prison and fined him $10,000.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Larry_Franklin
I assumed Bush had everything to gain from pardoning a loyal neo-con who had been rotting in prison since January 20, 2006. There was one problem with this assumption that I discovered recently while investigating the revelations that Sibel Edmonds has provided on this scandal reported by Luke Ryland: LARRY FRANKLIN IS NOT IN JAIL!
One other interesting part of the interview, highlighted by Mizgin, is that indicted spy Larry Franklin was working with Richard Perle and Douglas Feith at the ATC way back in 1994. According to Sibel, Franklin was "one of the top people providing information and packages during 2000 and 2001." Despite many media reports to the contrary, Larry Franklin is not currently in jail,(emphasis added) and it is not clear what will happen to him if the trial of Rosen & Weissman from AIPAC doesn't proceed as planned in June.
http://lukery.blogspot.com/2009/04/first-merchant-bank-exposed.html
I clicked on the link where I boldprinted and this came up:
Inmate Locator - Locate Federal inmates from 1982 to present
Name Register # Age-Race-Sex Release Date
Location
1. LAWRENCE ANTHONY FRANKLIN 70425-083 62-White-M UNKNOWN NOT IN BOP CUSTODY(emphasis added)
http://www.bop.gov/iloc2/InmateFinderServlet?Transaction=NameSearch&needingMoreList=false&FirstName=Lawrence&Middle=Anthony&LastName=Franklin&Race=U&Sex=U&Age=&x=68&y=14
Where the hell could he have disappeared to?! I kept investigating and today I came across this revelation: LARRY FRANKLIN IS STILL A FREE MAN!
In this interview at antiwar.com, CQ's Jeff Stein - who broke the new allegations about U.S. Rep. Jane Harman's alleged involvement in seeking leniency for Rosen and Weissman - says that the Pentagon leaker at the heart of the affair, Larry Franklin, is in jail, doing 12.5 years and moreover, the sentence is relatively lenient, only because Franklin is expected to cooperate at trial.
That might have come as a surprise to Franklin, who was seen last week hanging around the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars, sporting camouflage pants and boots (the weather has been very weird in DC of late. And he is a former Air Force colonel.) I mean, the Ronald Reagan Building is less than inspiring, it's true, but a prison it's not.
(Jeff's not the only one who's made this mistake - just the latest. I keep hearing references to Franklin being in jail.)
Franklin was sentenced to just over 12.5 years, it is true - and that was by all accounts not a lenient sentence - but his time was deferred until after he testifies at the Rosen and Weissman trial. I heard from sources at the time that prosecutors would recommend a reduction to three years should he cooperate, and that Judge T.S. Ellis was likely to take the deal.
But that was over three years ago. And now the case might not even go to trial. And if it does, I've heard that prosecutors are reluctant to use him.
This, I've heard, is remarkable; prosecutors pull key witnesses only if they've done serious damage to their credibility while awaiting trial (for instance, a repentant mob hitman who just can't break the habit.) Franklin's abided by the conditions of his sentencing, including avoiding reporters like the plague.
So why not use him? His outbursts during his allocution when he pleaded guilty might be illustrative: The promise of the crux of the government case shouting out "it wasn't classified and isn't classified" when he's on the stand must be giving prosecutors the willies.
So what does this mean for Franklin? His crimes are not unserious: He swore to keep the secrets he leaked not only to Rosen and Weissman, but to Naor Gilon (the Israeli diplomat coming soon to an international incident near you.) (all emphasis mine)Franklin's unhappy profile as a prosecution witness might not necessarily mean he isn't "helpful" - just truthful.
But 12.5 years, especially after being held in limbo for more than three years?
And a deal's a deal, right?
We'll soon find out.
http://blogs.jta.org/politics/article/2009/04/22/1004577/maybe-jane-harman-slipped-larry-franklin-a-file-in-a-cappucino
Unfortunately, though it almost slipped under the radar, we soon found out that the charges against Rosen and Weissman were dropped:
WASHINGTON — A case that began four years ago with the tantalizing and volatile premise that officials of a major pro-Israel lobbying organization were illegally trafficking in sensitive national security information collapsed on Friday as prosecutors asked that all charges be withdrawn.
-snip-
While Mr. Rosen and Mr. Weissman trafficked in facts, ideas and rumor, they had done so with the full awareness of officials in the United States and Israel, who found they often helped lubricate the wheels of decision-making between two close, but sometimes quarrelsome, friends.
-snip-
The investigation of Mr. Rosen and Mr. Weissman also surfaced recently in news reports that Representative Jane Harman, a California Democrat long involved in intelligence matters, was overheard on a government wiretap discussing the case. As reported by Congressional Quarterly, which covers Capitol Hill, and The New York Times, Ms. Harman was overheard agreeing with an Israeli intelligence operative to try to intercede with Bush administration officials to obtain leniency for Mr. Rosen and Mr. Weissman in exchange for help in persuading Democratic leaders to make her chairwoman of the House Intelligence Committee.
-snip-
Over government objections, Judge Ellis had also ruled that the defense could call as witnesses several senior Bush administration foreign policy officials to demonstrate that what occurred was part of the continuing process of information trading and did not involve anything nefarious. The defense lawyers were planning to call as witnesses former Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice; Stephen J. Hadley, the former national security adviser; and several others. Government policy makers indicated they were clearly uncomfortable with senior officials’ testifying in open court over policy deliberations.
more...
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/02/us/politics/02aipac.html?_r=1
So chalk up another rug-sweeping victory for the Deep State. They got to Judge Ellis, who if you read the text of the sentence against Franklin http://www.fas.org/sgp/jud/franklin012006.pdf completely reversed the logic he used to sentence Franklin by setting the standard that Rosen and Weissman had to be proven to try to harm the security of the United States to be convicted, whereas Ellis admonished Franklin for providing the defense that he meant no harm! So Rosen and Weissman, along with their probable co-conspirators Hadley and Rice go free.
But what about Franklin? His freedom was contingent upon his testimony at the Rosen and Weissman trials. Now that there will be no trials, does anyone know where Franklin is now? While I have to give credit to Counterpunch http://www.counterpunch.org/leupp05012009.html http://www.counterpunch.org/abourezk05042009.html and antiwar.com for exposing the bullshit behind the excuses for the dismissal, neither have reported correctly the current status of Larry Franklin. Only Luke Ryland has been staying on top of this:
One other point: None of the coverage today mentions the fact that Larry Franklin is currently a free man, and that his eventual sentence was supposed to be dependent on him co-operating. What happens to Franklin now? And what happens to all of the other evidence he has given FBI counter-intelligence in the meantime? Will that ever be acted upon?
Posted by lukery at 5/02/2009 10:33:00 AM
Labels: AIPAC, Larry Franklin, Rosen, Weissman
3 comments:
Robert Paulsen said...
Thank you so much for staying on top of this. It boggles my mind that nobody, not in MSM, not on any other alternative media internet site, NOBODY EXCEPT YOU, seems to be aware of this oversight. I've tried posting about this on DU and everyone there seems to be unaware as well.
Three years after being sentenced to 12.5 years in jail, LARRY FRANKLIN IS STILL A FREE MAN!
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x5599574
I'll keep shouting out about this injustice if you keep researching. Any updates as to Larry Franklin's current whereabouts? I'd like to see at least one person pay for this scandal.
May 8, 2009 5:50 AM
lukery said...
RP - Franklin was last seen in DC. I suspect he still lives there.
May 8, 2009 8:54 AM
http://lukery.blogspot.com/2009/05/aipac-case-dismissed-what-happens-to.html
UPDATE: From Josh Gerstein -
Judge formally drops case against pro-Israel lobbyists
snip
The dismissal aspect of Ellis' order, which was posted on the court's docket today, is essentially a formality. What was more interesting is that he said he is expecting some kind of action from the government regarding Larry Franklin, a Pentagon analyst who pled guilty early on in the case.
Ellis sentenced Franklin in 2006 to more than 12 years in prison for disclosing classified information to Rosen, Weissman and others. However, Franklin agreed to cooperate with the government and never reported to jail.
"It is further ordered that the government is directed to advise the Court, by 5:00 p.m., Thursday May 14, 2009, regarding when it contemplates filing an appropriate motion with respect to defendant Franklin," Ellis's new order says. (emphasis added)
Lawyers involved in the case expected Franklin to seek a reduction in his sentence once the trial against Rosen and Weissman was complete. Now that the trial will never happen, it's an open question of how much of a sentence reduction Franklin will get. Presumably, it's not his fault the case was abandoned. In any event, Ellis will have to rule on any sentence reduction. The judge may have to make a hypothetical judgment about how much Franklin's testimony may have helped in a trial that will never take place.
http://www.politico.com/blogs/joshgerstein/0509/Judge_formally_drops_case_against_proIsrael_lobbyists.html
Friday, May 8, 2009
Thursday, February 26, 2009
Anthrax spores don't match dead researcher's samples
Anthrax spores don't match dead researcher's samples
John Byrne
Published: Thursday February 26, 2009
Poisonous anthrax that killed five Americans in the weeks after the Sept. 11, 2001 terror attacks doesn't match bacteria from a flask linked to Bruce Ivins, the researcher who committed suicide after being implicated by the Federal Bureau of Investigation, a scientist said.
Spores used in the deadly mailings ``share a chemical 'fingerprint' that is not found in the flask linked to Bruce Ivins,'' wrote Roberta Kwok citing Joseph Michael, a scientist at the Sandia National Laboratories in Albuquerque, New Mexico.
Michael analyzed letters sent to the New York Post and offices of Senators Tom Daschle and Patrick Leahy, and found a distinct "chemical signature" not present in the flask known as RMR-1029, which Ivins could access in his laboratory at Fort Detrick, Maryland.
``Spores from two of those show a distinct chemical signature that includes silicon, oxygen, iron, and tin; the third letter had silicon, oxygen, iron and possibly also tin,'' Kwok wrote. ``Bacteria from Ivins' RMR-1029 flask did not contain any of those four elements.''
more...
http://rawstory.com/news/2008/Anthrax_spores_dont_match_dead_researchers_0226.html
We've seen this Rush to Judgment many times throughout parapolitical history. It stinks to high heaven every time.
John Byrne
Published: Thursday February 26, 2009
Poisonous anthrax that killed five Americans in the weeks after the Sept. 11, 2001 terror attacks doesn't match bacteria from a flask linked to Bruce Ivins, the researcher who committed suicide after being implicated by the Federal Bureau of Investigation, a scientist said.
Spores used in the deadly mailings ``share a chemical 'fingerprint' that is not found in the flask linked to Bruce Ivins,'' wrote Roberta Kwok citing Joseph Michael, a scientist at the Sandia National Laboratories in Albuquerque, New Mexico.
Michael analyzed letters sent to the New York Post and offices of Senators Tom Daschle and Patrick Leahy, and found a distinct "chemical signature" not present in the flask known as RMR-1029, which Ivins could access in his laboratory at Fort Detrick, Maryland.
``Spores from two of those show a distinct chemical signature that includes silicon, oxygen, iron, and tin; the third letter had silicon, oxygen, iron and possibly also tin,'' Kwok wrote. ``Bacteria from Ivins' RMR-1029 flask did not contain any of those four elements.''
more...
http://rawstory.com/news/2008/Anthrax_spores_dont_match_dead_researchers_0226.html
We've seen this Rush to Judgment many times throughout parapolitical history. It stinks to high heaven every time.
Wednesday, January 21, 2009
Please recommend that private citizen George W. Bush be PROSECUTED FOR MURDER.
I'm not just talking about clicking the recommend icon at the end of this post. While I would certainly appreciate the exposure on the greatest page, I'm talking about a recommendation to people in a position of power who are capable of pursuing justice against an invasion that should never have occurred. That means writing a letter to the US Attorney General, any of the 50 state Attorney Generals or any of the 2,700 District Attorneys and recommending that they act as famed prosecutor Vincent Bugliosi has advocated by charging George W. Bush, Dick Cheney and Condoleeza Rice with the crime of murder.
I've written earlier about my experience meeting Vincent Bugliosi http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x4816435 and his reasons for why and methods for how to prosecute Bush, Cheney and Rice for murder in regard to the 4,000+ American troops killed in Iraq. I reference this in my letter to Jerry Brown, the Attorney General of my current state of residence, California. This is a rough draft of the letter I intend to mail this week:
Dear Attorney General Edmund G. Brown Jr.,
On January 10, 2009, I attended a book signing and lecture by famed prosecutor Vincent Bugliosi at the North Hollywood Public Library. There to promote his most recent book, The Prosecution of George W. Bush for Murder, Bugliosi spelled out the reasons why and the methods how George W. Bush, Dick Cheney and Condoleeza Rice should be prosecuted for murder regarding the deaths of over 4,000 American troops in Iraq. Such a prosecution could be undertaken by the Attorney General of the United States, any of the 50 State Attorney Generals, or any of the 2,700 District Attorneys in the United States.
During his talk with a gathering of about 100 people, Bugliosi stated that he had spoken over the phone with you personally regarding his desire that you exercise the power you hold as Attorney General of the state of California to initiate such a prosecution. He mentioned that you asked him why he felt the charge of murder would be applicable in regard to the war in Iraq. Bugliosi said that he proceeded to explain the details of why such a serious charge is warranted against Bush, Cheney and Rice. While he indicated that you listened to everything he had to say, to this date you have not filed charges.
I would like to take this opportunity to urge you to take the initiative to file the charge of murder against Bush, Cheney and Rice. Remember they are now private citizens, there is no reason to wait for Congress to investigate and hold impeachment hearings. You have the power and since their deliberate fabrications to provoke an invasion of Iraq has resulted in the deaths of over 300 Californians, more than any other state, you have the moral obligation to lead the way and initiate the prosecution of these former officials for the crime of murder. I hope you still have your copy of Vincent Bugliosi's The Prosecution of George W. Bush for Murder. While I encourage you to carefully read the book in its entirety, I specifically would like to single out the White Paper, the unclassified version of the NIE report issued by the CIA to Congress and the American public on October 4, 2002, as smoking gun proof that Bush, Cheney and Rice lied about the threat Saddam Hussein posed to this country, and thus are legally accountable for the murder of the 4,000+ American troops sent to die for their lies. Even if you just read pages 110-116 of The Prosecution of George W. Bush for Murder, you will understand how the White Paper omitted information and even inserted words not written in the original NIE report. Rather than summarize the NIE report truthfully, the White Paper deliberately distorted its conclusion that Saddam Hussein did not pose an imminent threat. Bush, Cheney and Rice are fully responsible for these distortions.
Please stay in touch with Vincent Bugliosi and work with him to manage an effective prosecution against Bush, Cheney and Rice for the crime of murder. While the mainstream media chatter might try to paint such a prosecution as vengeance, know that you serve the cause of justice. There can be no greater damage, no greater miscarriage of justice than to let the crime of murder go unpunished, especially when the conspiracy is orchestrated at the highest levels of our government. To do so would be to acquiesce, to affirm through silence that someone can be above the law. Please stand up against this injustice.
Sincerely,
Robert Paulsen
For anyone else on DU living in California who would like to write a similar letter, here is the mailing address:
Attorney General's Office
California Department of Justice
Attn: Public Inquiry Unit
P.O. Box 944255
Sacramento, CA 94244-2550
Pending official confirmation, I also have written a letter to send to United States Attorney General Eric Holder. I shall not be sending that letter now, the current Acting Attorney General is Mark Filip. But upon confirmation, here is a rough draft of my letter that I will mail to the new Attorney General:
Dear Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr.,
Congratulations on your recent confirmation. As the chief law enforcement officer of the Federal Government, I believe that you must hold true to the philosophical adage, "No Man is Above the Law". That includes the entire Executive Branch and everyone who has served under their command. Now that the Bush administration is no longer in office, the necessity of a lengthy investigation to determine whether anyone serving in the former administration committed a crime or misdemeanor that might initiate impeachment proceedings no longer exists. The necessity no longer exists because all former members of the Bush administration are now private citizens. A thorough criminal investigation to determine all the facts regarding criminal acts by former Bush administration members should be undertaken not for purposes of impeachment or censure in the Legislative Branch, but for indictment and prosecution in a court of law. In this pursuit of justice, I recommend that you arrest George W. Bush, Dick Cheney and Condoleeza Rice on the charge of murder.
Murder? Perhaps you find the severity of the charge too shocking to consider. Is this the radical charge of vengeance from an ultra-liberal, what Bush himself refers to as "the angry Left"? Hardly. It represents the highly considered and esteemed legal opinion of famed prosecutor Vincent Bugliosi. Always careful in his approach and moderate in his outlook, Bugliosi has used the same legal acumen that enabled him to successfully prosecute 105 out of 106 felony jury trials to write a book The Prosecution of George W. Bush for Murder. This book details how, by deliberately lying to Congress and the American public, George W. Bush, Dick Cheney and Condoleeza Rice are in fact guilty of the murder of over 4,000 American troops for which they can be held legally accountable, as well as the murder of anywhere from 100,000 to over 1 million Iraqi citizens, for which they may never face accountability in a court of law.
While Bugliosi does not discount the possibility that with a thorough criminal investigation and subsequent trial, additional charges of murder could be filed against other administration members such as George Tenet or Donald Rumsfeld, there already is enough existing evidence to arrest Bush, Cheney and Rice on the charge of murder. While I encourage you to carefully read the book in its entirety, I specifically would like to single out the White Paper, the unclassified version of the NIE report issued by the CIA to Congress and the American public on October 4, 2002, as smoking gun proof that Bush, Cheney and Rice lied about the threat Saddam Hussein posed to this country, and thus are legally accountable for the murder of the 4,000+ American troops sent to die for their lies. Even if you just read pages 110-116 of The Prosecution of George W. Bush for Murder, you will understand how the White Paper omitted information and even inserted words not written in the original NIE report. Rather than summarize the NIE report truthfully, the White Paper deliberately distorted its conclusion that Saddam Hussein did not pose an imminent threat. Bush, Cheney and Rice are fully responsible for these distortions.
Please read The Prosecution of George W. Bush for Murder, contact Vincent Bugliosi and initiate an effective prosecution against Bush, Cheney and Rice for the crime of murder. While the mainstream media chatter might try to paint such a prosecution as vengeance, know that you serve the cause of justice. There can be no greater damage, no greater miscarriage of justice than to let the crime of murder go unpunished, especially when the conspiracy is orchestrated at the highest levels of our government. To do so would be to acquiesce, to affirm through silence that someone can be above the law. Please stand up against this injustice.
Sincerely,
Robert Paulsen
Here is the mailing address:
U.S. Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530-0001
If you have any suggestions for amending these letters, I welcome your advice. But I encourage everyone here who believes that prosecuting Bush, Cheney and Rice for murder serves the pursuit of justice to write your own letters. Let those who represent justice in this country know where you stand!
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x4880790
Edited to add: Please check out http://www.prosecutegeorgebush.com/index.htm and find out how you can help make this possibility a reality.
I've written earlier about my experience meeting Vincent Bugliosi http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x4816435 and his reasons for why and methods for how to prosecute Bush, Cheney and Rice for murder in regard to the 4,000+ American troops killed in Iraq. I reference this in my letter to Jerry Brown, the Attorney General of my current state of residence, California. This is a rough draft of the letter I intend to mail this week:
Dear Attorney General Edmund G. Brown Jr.,
On January 10, 2009, I attended a book signing and lecture by famed prosecutor Vincent Bugliosi at the North Hollywood Public Library. There to promote his most recent book, The Prosecution of George W. Bush for Murder, Bugliosi spelled out the reasons why and the methods how George W. Bush, Dick Cheney and Condoleeza Rice should be prosecuted for murder regarding the deaths of over 4,000 American troops in Iraq. Such a prosecution could be undertaken by the Attorney General of the United States, any of the 50 State Attorney Generals, or any of the 2,700 District Attorneys in the United States.
During his talk with a gathering of about 100 people, Bugliosi stated that he had spoken over the phone with you personally regarding his desire that you exercise the power you hold as Attorney General of the state of California to initiate such a prosecution. He mentioned that you asked him why he felt the charge of murder would be applicable in regard to the war in Iraq. Bugliosi said that he proceeded to explain the details of why such a serious charge is warranted against Bush, Cheney and Rice. While he indicated that you listened to everything he had to say, to this date you have not filed charges.
I would like to take this opportunity to urge you to take the initiative to file the charge of murder against Bush, Cheney and Rice. Remember they are now private citizens, there is no reason to wait for Congress to investigate and hold impeachment hearings. You have the power and since their deliberate fabrications to provoke an invasion of Iraq has resulted in the deaths of over 300 Californians, more than any other state, you have the moral obligation to lead the way and initiate the prosecution of these former officials for the crime of murder. I hope you still have your copy of Vincent Bugliosi's The Prosecution of George W. Bush for Murder. While I encourage you to carefully read the book in its entirety, I specifically would like to single out the White Paper, the unclassified version of the NIE report issued by the CIA to Congress and the American public on October 4, 2002, as smoking gun proof that Bush, Cheney and Rice lied about the threat Saddam Hussein posed to this country, and thus are legally accountable for the murder of the 4,000+ American troops sent to die for their lies. Even if you just read pages 110-116 of The Prosecution of George W. Bush for Murder, you will understand how the White Paper omitted information and even inserted words not written in the original NIE report. Rather than summarize the NIE report truthfully, the White Paper deliberately distorted its conclusion that Saddam Hussein did not pose an imminent threat. Bush, Cheney and Rice are fully responsible for these distortions.
Please stay in touch with Vincent Bugliosi and work with him to manage an effective prosecution against Bush, Cheney and Rice for the crime of murder. While the mainstream media chatter might try to paint such a prosecution as vengeance, know that you serve the cause of justice. There can be no greater damage, no greater miscarriage of justice than to let the crime of murder go unpunished, especially when the conspiracy is orchestrated at the highest levels of our government. To do so would be to acquiesce, to affirm through silence that someone can be above the law. Please stand up against this injustice.
Sincerely,
Robert Paulsen
For anyone else on DU living in California who would like to write a similar letter, here is the mailing address:
Attorney General's Office
California Department of Justice
Attn: Public Inquiry Unit
P.O. Box 944255
Sacramento, CA 94244-2550
Pending official confirmation, I also have written a letter to send to United States Attorney General Eric Holder. I shall not be sending that letter now, the current Acting Attorney General is Mark Filip. But upon confirmation, here is a rough draft of my letter that I will mail to the new Attorney General:
Dear Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr.,
Congratulations on your recent confirmation. As the chief law enforcement officer of the Federal Government, I believe that you must hold true to the philosophical adage, "No Man is Above the Law". That includes the entire Executive Branch and everyone who has served under their command. Now that the Bush administration is no longer in office, the necessity of a lengthy investigation to determine whether anyone serving in the former administration committed a crime or misdemeanor that might initiate impeachment proceedings no longer exists. The necessity no longer exists because all former members of the Bush administration are now private citizens. A thorough criminal investigation to determine all the facts regarding criminal acts by former Bush administration members should be undertaken not for purposes of impeachment or censure in the Legislative Branch, but for indictment and prosecution in a court of law. In this pursuit of justice, I recommend that you arrest George W. Bush, Dick Cheney and Condoleeza Rice on the charge of murder.
Murder? Perhaps you find the severity of the charge too shocking to consider. Is this the radical charge of vengeance from an ultra-liberal, what Bush himself refers to as "the angry Left"? Hardly. It represents the highly considered and esteemed legal opinion of famed prosecutor Vincent Bugliosi. Always careful in his approach and moderate in his outlook, Bugliosi has used the same legal acumen that enabled him to successfully prosecute 105 out of 106 felony jury trials to write a book The Prosecution of George W. Bush for Murder. This book details how, by deliberately lying to Congress and the American public, George W. Bush, Dick Cheney and Condoleeza Rice are in fact guilty of the murder of over 4,000 American troops for which they can be held legally accountable, as well as the murder of anywhere from 100,000 to over 1 million Iraqi citizens, for which they may never face accountability in a court of law.
While Bugliosi does not discount the possibility that with a thorough criminal investigation and subsequent trial, additional charges of murder could be filed against other administration members such as George Tenet or Donald Rumsfeld, there already is enough existing evidence to arrest Bush, Cheney and Rice on the charge of murder. While I encourage you to carefully read the book in its entirety, I specifically would like to single out the White Paper, the unclassified version of the NIE report issued by the CIA to Congress and the American public on October 4, 2002, as smoking gun proof that Bush, Cheney and Rice lied about the threat Saddam Hussein posed to this country, and thus are legally accountable for the murder of the 4,000+ American troops sent to die for their lies. Even if you just read pages 110-116 of The Prosecution of George W. Bush for Murder, you will understand how the White Paper omitted information and even inserted words not written in the original NIE report. Rather than summarize the NIE report truthfully, the White Paper deliberately distorted its conclusion that Saddam Hussein did not pose an imminent threat. Bush, Cheney and Rice are fully responsible for these distortions.
Please read The Prosecution of George W. Bush for Murder, contact Vincent Bugliosi and initiate an effective prosecution against Bush, Cheney and Rice for the crime of murder. While the mainstream media chatter might try to paint such a prosecution as vengeance, know that you serve the cause of justice. There can be no greater damage, no greater miscarriage of justice than to let the crime of murder go unpunished, especially when the conspiracy is orchestrated at the highest levels of our government. To do so would be to acquiesce, to affirm through silence that someone can be above the law. Please stand up against this injustice.
Sincerely,
Robert Paulsen
Here is the mailing address:
U.S. Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530-0001
If you have any suggestions for amending these letters, I welcome your advice. But I encourage everyone here who believes that prosecuting Bush, Cheney and Rice for murder serves the pursuit of justice to write your own letters. Let those who represent justice in this country know where you stand!
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x4880790
Edited to add: Please check out http://www.prosecutegeorgebush.com/index.htm and find out how you can help make this possibility a reality.
Monday, January 12, 2009
An afternoon with Vincent "Keep Fighting" Bugliosi.
This past Saturday, January 10, I went to see Vincent Bugliosi at the North Hollywood Library. Arriving 10 minutes before the event, it was great to see him already there, signing autographs and chatting with people in line. His scheduled talk at 2pm would deal with the subject of his latest book, The Prosecution of George W. Bush For Murder, but he had no problem answering the questions of conspiracy theorists doubting his conclusions that Oswald acted alone. While I may disagree with Bugliosi on this subject, I disagree with a much a higher degree of respect than I would for Gerald Posner or any other kneejerk Warren apologist who deals with conspiracy theories dismissively as opposed to sourced point by point research as others have told me Bugliosi did in Reclaiming History.
There were probably around 100 people gathered for his speech. He spent about 45 minutes speaking about how to prosecute George W. Bush for murder, then spent about an hour and 15 minutes taking questions from the audience. It was definitely a lively, engaged crowd in agreement with his desire to put the Little Shrub behind bars. Not that he has any illusions that the road ahead will be easy. He pointed frequently during his talk to a newspaper clipping of the photo-op with President-Elect Obama with all the living ex-Presidents and Dubya. While Bugliosi has high hopes for Obama and admitted voting for him in November, he doesn't care for his talk of unity in the wake of eight years of criminal behavior if that unity means justice is denied. All of his efforts right now are focused on getting someone in power to file murder charges against Bush, Cheney and Rice. That someone would be incoming Attorney General Eric Holder, any of the 50 State Attorney Generals or any State District Attorney. He doesn't discount the possibility that in the course of trial deliberations, additional murder charges could end up being filed against Rumsfeld, Tenet or others that conspired to lie us into a war that led to the deaths of more than 4,000 Americans. But in the initial stages Bugliosi believes that in regard to Bush, Cheney and Rice there is more than enough evidence to charge them with murder and secure an indictment on the charge. What he is less certain of is whether the case would be allowed to go to trial after indictment. His assumption is that upon indictment, the case would immediately be challenged for it's precedent-setting, and the decision of whether to proceed to trial would be decided by the Supreme Court. Bugliosi stated that there are two Supreme Court justices, Scalia and Thomas, who are "a disgrace to their profession". They have already made clear how they would rule on such a case, he's not so sure how open the remaining seven would be.
In the course of detailing how Bush could be prosecuted for murder, Bugliosi cited a lot of evidence that I'm sure most of us are already familiar with regarding why he should be charged with murder. But there was one piece of evidence that he cited as smoking gun proof that the decision to go to war was not a mistake rooted in faulty intelligence, it was a deliberate lie by Bush to promote a war of aggression. That piece of evidence has been referred to as the White Paper. On October 1, 2002, Bush received a classified NIE report from the CIA which confirmed that Saddam Hussein was not an imminent threat to the United States. Yet on the evening of October 7, even after being briefed by CIA director George Tenet that morning, Bush lied by stating the exact opposite to the American people. Bush later lied to Congress by preparing a declassified version of the NIE, which has become known as the White Paper. The White Paper edited words out of the original NIE that changed the meaning completely making what had not appeared to be an imminent threat seem imminent. There were also instances where words were added to the White Paper that weren't in the original NIE, producing the same adverse effect.
When it came time to ask questions, there was one question in particular that, after extremely extensive research five years ago on the Plame Threads, both H2O Man http://h2oman.blogspot.com/and I were curious to get Bugliosi's perspective on. I asked him what he thought of Patrick Fitzgerald's investigation of the outing of CIA agent Valerie Plame and if he felt Fitzgerald could have gone farther in prosecuting Cheney. Bugliosi said that he was "very disappointed" in the outcome of that investigation. He definitely felt that Fitzgerald could have and should have gone higher up the food chain.
After concluding the Q&A session, Bugliosi received applause from everyone present, then signed autographs for everyone who brought one of his books. (Or bought, the library was selling a number of his books there) As he was signing my copy of The Prosecution of George W. Bush For Murder, I told him about my American Judas blog and that I posted at Democratic Underground as robertpausen and asked what he thought the number one thing we could do to try to ensure that Bush, Cheney and Rice would be prosecuted for murder. "Keep fighting", he said emphatically. Write to your State Attorney General, write to a US District Attorney, write to Eric Holder. Stand up to the bullies. Bugliosi reiterated an earlier point he made in response to all the questions about what really stands in the way of justice. In spite of the fact that he is an extremely respected former prosecutor with a number of books that reached #1 on the NY Times Best Seller List, the reaction of the mainstream media in regard to The Prosecution of George W. Bush For Murder has been a virtual blackout. Whereas in the past, he would have no problem upon release of a book getting instant appearances on network morning talk shows and evening cable shows to promote the sale of a new book, his agent was turned down by virtually everyone. Did you see him promote The Prosecution of George W. Bush For Murder on The Daily Show? Rachel Maddow? Even Countdown with Keith Olbermann did not invite Bugliosi on to promote this important book. Some alternative radio channels, I believe he mentioned Democracy Now, did have him on their show. But MSM? Silence.
Why was everyone so afraid? What is the source of this fear? Bugliosi lays the blame squarely on the right wing. They have taken over the Republican Party. They used to be on the fringe, he mentioned that Eisenhower disdained them (referring to McCarthy no doubt) but now they are in charge of the GOP. The problem is that Bugliosi feels the Democratic Party still hasn't found the appropriate response to such destructive behavior to put them back on the fringe for good. He brought up the question of patriotism as an example. Whenever a right winger in some way questions the patriotism of a Democrat, the typical response is, "No, I'm not. I'm a patriot because..." Bugliosi believes the more appropriate response is, "No, you are not. You're not a patriot because..." Detail exactly how their idiocy destroys the country they claim to love. Whether they have the intelligence to truly comprehend is not the point, others who do have the intelligence will comprehend and the right wing will be on the fringe again.
Before leaving the library, I shook Bugliosi's hand and told him to keep fighting the good fight. He looked me square in the eye and said, "You keep fighting too!" I walked outside beaming with pride. When will I start writing letters demanding George W. Bush be charged with murder? As soon as that helicopter carries him away from the White House eight days from now.
There were probably around 100 people gathered for his speech. He spent about 45 minutes speaking about how to prosecute George W. Bush for murder, then spent about an hour and 15 minutes taking questions from the audience. It was definitely a lively, engaged crowd in agreement with his desire to put the Little Shrub behind bars. Not that he has any illusions that the road ahead will be easy. He pointed frequently during his talk to a newspaper clipping of the photo-op with President-Elect Obama with all the living ex-Presidents and Dubya. While Bugliosi has high hopes for Obama and admitted voting for him in November, he doesn't care for his talk of unity in the wake of eight years of criminal behavior if that unity means justice is denied. All of his efforts right now are focused on getting someone in power to file murder charges against Bush, Cheney and Rice. That someone would be incoming Attorney General Eric Holder, any of the 50 State Attorney Generals or any State District Attorney. He doesn't discount the possibility that in the course of trial deliberations, additional murder charges could end up being filed against Rumsfeld, Tenet or others that conspired to lie us into a war that led to the deaths of more than 4,000 Americans. But in the initial stages Bugliosi believes that in regard to Bush, Cheney and Rice there is more than enough evidence to charge them with murder and secure an indictment on the charge. What he is less certain of is whether the case would be allowed to go to trial after indictment. His assumption is that upon indictment, the case would immediately be challenged for it's precedent-setting, and the decision of whether to proceed to trial would be decided by the Supreme Court. Bugliosi stated that there are two Supreme Court justices, Scalia and Thomas, who are "a disgrace to their profession". They have already made clear how they would rule on such a case, he's not so sure how open the remaining seven would be.
In the course of detailing how Bush could be prosecuted for murder, Bugliosi cited a lot of evidence that I'm sure most of us are already familiar with regarding why he should be charged with murder. But there was one piece of evidence that he cited as smoking gun proof that the decision to go to war was not a mistake rooted in faulty intelligence, it was a deliberate lie by Bush to promote a war of aggression. That piece of evidence has been referred to as the White Paper. On October 1, 2002, Bush received a classified NIE report from the CIA which confirmed that Saddam Hussein was not an imminent threat to the United States. Yet on the evening of October 7, even after being briefed by CIA director George Tenet that morning, Bush lied by stating the exact opposite to the American people. Bush later lied to Congress by preparing a declassified version of the NIE, which has become known as the White Paper. The White Paper edited words out of the original NIE that changed the meaning completely making what had not appeared to be an imminent threat seem imminent. There were also instances where words were added to the White Paper that weren't in the original NIE, producing the same adverse effect.
When it came time to ask questions, there was one question in particular that, after extremely extensive research five years ago on the Plame Threads, both H2O Man http://h2oman.blogspot.com/and I were curious to get Bugliosi's perspective on. I asked him what he thought of Patrick Fitzgerald's investigation of the outing of CIA agent Valerie Plame and if he felt Fitzgerald could have gone farther in prosecuting Cheney. Bugliosi said that he was "very disappointed" in the outcome of that investigation. He definitely felt that Fitzgerald could have and should have gone higher up the food chain.
After concluding the Q&A session, Bugliosi received applause from everyone present, then signed autographs for everyone who brought one of his books. (Or bought, the library was selling a number of his books there) As he was signing my copy of The Prosecution of George W. Bush For Murder, I told him about my American Judas blog and that I posted at Democratic Underground as robertpausen and asked what he thought the number one thing we could do to try to ensure that Bush, Cheney and Rice would be prosecuted for murder. "Keep fighting", he said emphatically. Write to your State Attorney General, write to a US District Attorney, write to Eric Holder. Stand up to the bullies. Bugliosi reiterated an earlier point he made in response to all the questions about what really stands in the way of justice. In spite of the fact that he is an extremely respected former prosecutor with a number of books that reached #1 on the NY Times Best Seller List, the reaction of the mainstream media in regard to The Prosecution of George W. Bush For Murder has been a virtual blackout. Whereas in the past, he would have no problem upon release of a book getting instant appearances on network morning talk shows and evening cable shows to promote the sale of a new book, his agent was turned down by virtually everyone. Did you see him promote The Prosecution of George W. Bush For Murder on The Daily Show? Rachel Maddow? Even Countdown with Keith Olbermann did not invite Bugliosi on to promote this important book. Some alternative radio channels, I believe he mentioned Democracy Now, did have him on their show. But MSM? Silence.
Why was everyone so afraid? What is the source of this fear? Bugliosi lays the blame squarely on the right wing. They have taken over the Republican Party. They used to be on the fringe, he mentioned that Eisenhower disdained them (referring to McCarthy no doubt) but now they are in charge of the GOP. The problem is that Bugliosi feels the Democratic Party still hasn't found the appropriate response to such destructive behavior to put them back on the fringe for good. He brought up the question of patriotism as an example. Whenever a right winger in some way questions the patriotism of a Democrat, the typical response is, "No, I'm not. I'm a patriot because..." Bugliosi believes the more appropriate response is, "No, you are not. You're not a patriot because..." Detail exactly how their idiocy destroys the country they claim to love. Whether they have the intelligence to truly comprehend is not the point, others who do have the intelligence will comprehend and the right wing will be on the fringe again.
Before leaving the library, I shook Bugliosi's hand and told him to keep fighting the good fight. He looked me square in the eye and said, "You keep fighting too!" I walked outside beaming with pride. When will I start writing letters demanding George W. Bush be charged with murder? As soon as that helicopter carries him away from the White House eight days from now.
Tuesday, December 23, 2008
Exclusive: Cheney’s admissions to the CIA leak prosecutor and FBI
Exclusive: Cheney’s admissions to the CIA leak prosecutor and FBI
By murrayw Tuesday December 23, 2008 11:14am
Vice President Dick Cheney, according to a still-highly confidential FBI report, admitted to federal investigators that he rewrote talking points for the press in July 2003 that made it much more likely that the role of then-covert CIA-officer Valerie Plame in sending her husband on a CIA-sponsored mission to Africa would come to light.
Cheney conceded during his interview with federal investigators that in drawing attention to Plame’s role in arranging her husband’s Africa trip reporters might also unmask her role as CIA officer.
Cheney denied to the investigators, however, that he had done anything on purpose that would lead to the outing of Plame as a covert CIA operative. But the investigators came away from their interview with Cheney believing that he had not given them a plausible explanation as to how he could focus attention on Plame’s role in arranging her husband’s trip without her CIA status also possibly publicly exposed. At the time, Plame was a covert CIA officer involved in preventing Iran from obtaining weapons of mass destruction, and Cheney’s office played a central role in exposing her and nullifying much of her work.
Cheney revised the talking points on July 8, 2003– the very same day that his then-chief of staff, I. Lewis (Scooter) Libby, met with New York Times reporter Judith Miller and told Miller that Plame was a CIA officer and that Plame had also played a central role in sending her husband on his CIA sponsored trip to the African nation of Niger.
http://murraywaas.crooksandliars.com/2008/12/23/exclusive-cheneys-admissions-to-the-cia-leak-prosecutor-and-fbi/
Sometime in the next 27 days, this traitor will be pardoned. You can take that to the bank.
By murrayw Tuesday December 23, 2008 11:14am
Vice President Dick Cheney, according to a still-highly confidential FBI report, admitted to federal investigators that he rewrote talking points for the press in July 2003 that made it much more likely that the role of then-covert CIA-officer Valerie Plame in sending her husband on a CIA-sponsored mission to Africa would come to light.
Cheney conceded during his interview with federal investigators that in drawing attention to Plame’s role in arranging her husband’s Africa trip reporters might also unmask her role as CIA officer.
Cheney denied to the investigators, however, that he had done anything on purpose that would lead to the outing of Plame as a covert CIA operative. But the investigators came away from their interview with Cheney believing that he had not given them a plausible explanation as to how he could focus attention on Plame’s role in arranging her husband’s trip without her CIA status also possibly publicly exposed. At the time, Plame was a covert CIA officer involved in preventing Iran from obtaining weapons of mass destruction, and Cheney’s office played a central role in exposing her and nullifying much of her work.
Cheney revised the talking points on July 8, 2003– the very same day that his then-chief of staff, I. Lewis (Scooter) Libby, met with New York Times reporter Judith Miller and told Miller that Plame was a CIA officer and that Plame had also played a central role in sending her husband on his CIA sponsored trip to the African nation of Niger.
http://murraywaas.crooksandliars.com/2008/12/23/exclusive-cheneys-admissions-to-the-cia-leak-prosecutor-and-fbi/
Sometime in the next 27 days, this traitor will be pardoned. You can take that to the bank.
Friday, December 19, 2008
Career Army Specialist sues Rumsfeld, Cheney, saying no evacuation order given on 9/11
Career Army Specialist sues Rumsfeld, Cheney, saying no evacuation order given on 9/11
Stephen C. Webster
Published: Wednesday December 17, 2008
A career Army specialist who survived the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, claims that no evacuation was ordered inside the Pentagon, despite flight controllers calling in warnings of approaching hijacked aircraft nearly 20 minutes before the building was struck.
According to a time-line of the attacks, the Federal Aviation Administration notified NORAD that American Airlines Flight 77 had been hijacked at 9:24 a.m. The Pentagon was not struck until 9:43 a.m.
On behalf of Spc. April Gallop, who served in the Network Infrastructure Services Agency as an administrative specialist, California attorney William Veale has filed a civil suit against former Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, Vice President Dick Cheney and former US Air Force General Richard Myers, who was acting chairman of the joint chiefs on 9/11. It alleges they engaged in conspiracy to facilitate the terrorist attacks and purposefully failed to warn those inside the Pentagon, contributing to injuries she and her two-month-old son incurred.
"The ex-G.I. plaintiff alleges she has been denied government support since then, because she raised 'painful questions' about the inexplicable failure of military defenses at the Pentagon that day, and especially the failure of officials to warn and evacuate the occupants of the building when they knew the attack was imminent" said Veale in a media advisory.
more...
http://rawstory.com/news/2008/911_survivor_blasts_Rumsfeld_Cheney_No_1217.html
Fantastic! I wonder who the John Does could be. Ed Eberhart? Marc Grossman?
Legal minds respond to landmark 9/11 civil suit against Rumsfeld, CheneyStephen C. Webster
Published: Thursday December 18, 2008
On behalf of Spc. April Gallop, who served in the Network Infrastructure Services Agency as an administrative specialist, California attorney William Veale on Monday filed a civil suit against former Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, Vice President Dick Cheney and former US Air Force General Richard Myers, who was acting chairman of the joint chiefs on 9/11.
The suit alleges they engaged in conspiracy to facilitate the terrorist attacks and purposefully failed to warn those inside the Pentagon, contributing to injuries she and her two-month-old son incurred. Additional, unnamed persons with foreknowledge of the attacks are also named.
snip
According to the Sterns & Walker Web site, the firm represents survivors of aircraft and other major accidents and catastrophes. The firm "has been involved in almost every major air carrier accident case, and hundreds of other cases involving claims against major defendants," including the United States of America.
"We have already had a precursor of this, which unfortunately for the plaintiff, spells out what will happen to her case. Ex-CIA agent, Valerie Plame, whose cover was deliberately blown by Cheney and probably others at the White House, in retaliation for the unkind remarks her husband made after his investigation concerning the Bush claim that Saddam Hussein had attempted to purchase raw material for a weapon of mass destruction from a country in Africa, filed a damage suit against Cheney and others for destroying her career," said Sterns.
more...
http://rawstory.com/news/2008/Legal_minds_respond_to_landmark_911_1218.html
I fear Sterns is right. But I admire the hell out of Gallop for her efforts.
Stephen C. Webster
Published: Wednesday December 17, 2008
A career Army specialist who survived the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, claims that no evacuation was ordered inside the Pentagon, despite flight controllers calling in warnings of approaching hijacked aircraft nearly 20 minutes before the building was struck.
According to a time-line of the attacks, the Federal Aviation Administration notified NORAD that American Airlines Flight 77 had been hijacked at 9:24 a.m. The Pentagon was not struck until 9:43 a.m.
On behalf of Spc. April Gallop, who served in the Network Infrastructure Services Agency as an administrative specialist, California attorney William Veale has filed a civil suit against former Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, Vice President Dick Cheney and former US Air Force General Richard Myers, who was acting chairman of the joint chiefs on 9/11. It alleges they engaged in conspiracy to facilitate the terrorist attacks and purposefully failed to warn those inside the Pentagon, contributing to injuries she and her two-month-old son incurred.
"The ex-G.I. plaintiff alleges she has been denied government support since then, because she raised 'painful questions' about the inexplicable failure of military defenses at the Pentagon that day, and especially the failure of officials to warn and evacuate the occupants of the building when they knew the attack was imminent" said Veale in a media advisory.
more...
http://rawstory.com/news/2008/911_survivor_blasts_Rumsfeld_Cheney_No_1217.html
Fantastic! I wonder who the John Does could be. Ed Eberhart? Marc Grossman?
Legal minds respond to landmark 9/11 civil suit against Rumsfeld, CheneyStephen C. Webster
Published: Thursday December 18, 2008
On behalf of Spc. April Gallop, who served in the Network Infrastructure Services Agency as an administrative specialist, California attorney William Veale on Monday filed a civil suit against former Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, Vice President Dick Cheney and former US Air Force General Richard Myers, who was acting chairman of the joint chiefs on 9/11.
The suit alleges they engaged in conspiracy to facilitate the terrorist attacks and purposefully failed to warn those inside the Pentagon, contributing to injuries she and her two-month-old son incurred. Additional, unnamed persons with foreknowledge of the attacks are also named.
snip
According to the Sterns & Walker Web site, the firm represents survivors of aircraft and other major accidents and catastrophes. The firm "has been involved in almost every major air carrier accident case, and hundreds of other cases involving claims against major defendants," including the United States of America.
"We have already had a precursor of this, which unfortunately for the plaintiff, spells out what will happen to her case. Ex-CIA agent, Valerie Plame, whose cover was deliberately blown by Cheney and probably others at the White House, in retaliation for the unkind remarks her husband made after his investigation concerning the Bush claim that Saddam Hussein had attempted to purchase raw material for a weapon of mass destruction from a country in Africa, filed a damage suit against Cheney and others for destroying her career," said Sterns.
more...
http://rawstory.com/news/2008/Legal_minds_respond_to_landmark_911_1218.html
I fear Sterns is right. But I admire the hell out of Gallop for her efforts.
Wednesday, December 17, 2008
Confirmed: Cheney's Role in Approving Torture
Confirmed: Cheney's Role in Approving Torture
On Monday of this week, George W. Bush's scowling sidekick and secretive Svengali, Dick Cheney, emerged from his hiding place to speak with ABC News reporter Jonathan Karl. In his interview with the American TV network, Cheney acknowledged his approval of the torture methods the Bush-Cheney gang has employed in its hapless "war on terror."
Notes commentator Matthew Duss in Britain's Guardian: "The notion that the presidency of George [W.] Bush has been a disaster for the U.S. approaches the level of self-evident truth. It has actually become quite difficult to find anyone who isn't a personal friend of the president who will argue otherwise. But...Dick Cheney isn't sorry about any of it." In his ABC News interview he "betrayed no second thoughts - and certainly no remorse - about the policies pursued by the administration that he both served and, according to some, led. Watching Cheney's brusque dismissal of concerns about his methods in the [so-called] war on terror, you'd be forgiven for coming to the mistaken impression that these methods have worked. There is no evidence that they have."
Duss points out that, in the interview, when "pressed" by reporter Karl "on concerns" about the military jail at the U.S. Naval Base at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, "where suspects are held indefinitely as 'illegal combatants,' Cheney claimed that many of them 'have been released back to their home countries.' He then insisted: 'What we have left is the hard core.' But, of course, Cheney has always insisted that those held in Guantánamo were the hard core - the 'worst of the worst,' as former U.S. Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld put it - while ignoring evidence that many were falsely imprisoned there, and assiduously working to quash efforts to ascertain their actual guilt or innocence. Confronted with criticisms of the Bush administration's torture policy, Cheney simply lied, saying: 'We don't do torture. We never have.'" However, later in the ABC News interview, "Cheney bluntly admitted that he had supported the waterboarding of al-Qaeda mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammed. Waterboarding is, of course, torture, devised by torturers as a method of torture, an inconvenient fact...Cheney [had earlier] dealt with by simply declaring waterboarding [to be] 'not torture,' and then finding a lawyer or two willing to go along" with that assertion.
Agence France Presse, also referring to the ABC News interview, reports: "According to Cheney, some 30 detainees who were released from Guantánamo 'ended up back on the battlefield again, and we've encountered them a second time around. But they've either been killed or captured in further conflicts with our forces.'" Of the waterboarding to which Khalid Sheikh Mohammed was subjected, Cheney said: "I was aware of the program, certainly, and involved in helping get the process cleared, as the agency in effect came in and wanted to know what they could and couldn't do....And they talked to me, as well as others, to explain what they wanted to do. And I supported it...." Agence France Presse notes: "ABC asked him if, in hindsight, he thought the tactics went too far. 'I don't,' Cheney said."
more...
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/blogs/sfgate/detail?blogid=15&entry_id=33714
Nothing shadowy about Dick Cheney's shadow government anymore. What's to cover up when there's no accountability? That's how brazen and arrogant Cheney and the rest of the misadministration have become. The operative rationale for any questioning of this criminality is "So what?"
On Monday of this week, George W. Bush's scowling sidekick and secretive Svengali, Dick Cheney, emerged from his hiding place to speak with ABC News reporter Jonathan Karl. In his interview with the American TV network, Cheney acknowledged his approval of the torture methods the Bush-Cheney gang has employed in its hapless "war on terror."
Notes commentator Matthew Duss in Britain's Guardian: "The notion that the presidency of George [W.] Bush has been a disaster for the U.S. approaches the level of self-evident truth. It has actually become quite difficult to find anyone who isn't a personal friend of the president who will argue otherwise. But...Dick Cheney isn't sorry about any of it." In his ABC News interview he "betrayed no second thoughts - and certainly no remorse - about the policies pursued by the administration that he both served and, according to some, led. Watching Cheney's brusque dismissal of concerns about his methods in the [so-called] war on terror, you'd be forgiven for coming to the mistaken impression that these methods have worked. There is no evidence that they have."
Duss points out that, in the interview, when "pressed" by reporter Karl "on concerns" about the military jail at the U.S. Naval Base at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, "where suspects are held indefinitely as 'illegal combatants,' Cheney claimed that many of them 'have been released back to their home countries.' He then insisted: 'What we have left is the hard core.' But, of course, Cheney has always insisted that those held in Guantánamo were the hard core - the 'worst of the worst,' as former U.S. Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld put it - while ignoring evidence that many were falsely imprisoned there, and assiduously working to quash efforts to ascertain their actual guilt or innocence. Confronted with criticisms of the Bush administration's torture policy, Cheney simply lied, saying: 'We don't do torture. We never have.'" However, later in the ABC News interview, "Cheney bluntly admitted that he had supported the waterboarding of al-Qaeda mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammed. Waterboarding is, of course, torture, devised by torturers as a method of torture, an inconvenient fact...Cheney [had earlier] dealt with by simply declaring waterboarding [to be] 'not torture,' and then finding a lawyer or two willing to go along" with that assertion.
Agence France Presse, also referring to the ABC News interview, reports: "According to Cheney, some 30 detainees who were released from Guantánamo 'ended up back on the battlefield again, and we've encountered them a second time around. But they've either been killed or captured in further conflicts with our forces.'" Of the waterboarding to which Khalid Sheikh Mohammed was subjected, Cheney said: "I was aware of the program, certainly, and involved in helping get the process cleared, as the agency in effect came in and wanted to know what they could and couldn't do....And they talked to me, as well as others, to explain what they wanted to do. And I supported it...." Agence France Presse notes: "ABC asked him if, in hindsight, he thought the tactics went too far. 'I don't,' Cheney said."
more...
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/blogs/sfgate/detail?blogid=15&entry_id=33714
Nothing shadowy about Dick Cheney's shadow government anymore. What's to cover up when there's no accountability? That's how brazen and arrogant Cheney and the rest of the misadministration have become. The operative rationale for any questioning of this criminality is "So what?"
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
