SINator Vitter came out swinging yesterday against those of us that want to see our government respect the rule of law and investigate and potentially prosecute those who formulated the Bush Administration's approval of torture against so-called "enemy combatants": (emphasis added)
"Even considering and talking about any possible prosecution of any of these classes of people is absolutely detrimental to our work in this area and will really discourage folks in the intelligence business, or folks who might go into the business on behalf of our country. I think it is turning a political disagreement and debate into criminal prosecutions."
It's absolutely detrimental to consider or talk about prosecuting those who came up with legal fictions to give the Bush Administration a "legal" justification to torture? Those making the case for an investigation and potential prosecutions are taking a political disagreement and making it a crime?
SINator, are you out of your effin mind? You call yourself a Christian? A lawyer?
Second, look at the timeline of the Bush Adminstration's search for a legal justification for torture in this declassified memo from the Senate Intelligence Committee (pdf alert):
March 28, 2002:
Abu Zubaydah is captured.
April, 2002:
In April 2002, attorneys from the CIA's Office of General Counsel began discussions with the Legal Adviser to the National Security Council and OLC concerning the CIA's proposed interrogation plan for Abu Zubaydah and legal restrictions on that interrogation.
May 2002:
According to CIA records, because the CIA believed that Abu Zubaida was withholding imminent threat information during the initial interrogation sessions, attorneys from the CIA's Office of General Counsel met ... to discuss the possible use of alternative interrogation methods that differed from the traditional methods used by the U.S. military and intelligence community. At this meeting, the CIA proposed particular alternative interrogation methods, including waterboarding.
July 17, 2002:
Director of Central Intelligence (DCI) met with the National Security Adviser, who advised that the CIA could proceed with its proposed interrogation of Abu Zubaida. This advice, which authorized CIA to proceed as a policy matter, was subject to a determination of legality by OLC.
July 24, 2002:
OLC orally advised the CIA that the Attorney General had concluded that certain proposed interrogation techniques were lawful and, on July 26, that the use of waterboarding was lawful.
Aug. 1, 2002:
OLC issued three documents analyzing U.S. obligations with respect to the treatment of detainees. Two of these three documents were unclassified: an unclassified opinion interpreting the federal criminal prohibition on torture, and a letter concerning U.S. obligations under the Convention Against Torture. [...]
According to CIA records, after receiving the legal approval of the Department of Justice and approval from the National Security Adviser, the CIA went forward with the interrogation of Abu Zubaydah.
"There were two reasons why these interrogations were so persistent, and why extreme methods were used," the former senior intelligence official said on condition of anonymity because of the issue's sensitivity.
"The main one is that everyone was worried about some kind of follow-up attack (after 9/11). But for most of 2002 and into 2003, Cheney and Rumsfeld, especially, were also demanding proof of the links between al Qaida and Iraq that (former Iraqi exile leader Ahmed) Chalabi and others had told them were there."
Those links, between al Qaida and Saddam Hussein, were never proven, nor ever found, mainly because those links NEVER existed, as the CIA and others (presumably other intelligence agencies around the globe) told Vice President Cheney and Secretary Rumsfeld repeatedly:
"Cheney's and Rumsfeld's people were told repeatedly, by CIA . . . and by others, that there wasn't any reliable intelligence that pointed to operational ties between bin Laden and Saddam, and that no such ties were likely because the two were fundamentally enemies, not allies."
Gee, SINator, now I know why you want to call this a "political disagreement." You want to help cover the ass of the Bush Administration. But there's a problem for you if you're a Christian ... the justification for the Bush Administration's conduct at that point in time is, in a word, evil.
Making matters even worse, we've already prosecuted and sentenced those who tortured at Abu Ghraib, in compliance with the entire system set up by the Bush Administration:
And you want to protect the creators of that system. That's not a political disagreement, SINator. It's aiding and abetting a crime.
Predictably, Senator Landrieu voted with the telecoms on stripping retroactive immunity from the FISA bill. I have no hope that she will vote to sustain a filibuster by any Senator.
Gee, thanks for shredding the 4th Amendment, Senator!
Early Friday afternoon, I called Senator Landrieu's office and spoke to a very nice young woman who answered the phone. I asked her where Senator Landrieu stood on the new FISA bill, upon which the House Democratic Leadership capitulated to the telecommunications industry, and the Bush Administration. That nice young lady told me that the staff was going through the provisions of the legislation, and would be advising the Senator. So I am posting this open letter, which I know will be read by her staff, and hopefully passed on to the Senator herself.
Dear Senator Landrieu:
I write to you today to ask that you vote NO on the latest FISA bill that will be in the Senate at some point this week. Not only am I asking you vote NO, I am asking you to filibuster this shredding of our 4th Amendment.
I understand that the current bill brings back the pre-Bush FISA regulations in quite a few ways, and in many ways is superior to the bill voted down by the House earlier this year. However, if there is a line in the sand to be drawn on this issue ... it is retroactive immunity.
I get that the Bush Administration asked the telecommunication giants to help them shred the 4th Amendment in the name of national security and protecting us from the terrorists. While I don't necessarily agree with that faulty reasoning, as I am of the Ben Franklin school - "They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety" - and as such, believe shredding the 4th Amendment to be a step on the path to fascism.
My grandparents' generation, and your parents' generation, Senator, saved us from worldwide fascism ... and it's long past time that you, along with your fellow Senators heeded their sacrifices in a way more meaningful than passing resolutions honoring them, or building monuments to them. Honor them by standing up against the idea of giving corporations that broke one of our cherished values - freedom from governmental spying without probable cause - retroactive immunity from lawsuits.
AT&T, Verizon, Sprint, Nextel, among others, know they broke the law. And they are scared of losing multi-million dollar judgments in court for their complicity in helping the Bush Administration violate their oaths of office to defend our Constitution. That is why they are seeking retroactive immunity, Senator. They broke the law, and they don't want to be held accountable for it. How un-American of them. How unpatriotic of them.
"I could not believe that the president of the United States, staged by Karl Rove himself, had come down to the city of New Orleans and basically put up a stage prop. It was like you had gone to a studio in California and filmed a movie. They put the props up and the minute we were gone they took them down. All the dump trucks were gone. All the Coast Guard people were gone. It was an empty spot with one little crane. It was the saddest thing I have ever seen in my life. At that moment I knew what was going on and I've been a changed woman ever since. It truly changed my life."
Senator, if the criminal response to Katrina on the part of the Bush Administration truly changed your life ... please, send the President yet another a lesson (that you don't mess with the American people or our Constitution) by filibustering this bill until retroactive immunity is taken out of it. If you can't do that, at the very least, support a filibuster by any other Senator, AND, most importantly, vote against any version of this bill with retroactive immunity in it.
[UPDATE II] Both Cazayoux and Melancon voted for shredding the 4th Amendment. Thanks for that, gentlemen. At least the corrupt Jefferson voted against it. It's now up to the Senate. Hopefully, Senator Obama will use his platform to speak out against this horrendous legislation. Ditto Senator Clinton.
[UPDATE] The bill just passed the House by a vote of 293 to 129. The Democratic Majority, the ones that whine all the time about how the Bush Administration violated the FISA law on the campaign trail, couldn't even stand together on this bill, voting in opposition by a vote of 128-105. I just hope that Congressman Cazayoux, Melancon, and Jefferson voted against it, or they will get an earful from me tomorrow night at the Jefferson Jackson Dinner.
Democratic Majority Leader Steny Hoyer, a corporate Democrat if there was ever one, was negotiating with the GOP to ensure that AT&T and other telecoms receive immunity for spying upon American citizens at the request of the Bush Administration. Hoyer and other Blue Dog Democrats will likely argue that it leaves the issue of telecom immunity to federal courts on a case-by-case basis, subject to these telecom companies having a Get Out of Jail free letter from the Bush Administration saying that what they did was necessary for reasons of national security:
One source said that the court would review whether there was "substantial evidence" that the companies had received assurances from the government that the administration's program was legal.
A Senate Intelligence Committee report on an earlier version of the legislation detailed how the companies had received such assurances from the Justice Department and the White House.
Those telecoms already have the Get Out of Jail Free letter, y'all. This is being pushed through right before the July 4th recess, at a time when most Americans are not paying attention. The bill is actually being debated on the floor RIGHT NOW. To be sure, there are Democratic Congressman in opposition, like Rep. Conyers of Michigan.
My question is this ... where do Congressman Cazayoux, Congressman Jefferson and Congressman Melancon stand? I have no hope that our Republican Members of Congress from Louisiana will vote against this sellout of our Constitution. However, I would hope that our Democratic Representatives, particularly Congressman Cazayoux, having been educated at Georgetown Law, would appreciate the importance of the 4th Amendment, which is what this fight is all about:
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
In short, the Bush Administration assured the telecoms that spying on Americans without a wiretap, without probable cause, was legal, in plain defiance of the U.S. Constitution, Amendment 4.
So, Congressman Cazayoux, Melancon, and Jefferson ... we're watching what you do. The support of Democratic voters in your districts hinges on how you vote on this piece of legislation. If you vote the wrong way, I, for one, will be looking for a better Democrat to primary you ... if not this year, then definitely in 2010. The Netroots has already started talking in the language we all know you understand all so well ... raising money for eventual primary challenges. If you can, donate.
Readers, please thank Congressmen Cazayoux and Melancon for shredding our 4th Amendment rights by calling them at the number below. And thank Congressman Jefferson for doing the right thing.
§9(k) was created to award capital funds to public housing authorities affected by natural disasters. In the last several years, however, Congress has not allocated funds for disaster relief under § 9(k), which effectively bars Gulf Coast public housing authorities from accessing FEMA grant money when there is a pre-existing account at HUD.
Congressman Cazayoux stated:
"As we have seen too often, the biggest obstacle that Gulf Coast residents face is not the will to rebuild; it is red tape from the federal government. My bill provides a common-sense fix to HUD that improves FEMA's ability to directly assist public housing authorities trying to rebuild affordable and quality housing for those who need it. This measure is an important step in the long-term recovery of Louisiana and Mississippi."
Now before all y'all conservatives go crazy about a Democrat bashing the red tape of government ... this fits in quite well with the idea that most Democrats share that government ought to be efficient. It's not so much that it ought to be small, but efficient. For historical examples of this belief within the Democratic Party, I point y'all to then- Senator Harry Truman's "Truman Committee" during World War II, which saved American taxpayers some $15 billion in wasteful spending during the war.
Could you imagine the Bush Administration allowing a subcommittee of Congress to challenge the billing practices of KBR or Halliburton? If you can, I have a bridge in Brooklyn I'd like to sell ... please contact me.
And one more thing ... this is Congressman Cazayoux's first bill in the House, and it deals with helping people in a positive way. We elected another Congressman the same day to fill out the remainder of Governor PBJ's term - Congressman Scalise.
Pray tell, what was Congressman Scalise's first bill about? A resolution to express support for the designation of National D-Day Remembrance Day. That's all fine and dandy, but when you've got folks in your district struggling to rebuild their lives and their homes after Katrina, shouldn't your priority be to help make it easier for them to do so?
