All the way to reno, you’ve dusted the non believers

Janet Reno's reputation isn't entirely her own fault. The Right-wing spin machine, hard at work during the Clinton administration, made her one of its high priority projects.

But this isn't going to help her legacy:

Speaker Series 2009 w/ Alberto Gonzales, Janet Reno & John Ashcroft

Radio City Music Hall

New York, NY
Mon, Apr 20, 2009 08:00 PM

VIP tickets include a formal pre-show reception in the Roxy Suite with each evening's speakers. Cocktails and hors d'oeuvres will be served and each guest will have a photo opportunity with the speakers. Receptions begin at 6:30 each night. Instructions for entry will be sent to purchasers before each individual performance.

Appearing with war-criminal Gonzales and village idiot Ashcroft is just a bad idea, unless she hopes to creat a compare-contrast scenario. But that isn't likely to happen. No one who thinks even the tiniest good aobut Reno would pay $0.01 for a ticket to this event, so she'll likely be booed by the dead-enders who actually still support Gonzales.

Waste of time.

They even watched.

JUAN GONZALEZ: And Alberto Gonzales’s trip to Guantanamo, could you talk about that?

PHILIPPE SANDS: Well, I’ve spoken for the first time, or at least people I’ve spoken with have for the first time now become publicly identified as closely involved. Diane Beaver was the lawyer down at Guantanamo. Mike Dunlavey was her boss. General Hill was the commander of United States SouthCom based at Miami. I’ve spoken to all three of them, and both Diane Beaver and Mike Dunlavey, who have largely been scapegoated by the administration, described to me the visit that Mr. Gonzales made, accompanied by Mr. Addington, who’s Vice President Cheney’s lawyer, and Jim Haynes, who is Rumsfeld’s lawyer.

They came down. They talked about interrogation techniques. They apparently even watched an interrogation or two. I was told that the driving individual was Mr. Addington, who was obviously the man in control. And I was told in particular by Diane Beaver that she was quite fearful of Mr. Haynes, and she also shared with me that Alberto Gonzales was rather quiet.

I've it before and I say it now, these members of Bush's cabal were into torture. It made them feel like they could shock and awe the world with their mighty and powerful ... military and bombs.



Hard to push how mighty and powerful we are when all this war has shown is how craven and cowardly these creeps actually are.



If we can't bring ourselves to do it, let there please be one brave European country who can take our war criminals to the Hague!



Because torture is always immoral.

Even the military knows this:

The former head of interrogations at Guantánamo Bay found that records of an al-Qaida suspect tortured at the prison camp were mysteriously lost by the US military, according to a new book by one of Britain's top human rights lawyers.

Retired general Michael Dunlavey, who supervised Guantánamo for eight months in 2002, tried to locate records on Mohammed al-Qahtani, accused by the US of plotting the 9/11 attacks, but found they had disappeared.

The records on al-Qahtani, who was interrogated for 48 days - "were backed up ... after I left, there was a snafu and all was lost", Dunlavey told Philippe Sands QC, who reports the conversation in his book Torture Team, previewed last week by the Guardian. Snafu stands for Situation Normal: All Fucked Up.

Saudi-born al-Qahtani was sexually taunted, forced to perform dog tricks and given enemas at Guantánamo.

The CIA admitted last year that it destroyed videotapes of al-Qaida suspects being interrogated at a secret "black site" in Thailand. No proof has so far emerged that tapes of interrogations at Guantánamo were destroyed, but Sands' report suggests the US may have also buried politically sensitive proof relating to abuse by interrogators at the prison camp.

Other new evidence has also emerged in the last month that raises questions about destroyed tapes at Guantánamo.

We need to see accountability, responsibility, justice. We need to see impeachment.



crossposted at Rants from the Rookery

I read the news today ... ohhhh, boy.

Artist's conception of Gonzo & attorney
Gonzales Lawyers Up with Sideshow George Terwilliger.
***********
Rice Says Iran 'Lying' About Nukes
[...]
"There is an Iranian history of obfuscation and, indeed, lying to the IAEA," she said, referring to the International Atomic Energy Agency.

Golly, that would strike terror into my heart ... except for the fact that the IAEA has credibility and Rice has lied about this exact issue before.

***********
Six-Figure Bonuses Retain US Commandos

The Pentagon has paid more than $100 million in bonuses to veteran Green Berets and Navy SEALs, reversing the flow of top commandos to the corporate world where security companies such as Blackwater USA are offering big salaries.
[...]
1,200 of the military's most specialized personnel near or already eligible for retirement have opted for payments of up to $150,000 in return for staying in uniform several more years.

Wow, how bad is it when only 1,200 think $150,000 is worth re-upping!?

************
U.S. says 15 civilians, including 9 children, killed in raid in Iraq

[...]
The statement says ground forces secured the area and determined "15 terrorists, six women and nine children were killed."

Is it just me or does anyone else think killing 15 innocent women and children for 15 alleged terrorists is too high a price to pay?

***************
ACLU Tries to Prevent Deportee Druggings

LOS ANGELES - The American Civil Liberties Union filed a motion to stop immigration authorities forcibly drugging deportees as they are put on commercial flights back to their home countries.

The motion, filed Tuesday in federal court, comes after an immigration official testified in the Senate last month that 50 immigrants over a seven-month period were forced to take psychotropic drugs. Many of them had no psychiatric diagnosis.

I guess the War on Brown People trumps the War on Drugs.

***************
Jimmy Carter: US Tortures Prisoners

WASHINGTON - The U.S. tortures prisoners in violation of international law, former President Jimmy Carter said Wednesday, adding that President Bush makes up his own definition of torture.

“Our country for the first time in my life time has abandoned the basic principle of human rights,” Carter said on CNN. “We’ve said that the Geneva Conventions do not apply to those people in Abu Ghraib prison and Guantanamo, and we’ve said we can torture prisoners and deprive them of an accusation of a crime.”

Bush, responding to an Oct. 4 report by The New York Times on secret Justice Department memorandums supporting the use of “harsh interrogation techniques,” defended the techniques Friday by proclaiming: “This government does not torture people.”

Carter said the interrogation methods cited by the Times, including “head-slapping, simulated drowning and frigid temperatures,” constitute torture “if you use the international norms of torture as has always been honored - certainly in the last 60 years since the Universal Declaration of Human Rights was promulgated.

“But you can make your own definition of human rights and say we don’t violate them, and you can make your own definition of torture and say we don’t violate them,” Carter said.

Actually Mr. President, it's simpler than that. Whenever Bush says something you can bet the opposite is true.

Cross posted at VidiotSpeak

Judge, Jury and Executioner ... or ... Son, we're gonna give you a fair trial ... and then we'll hang you.

Gonzales to Get Power In Death Penalty Cases
Rules Would Expand Fast-Track Authority

Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales, under political siege for his handling of the U.S. attorney firings and other issues, is to get expanded powers to hasten death penalty cases under regulations being developed by the Justice Department.
[...]
Such powers were previously held by federal judges, but a provision of the USA Patriot Act reauthorization bill approved by Congress last year hands the authority to the attorney general.
[...]
Some Democratic lawmakers have questioned Gonzales's judgment about the death penalty, including his refusal to hear the concerns of a federal prosecutor in Arizona, Paul K. Charlton, who argued against pursuing a death sentence in a case in which no body had been recovered.

Charlton and several other U.S. attorneys were fired last year in part because of clashes with Gonzales and his aides over death penalty issues, according to documents and testimony.

Why, why, why would a prosecutor EVER be given the right to 'fast track' killing someone? The system of justice in this country is based on an adversarial process. DAs try to convict, defense attorneys try to acquit/mitigate and judges and jurys decide.

Not to mention that when Gonzo previously had the job of clemency petitions for then Governor Bush he constantly left out exculpatory evidence.

And with Gonzos' help Bush executed more people in America than any other natural born killer. I guess that's why they call them 'texacutions.'

And Bush's callousness involving killing folks is documented, just ask Karla Faye Tucker ... oh, that's right you can't, she's dead.

And it's not like a 'fast track' doesn't already exist:

Courts are restricted from hearing new evidence due to a 1996 federal law, intended to limit the number of appeals in death penalty cases and thereby expedite executions.

So enough of my rant, let's look at some numbers:

two out of three sentences were overturned on appeal, mostly because of serious errors by incompetent defense lawyers or overzealous police officers and prosecutors who withheld evidence.
[...]
75 percent of the people whose death sentences were set aside were later given lesser sentences after retrials, in plea bargains or by order of a judge. An additional 7 percent were found not guilty on retrial.

Cross posted at VidiotSpeak

We are on a witch hunt, Hunt her down, for will she sink or float? We want independence from her spell

Cheney Blasts "Witch Hunt" on Capitol Hill

(CNN)–Vice President Dick Cheney told CNN’s Larry King that he stands by and supports embattled Attorney General Alberto Gonzales.

“Al’s a good man, a good friend, on a difficult assignment,” Cheney said.

“Are you troubled by what appears to have happened, the appearance of him not telling the truth?” King asked.

“Well, I don’t want to get into the specifics with respect to his testimony and the questions that were asked. I know Al on a personal and professional basis and I hold him in high regard,” Cheney replied.

The Vice president again re-stated his support for Gonzales.When asked his thoughts on the Democrats investigation in the Senate regarding the firings of U.S. Attorneys, Cheney was equally resolute.

“With respect to the U.S. Attorneys, there has been, I think, a bit of a witch hunt on Capitol Hill as they keep rolling over rocks hoping they can find something,” he said. “But there really hasn’t been anything that has come up to suggest that there was any wrongdoing of any kind.”

Gotta love it, eh? So, when the neocons are spending lots of time and millions investigating a blowjob or trying to dig up dirt from past financial dealings it's a "criminal investigation", but when the Democrats try to get to the bottom of shananigins deliberately kept secret from the American people that actually DO affect them, such as dragging them into a war that has cost billions of dollars and thousands of lives for not the original stated reasons or the firing of U.S. Attorneys for reasons that would appear to be political, then it's called a "witch hunt".

Interesting how that works, huh? Had Dubya gotten a knee-trembler in the oval office by some intern and then lied about it, whether under oath or not, I really couldn't care less. To me, that's between his wife and himself. He's already proven himself to be a pathological liar in all regards, so whether he's under oath or just giving the usual line of bullshit to the press, it hardly hurts the "integrity" of the office, since everything King George and his gang has put forth has already diminished our country and what it stands for, both to the American people and other countries. But the Bush gang are clever. They have learned that telling WHOPPERS that hide dealings that enrich themselves and their cronies while harming America is quite alright as long as they dodge subpoenas and the bibles to put their dirty little hands on, whereas saying a lie under oath about a BJ that really should only be fodder for the tabloids is worthy of impeachment. Yeah, it's wrong to lie under oath, but did it get us into a costly war with Iraq? The mistake Clinton made was he didn't use all the weasel-like tricks Bush and his ilk are using to keep from being under oath when they lie. The message seeming to be "We can lie, lie, lie and lie some more, and it's okay, so as long as we don't do it under oath." I find it hard to get behind the argument "it's the PRINCIPLE" as to why Clinton deserved to be impeached for lying under oath when this current administration has shown zero principle and honesty in any and all of it's dealings.

“But there really hasn’t been anything that has come up to suggest that there was any wrongdoing of any kind.”

Um, maybe that's sort of because no one answers a subpoena or, if they do, gets convenient amnesia when on the stand, right Dick? Heck, according to Vice-Witch Cheney his vouching for Alberto Gonzales ought to be enough. And I'm sure there was a very good explanation for U.S. Attorney Witch Gonzales to have been practically putting a pen in doped-up hospitalized John Ashcroft's hand while holding a copy of an illegal domestic wire-tapping program document... yes, a VERY good explanation... well, uh, as soon as he can think of one. Damn witch-hunting Democrats. Why do they have to ask so many nosy questions?

So, do you think Alberto Gonzales would weigh as much as a duck?

Maybe there wouldn't have to be so much of a "hunt" if everyone in this administration wasn't working so hard to HIDE, and as for witches... well, Dick, if the broomstick fits...

[graphics by Dancin' Dave]

Come on little miss and do the twist

Doug Kmiec does his best Mary Lou Retton impression in the LATimes, trying to twist his brain into position around the whole Abu Gonzales 'human resources' thingy:

There is no basis to remove the attorney general so long as no evidence has been brought forth—and none has— that any U.S. attorney was asked to resign for partisan or corrupt purpose.

Okeydokey.

Alberto Gonzales is the second of eight children of migrant farm workers, Pablo and Maria Gonzales. A former justice of the Texas Supreme Court and Texas secretary of state, Gonzales has a calm and deliberative manner that listens more than it imposes. I know the man to be a person of integrity.

Sure. And that nice young Dahmer boy seemed a pretty swell fellow. Oh, wait . . ., he's Latino, thus a victim.

Because of this over-delegation, in my judgment, Gonzales under-appreciated the problematic nature of removing selected U.S. attorneys and was overly trusting of the removal recommendations made to him. Gonzales has conceded in public testimony that this over-delegation was a mistake.

Really? Sounds like a manager who's not on top of his gig.

But these are management mistakes that do not overshadow the conscientious manner in which the general work of the Department of Justice has been performed, or by which it should be measured.

Really? He was doing a bad job, but in a conscientious manner? That's a good thing?

In this, I am not overlooking the recent testimony of former Deputy Attorney General James Comey. Comey, too, is a man of great ability who served the Department of Justice well. Apparently—and this is hardly unusual in the law—there was disagreement between then-White House Counsel Gonzales and Mr. Comey over the legality of a program of great salience to meeting the ongoing terrorist threat. Apparently, Mr. Comey had refused (the program is classified so we cannot know for sure and Mr. Comey was careful not to be too explicit) to recertify the terrorist surveillance program.

Ya think? Comey, a serious conservative, had issues with a super secret spying program?

To some legal scholars, this program is a vindication of the President's constitutional authority to undertake military intelligence in a time of war as every other wartime president has done; to other scholars, the program disregards statutory limitations that were created to prevent spying on U.S. citizens engaged in protected speech activity during the Nixon administration.

Well that's it. To John Yoo, Gonzales, and other administration apologists, the ((secret)) program was super cool. To actual, you know, Constitutional experts, the program would be Nixonian in its depth of lawlessness.

But that's not important right now. What is important is what Kmiec's co-debater says:

There is abundant evidence that Iglesias was removed at the prodding of important Republicans in New Mexico who had unsuccessfully pressured him to indict a political corruption case against a Democratic state senator (among others) in advance of the November election.

. . .This is the worst crisis for the Department of Justice in at least a generation, and it is highly unlikely to abate as long as Attorney General Gonzales remains in office. This institutional damage is not uppermost in the calculations of the White House, and perhaps that is to be expected—but how, if at all, do you think it should figure in to the calculations of whether Gonzales should resign? Or is the attorney general's duty in your view confined to considering the political interests of the president at whose pleasure he serves?

Indeed.