Alberto Gonzales and His Perverse Sense of Political Martyrdom

Former Attorney General Alberto Gonzales has recently resurfaced in the news media as he has announced plans to write a tell-all book about his time as a member of the Bush Administration. Gonzales appeared on The O'Reilly Factor last week to answer softball questions from substitute host Juan Williams about his role in approving so-called enhanced interrogation techniques and his role in the firing of nine U.S. attorneys.

Billed as a "Factor Exclusive", it quickly became clear why Gonzales chose The O'Reilly Factor as the forum for his first interview since leaving the Bush Administration. Williams began the interview with this question:

WILLIAMS: Now do these kind of loud appeals coming from the left for the
Obama administration to go after you, to look at criminal proceedings, does that
worry you?

GONZALES: It doesn't worry me, Juan. Obviously, in every
administration, every president is criticized. Cabinet heads are criticized. I
think if you're not criticized by someone, you're probably not doing your
job.

Other questions Williams asked were:

WILLIAMS: Now Ruben Navarrette, the columnist out in San Diego he says, you
know what? Liberals don't like you, conservatives don't like you. He says civil
libertarians are going after you for treatment of detainees as well as for
wiretaps. And then last week, you had the Senate Armed Services report that said
that based on their studies, the Obama administration should look at future
criminal proceedings. Now, let's stop and think about this for a second. Do you think that you did anything wrong in terms of paving the way for
detainees to be tortured?

WILLIAMS: Now, Mr. Attorney General, in September, the current Attorney
General Michael Mukasey appointed a prosecutor to look at whether or not there
were possible criminal charges, again criminal charges that could put you in
jail in regard to the firing of those nine U.S. attorneys. Again,
you're on the spot. You know, some people say there's a lynch mob after you. We
have talked just a moment ago about detainees. Now we are back to the nine U.S.
attorneys. Again, do you have any sense that you did something wrong
with regard to the firing of those nine U.S. attorneys?

Guess what Gonzales answered to both of these questions? "Absolutely not Juan..." followed by a long explanation for why he didn't feel he was in the wrong. It is clear that this was not a critical interview, but a chance for Alberto Gonzalez to continue to spout his talking points and deny that he did anything wrong or criminal while he was a member of the Bush Administration. Williams performance reminded me of a defense attorney gently asking his client rehearsed questions in order to allow his client to give favorable testimony in front of jurors.

If this appearance wasn't interesting enough, Gonzales also gave an interview to the Wall Street Journal's Evan Perez. From Perez's piece:

"What is it that I did that is so fundamentally wrong, that deserves this kind
of response to my service?" he said during an interview Tuesday, offering his
most extensive comments since leaving government.
During a lunch meeting two blocks from the White House, where he served under his longtime friend, President George W. Bush, Mr. Gonzales said that "for some reason, I am portrayed as the one who is evil in formulating policies that people disagree with. I consider myself a casualty, one of the many casualties of the war on terror."

Go ahead and read that excerpt again if you need to because it is quite telling of the mindset that exists not just within the Bush Administration, but within Washington. Not only does Gonzales express a sense of bewilderment at why people would think that he has done anything wrong, but he also plays the role of a political martyr by victimizing himself as "one of the many casualties of the war on terror." When I think about casualties of the so-called "War on Terror", I tend to think about the hundreds of thousands of innocents killed between Afghanistan and Iraq, I tend to think about the millions of displaced persons in both countries, and I tend to think about all those effected by the attacks on the World Trade Center. to name a few. What I don't think about, is Alberto Gonzales and his political career.

Aside from being appalling, the mindset that Gonzales puts forth stems from his belief that he is portrayed as evil for "formulating policies that people disagree with". He is viewing this, as was done in the interview with Juan Williams, as a political issue. Opponents of the torture policies and wiretapping policies that Gonzales has shown his support for, are painted as "liberals", "lynch mobs" and with vague terms like "the left". The debate is framed as political opposition to policies that were implemented by the Bush Administration. This issue, that of lawbreaking conducted by Bush Administration officials, should not be viewed through the lens of political accountability rather these concerns exist outside traditional political discourse. These concerns need to be discussed without a Pavlovian response to paint everything as "the left" vs. "the right" because we are talking about accountability to the rule of law and remaining a country in which no person can operate above the law.

The bewilderment that Alberto Gonzales expresses as he asks "what is it that I did that is so fundamentally wrong" is precisely a reason for why these Bush Administration officials should be held to account. Alberto Gonzales, like other Bush Administration officials, believe that they have done nothing wrong and that this criticism stems from "political opponents". This is despite reports like those from the bi-partisan Senate Armed Services Committee that state that Bush Administration officials are "directly responsible" for the abuse of detainees and despite the report done by Physicians for Human Rights which led Maj. General Antonio Taguba to state:

After years of disclosures by government investigations, media accounts,
and reports from human rights organizations, there is no longer any doubt as to
whether the current administration has committed war crimes. The only question
is whether those who ordered the use of torture will be held to account.

It is imperative for the Obama Administration to understand that holding elected officials to account for breaking the law falls outside of political retribution. The media pundits and the Bush Administration continue to try and frame this issue of accountability within the context of political differences and in order for any kind of legal accountability to take place, it is absolutely necessary for the incoming administration to recognize that this is taking place. This would not be an act of investigating political opponents who drew up unfavorable policies, this would be an act of investigating elected officials who committed serious crimes because they believed themselves to be above the law. There is a difference and in order for this country to preserve itself as a nation where no one is above the law, it is a difference that needs to be realized and articulated by the incoming administration.

This article can also be found at: http://www.cincinnatibeacon.com/

Contrary to Rick Warren's Recent Statements, He DID Equate Gay Marriage With Incest and Pedophilia

This past Sunday, Rick Warren put out a video for his members at Saddleback Church attempting to explain all of the recent controversy surrounding President elect Obama's decision to have Warren give the invocation at his inauguration. The controversy has come from those who are angered by Warren's opposition to gay marriage, abortion rights, and even the membership of gays to his church.

In his video response, Warren claims that no news story is 100% accurate and that all of this has happened because the media loves conflict. He also blames all this divisiveness on talk radio and bloggers that "need to get a life" and "are just being rude". Here is the video:




Did you hear that? "I have been accused of equating gay partnerships with incest and pedophilia," Warren stated, "I believe no such thing, I never have. You've never once heard me in thirty years talk that way about that."

Really? Well in that case, listen up members of Saddleback Church!





In case you missed it, check out the above clip starting at 2:00.

Warren: "I'm opposed to the redefinition of a 5,000 year definition of marriage. I'm opposed to having a brother and sister being together and call that marriage. I'm opposed to an older guy marrying a child and calling that a marriage. I'm opposed to one guy having multiple wives and calling that marriage."

Interviewer: "Do you think those are equivalent to gays getting married?"

Warren: "Oh I do."


Thanks for setting us straight Rick!

Washington and Fox News Shed a Tear for the Departure of Brit Hume

Last night, Brit Hume signed off for the last time as the anchor of the Fox News program, "Special Report". Hume was treated to a video presentation from his colleagues and friends (including both Presidents Bush and Vice President Cheney), praising his journalistic integrity and all of his years of hard work:





Is it any surprise that President Bush and Vice President Cheney would appear in a video to heap praise upon an anchor that has provided this Administration a platform from which they have spread their propaganda? It is only appropriate to take a look back at a few instances which show exactly what type of "journalist" Brit Hume was during his tenure as anchor. In order to do this, I turn back to Glenn Greenwald, author, activist, and commentator for Salon.com who has written about Hume over the years. Let's go back to an entry from Greenwald on September 11, 2007, in which he analyzed Hume's performance when General David Petraeus and Ambassador Crocker appeared on "Special Report" to "brief America" about the situation in Iraq. Greenwald writes:

The model for the entire hour was not a journalist asking questions of
government leaders, but instead, a direct examination at a trial, where a
friendly lawyer gently leads his own witness to present claims in the most
persuasive manner possible, with the lawyer interrupting only to clarify the
witness' statements and to provide helpful suggestions as to how the witness can
make his case even more effectively.

Greenwald goes on to describe how during the first ten minutes of this program, Petraeus (with help from charts and a video presentation) spoke uninterrupted, carefully laying out his talking points with Hume only speaking to raise points that helped to clarify points that Petraeus was making. The program continued in this manner with Hume lobbing softball after softball at both Petraeus and Crocker and refusing to critically challenge or follow-up the responses. Greenwald writes of Hume:

Even before this obscene propaganda show last night, the very idea that
Hume could be considered a "journalist," and that there is nothing deemed
improper about Gen. Petraeus choosing him for an exclusive interview, speaks
volumes about the broken and corrupt state of our media. Hume is an outspoken
proponent of the war, having called Jack Murtha senile for advocating withdrawal and proclaiming the Democrats untrustworthy on national security for opposing the war. A country with a functioning political press would never pretend that the pro-war, Bush-worshipping Hume could conduct an actual interview with Petraeus, let alone be the only journalist allowed to do so.

What other kind of "journalism" passed the so-called "fair and balanced" test during Hume's tenure? Let's fast forward to the coverage that Fox News gave the U.S. raid on the Afghan village of Azizabad. It quickly became clear that the United States had killed around 95 civilians in this raid as villagers spoke of their outrage and news reports began to surface that this had not been a military target. The U.S. government continued to insist that this target was legitimate and that only 5 civilians had been killed in this attack. Brit Hume's program joined alongside the Pentagon, suggesting the witnesses had lied and that few civilians had been killed in the strike despite mounting evidence that led the U.S. to reinvestigate the raid.

All the while, the U.S. government did everything from accusing villagers from spreading Taliban propaganda to doubting the claims that 50 of the civilians that were killed, were children, despite contrary information from investigations, independent journalists, the UN, and video footage of the aftermath that showed the large number of civilians that had been killed in this raid. The Pentagon did an investigation at the time and said that they based their conclusion (that many Taliban members had been killed) on an account from an "independent journalist" and his first-hand account of the incident. This "independent journalist" turned out to be Oliver North, Fox News reporter, main player in the Iran-Contra scandal who admitted lying to Congress, and regular guest on Brit Hume's program.

Glenn Greenwald also wrote about this incident and Hume's involvement in spreading these dubious claims:

Nobody -- other than Brit Hume's news show -- ever denied that civilians were
killed in this airstrike. The only "debate" -- prior to the emergence of
documentary evidence -- was over how many were killed. Yet Fox began by telling its pitifully misled viewers that while "some locals claim [the airstrike]
killed civilians," "a Fox crew" had a "different story."

Greenwald continues:

Fox's news show -- not Bill O'Reilly, but Brit Hume's "legitimate news
program" -- continued to insist, based upon the "reporting" of "journalist"
Oliver North and his cameraman, that the U.S. military's original claims were
true, and the villagers and the U.N. were lying, even as the U.S. military
itself was, in light of the ample evidence, severely backtracking on its story

This is the type of reporting that is consistent with the the "fair and balanced" coverage for which President Bush and Vice President Cheney heap praise upon Hume in his farewell video. Is it any wonder why they hold Hume in such high regard? Now that Hume will be "limited" to his new role as "Senior Political Analyst", one wonders what kind of analysis he will be giving as a guest on the very same "news" program that he just spent over a decade anchoring. I bet the only difference that we will be able to see, is the side of the table on which Hume will be seated.

Happy trails Brit!

This article can also be found at: http://www.cincinnatibeacon.com

Rep. Nadler (D-NY) Calls for an Investigation of Bush Administration Officials

Rep. Jerrold Nadler (D-NY) has written a letter to Attorney General Michael Mukasey urging him to appoint an independent council to investigate actions taken by Vice President Dick Cheney, Former Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, and other senior level administration officials in regard to the torture of prisoners in U.S. custody. Rep. Nadler cites Vice President Cheney's recent interview with ABC News and Cheney's frank admission to directly approving the waterboarding of Khalid Sheikh Mohammad as evidence of the Administration's participation in approving tactics that are against the law. Rep. Nadler states in his letter:

The Vice President’s public admission that he was “aware of the program,
certainly, and involved in helping get the process cleared” is deeply
disturbing. It implicates the Vice President in this activity which appears to
have been a direct violation of our criminal laws against the use of
torture. Similarly, a recent report issued by the Senate Armed Services Committee
found that “Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld’s authorization of aggressive
interrogation techniques for use at Guantanamo Bay was a direct cause of
detainee abuse there.”[7] Additional evidence shows that other top officials
also were involved in authorizing similar activities.

Not only did Cheney admit to his role in approving such policies as stated above, but, as Nadler points out, the Senate Armed Services Committee recently issued a report that found Administration officials directly responsible for the abuse of detainees in U.S. custody. I recently wrote about this bi-partisan report and will reemphasize that this report is damning evidence that the Administration not only approved policies of torture, but lied about it when the abuses at Abu Ghraib were exposed.

In addition to Nadler's letter, he appeared this morning on Democracy Now! and emphasized some very basic points that I, and others, have been making:

And the morality of this aside, you cannot have high officials deliberately
break the law without accountability. The Vice President, on that interview we
saw a few minutes ago, talked about the oath of office that the President, the
Vice President, others take, and that is to preserve, protect and defend the
Constitution of the United States. You are not preserving it, and you are not
defending it; you are, in fact, perverting it, if you deliberately break the
law, which is the supreme law of the land pursuant to the Constitution. It is
imperative, if the United States is to remain a country of laws and not men,
that people who break the laws be held accountable.

This is very important and very fundamental to the operation of the United States. This country is a country of laws and not men, or in other words, no one should be above the law. When it continues to become increasingly clear that elected officials at the highest levels of government have committed serious crimes, there should be no reason why an independent panel shouldn't look into said crimes. As I have also written about in recent days, a distinction must also be made between political accountability and accountability to the law. Nadler touches on this point in his interview:

...there are things that it is imperative that the Obama administration,
when it takes office, and the Congress, in January, take steps to hold officials
accountable for violations of law, and really, not because we want vengeance and
not because we want to be vindictive of what happened, but because holding
people to the law and making them go through a legal process of proving guilt or
innocence is the only way that you can minimize the likelihood of recurrence of
law breaking and maintain the United States as a democratic country.

Those who often raise the argument that we should "move on to unite the country" and "not hold political grudges" are wrongly applying their formula for political accountability into the realm of criminal accountability. When laws are broken, there is a need for investigations and charges to be brought that apply to the crimes committed. It does not make any sense, or deter future political leaders from lawbreaking, if we chalk up the violation of laws to "political disagreements" or "political difference". This is the same disparity that I wrote about in discussing the response of some in Politico's "Arena" forum recently. I will revisit Maurice Carroll's response to reiterate the point:

Is it a good idea for a new administration to look for prosecutable crimes
by the old administration? Even if their opinion is that there WERE crimes? By
and large, the answer is no. Even if the true believers (and the true-believer
editorial writers) are pestering the Obama administration to do it. One of the
strengths of the American political system is that it's not a blood sport. We
disagree without looking to put the other guys in jail. Which is a longish way
of saying: There'll be a new slate. Shouldn't we wipe the old slate clean?

Carroll is not alone in this viewpoint, a viewpoint that encourages us not to investigate an outgoing administration EVEN IF there is a belief that crimes WERE committed. Carroll justifies this viewpoint by stating that "we disagree without looking to put the other guys in jail" and that this is "one of the strengths of the American political system." This is an absurd statement that equates political difference with accountability to laws and sadly, it is this narrative that is often repeated the loudest during these recent discussions about investigation of Bush Administration Officials. It mischaracterizes the argument of those who are calling for accountability to the rule of law into an argument being put forth by mere political opponents.

Rep. Nadler is not the first who has called for the investigation of Bush Administration officials for lawbreaking and he is certain to not be the last. There have been some rumors that President Bush has plans to pre-pardon members of his Administration before January 20 to avoid potential prosecution, but at this point it remains to be seen if an Obama Administration would put forth such an investigation. There is certain to be more on this issue between now and Inauguration Day.

This article can also be found at: http://www.cincinnatibeacon.com

Cheney Spouts Off on Support for Torture, Executive Power, and Illegally Wiretapping Americans

Vice President Dick Cheney has been making several appearances in the corporate media as of late, giving interviews to ABC and FOX over the last few days, in which he has been quite frank about many aspects of the last eight years. For example, in these interviews Cheney has revealed:

1. That as a "general principle", any decisions the President makes during wartime are legal.

2. The interrogation of Kahlid Sheikh Mohammed, which included repeatedly waterboarding him, was approved through the Vice President's Office, that he does not regret that decision, and that he supports waterboarding as a tactic used by America.

3. That he himself told leading Democratic members of the Congress, in detail, about the NSA warrantless wiretapping program and that the Democrats agreed that this program should proceed and be kept secret.

These items are not necessarily ground-breaking or "new", but the open way in which Cheney confirms what many have been saying for years now is a clear indication that this Administration has operated and continues to operate under the notion that they are above the law. Support for a Nixonesque view of Executive power, support for torture, and support for illegally listening in on the phone conversations of Americans are not the result of some long investigative report or inquiry, rather this is the admission of the current Vice President during nationally televised interviews. Is it any clearer that this country needs to hold these officials within the Administration accountable and recommit itself to the rule of law? Cheney in his own words:








In regard to this last clip about the NSA wiretapping program, I think that Glenn Greenwald's entry over at Salon hits the nail on the head regarding the complicity of the Democrats in Congress in some of the illegal activity over the last eight years and just how far Washington has strayed from the basic principles of the law:

Either way, Cheney's general claim is as clear as it is incriminating. According to him, key Congressional Democrats were told about the illegal NSA spying program in detail, and they not only actively approved of it, but far beyond that, they insisted that no Congressional authorization should even be sought, based on what was always the patently inane claim that to discuss the fact that the administration was eavesdropping on our conversations without warrants (rather than with warrants, as the law required) would be to reveal our secrets -- "our playbook" -- to Al Qaeda. It is certainly true that Dick Cheney is not exactly the most scrupulously honest public servant around. In fact, he's almost certainly the opposite. Still, what he said yesterday was merely an expanded and more detailed version of what has previously been publicly reported and, to some degree, confirmed about the knowledge and support of Democratic
leaders for the NSA program.

Accountability to the Rule of Law is not a Criminalization of Political Differences

Posted at the "Arena" section of Politico.com, is a question that relates to what I, and many, have been writing about recently. For those who are not familiar with this section of Politico's website, it is a section that is described as their "daily debate with policy makers and opinion shapers." The question posted states: "Should the DOJ consider prosecuting Bush administration officials for detainee abuse as the NYT and others have urged?"

There are some short responses by a wide-range of individuals and some of the responses continue to miss the mark on this issue. The first response is from Steven Calabresi, a Professor of Law at Northwestern University, and he acknowledges that if war crimes were committed, (and he doesn't believe that any were) then we should prosecute those responsible. He then goes on to qualify his response by taking a shot at both the New York Times and those who hold a different political ideology than the Bush Administration:

"The effort by the New York Times and others to criminalize politics by
casually urging the criminal prosecution of Bush Administration officials the
Times disagreed with is however reprehensible. It is a step back toward the era
when we guillotined our political opponents instead of voting them out of
office."

This is much more than, as Calabresi suggests, a criminalization of politics. As has been discussed in my previous entries, we are talking about decisions that have directly led to the torture, and in some cases, the deaths of detainees in U.S. custody. This is about an Administration who has violated the Geneva Conventions, shut out legal opinion that did not coincide with the tactics they wanted to implement, and lied after the story broke about these torture programs. We are not talking about the criminalization of politics, we are talking about a fundamental disregard and disrespect for the rule of law.

There are more responses to this question from Steve Steckler of the Infrastructure Management Group and from Maurice Carroll, Director of the Quinnipiac University Polling Institute. Steckler states:

"Such prosecutions, warranted or not (and on balance, I don't believe they are),
would distract and diminish the new Administration in a manner similar to what
would have occurred had the same Bushhaters been successful in getting the
Democratic Congress to begin impeachment proceedings."

Again, labeling those who are concerned with crimes committed by the current Administration as "Bushhaters" frames this issue within a political context that implies that those who are calling for an investigation into crimes committed, are merely political opponents of the President. It matters not if those calling for an investigation or prosecution of the officials who have committed crimes are political opponents, what matters is that there are serious laws that have been broken. My favorite response to this question however, comes from Maurice Carroll. Here is his response in full:

"Is it a good idea for a new administration to look for prosecutable
crimes by the old administration? Even if their opinion is that there WERE
crimes? By and large, the answer is no. Even if the true believers (and the
true-believer editorial writers) are pestering the Obama administration to do
it. One of the strengths of the American political system is that it's not a
blood sport. We disagree without looking to put the other guys in jail. Which is
a longish way of saying: There'll be a new slate. Shouldn't we wipe the old
slate clean?"

This argument has been echoed lately in discussions surrounding the Bush Administration and has been voiced by many. The problem with this is line of thought is that it provides for zero accountability even if very real crimes have been committed. Carroll states that it isn't a good idea for a new administration to look into prosecutable crimes, EVEN IF they believe that real crimes were committed. Instead, Carroll favors "wiping the old slate clean" by excusing any crimes and moving on with a "new slate".

Political accountability is one thing. If elected officials do not represent their constitutes and fail to bring the people what was promised then voting these officials out of office is a type of political accountability, but we are not simply talking about political accountability in this instance. We are talking about actual crimes that have taken place and holding criminals accountable by the legal standards that every day citizens are held to. We should not confuse accountability to the rule of law, with political accountability.

It makes little sense to operate as a nation of laws and on the notion that no one is above the law, if the country's response to law breaking by elected officials is to ignore it to preserve so-called "political unity". Mr. Carroll states that this is one of the great strengths of the American political system yet in fact, it is one of the biggest weaknesses of the American political system. This is a system where we see soldiers, who implemented policies of torture punished by a justice system that ignores those who put the policy in place. This is not justice, nor is it simply a difference in political belief systems. What this system is, is a group of elite politicians who feel they are above the law and can act without being held to account for even the most serious crimes that we have seen in recent times. Should the DOJ consider prosecuting Bush Administration officials for detainee abuse? Most certainly. It is necessary in order to hold lawbreakers to account for their crimes and recommit this country to the basic principles of the rule of law.

Cheney Admits Role in Approving Torture: It's Time for a Recommitment to the Rule of Law

In follow-up to my blog entry yesterday, In an interview with ABC News Dick Cheney has admitted to authorizing torture techniques and continues to justify their use.



Cheney also went on to advocate keeping Guantanamo Bay open indefinitely and continues to justify the invasion of Iraq despite the fact that the Administration was dead wrong about Saddam Hussein having stockpiles of Weapons of Mass Destruction. In fact, Cheney even brushed aside the notion that the accuracy of their pre-war claims even matter anymore. This is the first time that Vice President Cheney has admitted such an active role in approving these so-call "enhanced interrogation techniques" and his stark admission comes just days after the Senate Armed Services Committee released their report finding that senior officials within the Bush Administration are directly responsible for the abuse of detainees in U.S. custody. What is described in the report (thought not explicitly cited as such) are war crimes and what Cheney admits to in his interview with ABC, are war crimes. The only question left at this juncture is what (if any) actions an Obama Administration will take to restore the respect for the rule of law.

Cheney's arrogance and stark admissions are done because he knows that the likelihood of being held to account is very small within the current Washington climate. This is the same arrogance that has led the Bush Administration to expand the powers of the Executive Branch of the government to unprecedented levels. As rumors continue to float around the country that once President-elect Obama takes office he will close Guantanamo, it is necessary for Obama to simultaneously announce a recommitment to the rule of law. This recommitment needs to emphasize that no one, not the President and not any elected or appointed official, is above the law. In accordance with this recommitment, Obama should take the necessary steps to convene either an independent panel or a special prosecutor to investigate lawbreaking that has occurred over the last eight years. It is necessary to stop the expansion of power within the Executive Branch and it is necessary to restore this country's commitment to the basic principles of law that this country should adhere to.