K. Bigelow Gets a New Dance Partner

La Marr's Dance Band - Albury, NSW - 1926

Yesterday I watched Kathryn Bigelow on CBS This Morning. Once again she was defending her film Zero Dark Thirty by pretending that the only objection to her film was that she depicted torture. There have been numerous articles written that have called her out on her use of this strawman argument but she still continues to use it and the corporate media doesn't challenge her on it.

What I found really interesting about her appearance yesterday was that she received assistance in framing her defense from a CBS employee. John Miller, CBS Senior correspondent, is former DNI and former FBI  Needless to say he has very strong ties to the intelligence community. That's right, she had a former intelligence officer (some might say current intelligence officer on assignment) sitting next to her being interviewed by his own colleagues as if Ms. Bigelow and he were making a joint guest appearance.  It was very strange.

It's been widely reported that there are no plans to call Ms Bigelow and Zero Dark Thirty's screenwriter, Mr Boal,  to testify in front of Congress to answer questions about their movie. However, I did find one source who suggests that they might be given a subpoena and Mr. Miller also implied yesterday that they will be called. If they are called to testify, Mr. Miller evidently wanted to prepare them. He suggested they could avoid answering questions about their sources. That's right, Mr. Miller suggested that Ms. Bigelow and Mr. Boals were journalists and as journalists they had to protect their sources (unless of course it's a source the intelligence community doesn't like). He appeared very eager to get that claim on the record. Is he worried they will be called and reveal who told them the falsehood that torture was needed to capture Bin Laden?

Another interesting thing I noticed in the CBS video was when Gayle King said, "John you had said the portrayal was extraordinarily accurate in a way that movies are accurate, what do you mean by this?"  Mr. Miller then goes on to explain what he meant. I found this interesting because I also watched a video of The Colbert Report yesterday where Ms. Bigelow made a very similar comment. She told Colbert "it's accurate in a way a movie can be accurate".  Hmmmm, they both used an almost identical and what I'd describe as a very unusual way to describe the film. It made me wonder if we have some coordination going on with Ms. Bigelow and Mr. Miller and possibly others. Does Ms Bigelow have a handler in the intelligence community that is walking her through her interviews ? It sure looks that way.

Now I'm just a regular citizen. I don't have access to any more information than what appears in public. Maybe I'm wrong about what I see in these two videos but then again maybe I'm right. Maybe these people are so arrogant that they don't even care that regular people like me can see through their machinations. Maybe they're so confident that nothing will be done that they don't care if people see them manipulating what the public sees. After all they were brazen enough to insure that torture propaganda was added to this movie in the first place so they most certainly have a vested interest in making sure that the real story doesn't come out.

Ms. Bigelow claimed in the Colbert Report interview that her movie was a 1st draft of history. Let's hope that there are some principled people still left in Washington who won't allow this false first draft to be written into our history books. Let's hope that they work towards revealing the real story behind the Bush/Cheney torture program. Let's hope that we finally look backwards at torture so that we can finally have a  future based on truth, not twisted fiction. Let's hope that when someone watches this movie in the future that they know without a doubt that it's factually false because the people affiliated with the torture program and those that protected it are held accountable. And finally, let's hope our corporate media stops using intelligence officials as Senior correspondents unless these former officials have written a real tell all book about their former profession.

Here is the video from the Colbert show that aired before the CBS video

The Colbert Report	Mon - Thurs 11:30pm / 10:30c
Exclusive - Kathryn Bigelow Extended Interview
www.colbertnation.com
Colbert Report Full Episodes Political Humor & Satire Blog Video Archive

Here is the CBS video where Bigelow and Miller do the two step:

Will We Ever Know The Truth About What Happened to Dr. Aafia Siddiqui?

Will we ever find out the whole story about what happened to Dr. Aafia Siddiqui and her children? Was she held in Bagram or some other prison? Was she tortured, as she claims? I know one thing...the photos of her before her disappearance in 2003 and the photo of her when she was arrested by the U.S. show a dramatic difference in her appearance. The photo when she resurfaced looked nothing like the vibrant woman captured in the earlier photos. The difference clearly seen in the photos leads me to believe that wherever she was during the "missing years" that she must have gone through hell because hell is clearly etched upon her face.

With this weeks sentencing of Dr. Siddiqui we now know that the future for Dr. Siddiqui is to spend 86 years of her life in prison (a life sentence). But knowing her future is not enough for me, I want to know the full truth about her past. I want her claims about torture to be thoroughly investigated and not just covered up using the ubiquitous "state secret" mantra.

For those of you who know little about Dr. Siddiqui I am posting links to two good pieces that I found on the net.

This video is from the website RT that was done after her sentencing.

Here is a piece from 2006 from Boston Magazine about Siddiqui that provided much more information than what most of us have seen in the MSM reports about her. In other words it was not written merely from the government's perspective.

If anyone has any other links that might help shed light on this case I hope you will post them here.

Bob Schieffer Advocates Prosecution for WH "Party Crashers" Does Not Advocate Prosecution For War Crimes

Man with his head on backwards

This morning while we drank our morning coffee we watched the CBS Morning Show. During the show we heard this incredible comment from Bob Schieffer:

Evidently Mr. Schieffer is all for prosecuting people when they crash WH State Dinners but I never heard him utter a word about the need to prosecute government officials for war crimes. I could find no video of Mr. Schieffer calling for prosecutions for those government officials involved in planning, carrying out and protecting the Bush torture program. The closest I could come was this video of Schieffer interviewing Senator Patrick Leahy of Vermont about his call to investigate the torture program. From the sound of the interview with Senator Leahy it appears to me that Mr. Schieffer is not only not interested in prosecuting torture (he didn't even ask about it) but he even appeared to be uninterested, some might say hostile, to even investigating the torture program.

"Is there anything else to know here?" - Bob Schieffer

While Mr. Schieffer was uninterested at best in investigating or prosecuting those government officials who deliberately broke our laws and treaties during the Bush presidency he got himself all worked up about the Salahi's "horrible crime"

"I think the government ought to prosecute these people," Schieffer said today on theCBS Early Show. "If that means sending them to jail, so be it."

"State dinners are part of the symbols of our democracy, like the White House itself, like the pledge of allegiance and the national anthem," he said. "And when people are making fun of those things, when they're doing what these people did, that's an insult to all of us. And if these people go to jail, that will be just fine with me."

Here's what I posted at the CBS website tonight:

by pmorlan December 4, 2009 7:33 PM EST

Where is the video of Mr. Schieffer calling for prosecution of government officials for committing war crimes? I guess in Mr. Schieffer's insulated beltway world the more serious crime is crashing a party and having your photo taken with dignitaries, not the deliberate creation of an illegal government program where we tortured and killed people in our custody.

What kind of perverted thought process would allow someone to think that what the gate crashing Salahi's did was an insult to all of us but the creation of an officially sanctioned government program of torture was not?

If Mr. Schieffer really wants to talk about insulting the symbols of our democracy he need look no further than his own profession. Every day that passes where our establishment media stands by and allows government officials to cover up the crimes of previous government officials without being challenged is an insult to our democracy. Equal justice under law is meaningless if we allow government officials to break our laws and treaties with no accountability whatsoever.

Torture Defender Liz Cheney Accuses President Obama of "Moral Relativism"

Liz Cheney was once again on Morning Joe this morning where she accused President Obama of "moral relativism."  That's right, the same Liz Cheney who defends the morally indefensible torture of human beings, as long as the U.S. is doing it, is accusing the president of moral relativism. Unbelievable. This woman should be laughed off the set for that statement alone but for some strange reason her comments are treated as serious comments worthy of discussion. 

“I think that if we lived in a world where terrorism, and the slaughter of innocents, and Iran’s hegemonic hopes for the Middle East could be met, could be defeated, could be dealt with by sort of hand-holding going forward, then we’d be in a much simpler environment. But these are very, very tough issues. And I was troubled by the extent to which I heard moral relativism.”

It's a sad commentary on the state of our establishment media where someone so ill informed as Liz Cheney is invited to appear on TV over and over and over to take pot shots at President Obama using half truths, lies and total nonsense. Liz and Dick have been on TV so much pushing their talking points that one has to wonder if they are blackmailing someone to allow them to appear in these uncritical national forums whenever they please. Greg Sargent wrote a post about this at his Plum Line blog.

Before I could finish my post, Liz Cheney appeared on yet another MSNBC segment today with Andrea Mitchell. No video is posted yet but it's pretty close to what you see in the Morning Joe comments.

Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy

Update: Here's video from the Andrea Mitchell segment mentioned above.

Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy

Liz Cheney makes the "moral relativism" charge once again (unchallenged) and accuses President Obama of attacking "the people that protected us' while on foreign soil.  Unlike Joe Scarborough and company, Andrea Mitchell at least attempts to inject facts into the discussion but she was so passive that she was just ineffectual in the interview.

At one point Mitchell plays tape of Dick Cheney and asks Liz if her father has backed off his Al-Qaeda/Saddam connection claims.  Liz says that he's saying the same thing he's always said and that he never said there was a connection between Saddam and 911. Remarkably Mitchell said that she'd have to do her homework and have Liz back on her show because she thinks Liz is wrong. Shouldn't she have done "her homework" before the interview?

Update: Jason Linkins at Huffington Post has a piece up on the Cheney's and cable TV.

The Dick and Liz Cheney Show Rolls On; MSNBC Defends Air Time

Actions Speak Louder Than Words, Mr. President

 America in 100 days photostream - Day 4 in Philadelphia

President Obama gave an excellent speech in Cairo today but my ears perked up upon hearing a couple of specific passages where he talked about democracy.

America does not presume to know what is best for everyone, just as we would not presume to pick the outcome of a peaceful election. But I do have an unyielding belief that all people yearn for certain things: the ability to speak your mind and have a say in how you are governed; confidence in the rule of law and the equal administration of justice; government that is transparent and doesn't steal from the people; the freedom to live as you choose. Those are not just American ideas, they are human rights, and that is why we will support them everywhere.

There is no straight line to realize this promise. But this much is clear: governments that protect these rights are ultimately more stable, successful and secure. Suppressing ideas never succeeds in making them go away. America respects the right of all peaceful and law-abiding voices to be heard around the world, even if we disagree with them. And we will welcome all elected, peaceful governments - provided they govern with respect for all their people.

This last point is important because there are some who advocate for democracy only when they are out of power; once in power, they are ruthless in suppressing the rights of others. No matter where it takes hold, government of the people and by the people sets a single standard for all who hold power: you must maintain your power through consent, not coercion; you must respect the rights of minorities, and participate with a spirit of tolerance and compromise; you must place the interests of your people and the legitimate workings of the political process above your party. Without these ingredients, elections alone do not make true democracy.

Are these just words in a speech or will President Obama's actions back up his words? If President Obama believes what he says in this speech about democracy then how can he say we must look forward without first addressing the crimes committed by the Bush administration? How can he think ignoring war crimes will give anyone confidence in the rule of law and confidence that there is equal justice under law? How can his use of an overly broad interpretation of the state secrets privilege to shut down lawsuits and his suppression of photos that document crimes be consistent with the idea of transparency that he rightfully says is important? 

I agree with President Obama's speech on the campaign trail where he said - words matter. But words matter only when they are backed up with actions and so far I haven't seen President Obama back up his eloquent words about democracy with actions.

The idea that our laws require that we hold officials accountable can't be suppressed for the sake of political expediency. The crimes of the Bush era were much too monstrous and widespread to ignore.  It's clearly in the interest of our country to investigate and where appropriate prosecute those who broke U.S. and international laws. It's in our interest because it will help restore confidence in the rule of law and because it's essential for our security to show the world that we apply the rule of law even to our own leaders.  It's also necessary in order to drive a stake through the heart of the vile idea, that continues to be argued today, that torture should be an option for the United States to use. It's also clearly in our interest to confront and thoroughly discredit the dangerous unitary executive theory that places the president above the law because we can't afford to have some future politician repeat the destructive actions our country barely survived under the Bush administration. 

Holding Bush administration officials accountable under law may not be convenient for the political parties but it is necessary in order to have a functioning democracy. 

I hope President Obama will stop listening to his political advisers, who are only concerned with party politics and will instead let his own words from this speech and his promises from the campaign trail guide him in doing what is right for the U.S. and what is necessary in order for us to truly move forward.

We need true transparency, Mr. President and we also need a president who's courageous enough to stand up to the political establishment and demand accountability for war crimes so that the world will know that America stands for the rule of law and that the words equal justice under law aren't just words used in a political speech but are words that describe a principle our country enthusiastically embraces.

General Sanchez Supports Truth Commission - Leaves Open Possibility of Prosecutions/Commendations

Another Voice In Favor of a Truth Commission.

How Long Must We Wait?

When Will the Cheneys Finally Admit That Waterboarding is Torture?

Liz Cheney tells Norah O'Donnell that Waterboarding is Not Torture

Dick Cheney claimed in his speech yesterday that Waterboarding is Not Torture

President Obama has banned the harshest tactics that the CIA employed in the interrogation of suspected terrorists captured after 9/11, with his Justice Department labeling waterboarding, a simulated-drowning tactic used in many interrogations, as "torture."

"Torture was never permitted,"

Here's what conservative radio host Erich "Mancow" Muller  says about waterboarding:

If the Cheneys can't even tell the truth about what waterboarding is, why would anyone believe them when they tell us that waterboarding and other methods of torture are essential for our protection?

Swopa has an excellent piece up at Firedoglake about waterboarding and hypocrisy that's a MUST read.

National Religious Campaign Against Torture Announces June 11, 2009, Event at the White House

The National Religious Campaign Against Torture has just announced an event they will be sponsoring at the White House on Thursday, June 11 to begin their Torture Awareness Month and to press the President on the need for a Commission of Inquiry. This is great news and I encourage everyone to visit their website.

Here is the email I received from this group today: 

Dear NRCAT Supporters: We have some exciting news.  NRCAT is organizing a major religious public witness at the White House at Noon on Thursday, June 11 to help launch Torture Awareness Month and bring a strong message to the President about the need for a Commission of Inquiry. There are already five heads of faith groups and other senior religious leaders who have agreed to join us at theWhite House on June 11.  They are the Rev. Dr. John Thomas (General Minister and President of the United Church of Christ), Archbishop Vicken Aykazian (Armenian Church in America), Rabbi Steve Gutow (Executive Director of the Jewish Council for Public Affairs), Dr. Ingrid Mattson (President of the Islamic Society of North America), and the Rev. Dr. Michael Kinnamon (General Secretary of the National Council of Churches). These leaders are helping us to reach out to other senior religious leaders. We are also actively recruiting heads of regional religious bodies (e.g. diocesan bishops and directors of regional Jewish councils) to stand with us on June 11.  And the best news is that we have received grant funding to help cover travel costs for these senior regional leaders.   Many of the details remain to be decided (check this webpage for updated info and resources), but we want to get this initial announcement to you right away so that you can build it into your local action plans for Torture Awareness Month.   We need your help to make this a powerful event with the potential to change the course of the debate on investigating U.S.-sponsored torture.  Now is the time. NRCAT is the sole sponsor of this event so that we have full control of the tone and message to ensure that it is an explicitly religious event with religious ritual and a high degree of gravitas.  We hope to have 1000 people of faith, including large numbers of clergy in clerical garb, joining these senior leaders at the White House. What you can do: Encourage your regional faith group leaders (e.g., "bishop-level" clergy or a rabbi who serves as director of a regional Jewish council) to travel to DC to participate in this event.  Please contact us with information about regional religious leaders who may want to participate in this witness (campaign@nrcat.org). Encourage local clergy and people of faith to consider traveling to DC to participate in this witness.  Download and copy this flier to help promote the event. Use this event as a focal point/reference for your local organizing in June by connecting your local activities and media outreach to this national event.  For example, consider organizing a local religious witness on June 11, and be sure to inform Members of Congress that any meetings you have with them during the last week of June, to talk about accountability and the Commission of Inquiry, is part of a national effort that includes this witness at the White House. We look forward to working with you to make this a powerful part of our overall June witness. Don't forget to order your copy of the 18-minute DVD study resource "Ending U.S.-sponsored Torture Forever." And tell us about your plans for June by completing this brief survey. Thank you. Sincerely, Linda Gustitus, President Rev. Richard L. Killmer, Executive Director

Ron Paul Wants More Information on Torture - David Gregory Wants Less

Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy

David Gregory jumps into the Nancy Pelosi/CIA story this morning on Morning Joe. As usual Gregory leaves out facts that don't support his view that there should be no accountability for torture and distorts facts to make them fit into his view.

Gregory: She either wasn't fully apprised personally of what was happening or she decided not to push back so that's the reality of the public record that we have so far. Now maybe if we go down this road maybe we will learn more, maybe we'll get a fuller accounting of what was contained in that briefing but what you've got right now are other people who were there..Republicans who were there saying look it was clear as day what they were asking for and what they were already doing.

According to the CIA log the only Republican that attended the briefing that Nancy Pelosi was in was Porter Goss. Yet in the above quote Gregory states that there were Republican(s) in the briefing that Nancy Pelosi received. Who are these other Republicans or is Gregory just trying to give the viewers the false impression that there are multiple people who attended her briefing who disagree with what she said the CIA told her? And why didn't Gregory bother to mention that Bob Graham also disputes what the CIA briefed him on? Or why didn't Gregory bother to mention that even Republican, Porter Goss, in his Washington Post op-ed didn't back up the claim that the CIA briefed them that waterboarding was already being done, as this excellent analysis by Emptywheel makes clear.

Porter Goss says Pelosi should have known "the techniques on which they were briefed were to actually be employed." But he doesn't say she should have known "the techniques on which they were briefed had already been employed." Which is a critical part of her complaint--that CIA did not tell Congress that waterboarding and other techniques "were used" ... that "they were using that." This briefing is always described as occurring in "fall 2002." Even interpreting "fall" broadly to include all of September, that means the briefing took place after they had already waterboarded Abu Zubaydah 83 times in a month.

So whether or not Pelosi is arguing "waterboarding" was mentioned or not, even Goss appears to confirm one of Pelosi's main points. The CIA did not reveal this was already taking place. Even Goss' understanding, they revealed only that waterboarding "was to be employee' -- in the future.

While I think David Gregory makes numerous misrepresentations in this video clip (like he always does) his point about the Obama White House not wanting investigations into torture appears to be on point although I'm sure even here he exaggerates because he's an advocate for this same view.

Gregory: In 2002 there were no Democrats who were willing to stand up to the White House. Even Republicans - some Republicans I've spoken to who are sympathetic to the criticism about the treatment of these detainees say we know everything we need to know about what happened. There's nothing more that we actually need to discover...lets just move on.

While I don't agree with the Obama administration doing everything in their power to shut down an investigation into torture I can at least understand the political motivation behind it, misguided though it may be. What I find incredible and what I simply don't understand is how so many supposed "journalists" like David Gregory are also going out of their way to bury this issue. Our Press is supposed to be interested in ferreting out the truth but there are far too many "journalists" in our establishment media who obviously don't want the entire truth to come out. They actually get agitated even thinking about the possibility that a full investigation will be conducted. Just look at how Gregory reacts  when he is asked a simple question about what are the chances that there will be a full investigation into what happened. His reaction is not a dispassionate reaction it's the reaction of an advocate of a particular position.  We saw an even more forceful example of this reaction when Gregory interviewed King Abdullah  and Abdullah did not give Gregory the answers that supported Gregory's position.

Carlos: Hey David even though the Obama White House would rather this not be the conversation what in your mind would be one or several tipping points that would move this towards a full investigation where we spend a summer like we did back in the late 80s talking about the Oliver North hearings. What might lead to that scenario in your mind?

Gregory: How about nothing. How about if the White House has ....Look if the White House has the kind of political capital that it appears to have they're going to make it clear that they do not want this to be the discussion. They've got a lot of other things they want to talk about...

This is not the dispassionate answer of an objective reporter. This is an answer of an advocate who is hiding behind the White House in order to cloak the fact that he is actually advancing his own point of view.

Another interesting segment on the Morning Joe show this morning was when Republican Ron Paul was asked about Pelosi and the CIA issue.  This was part of his response:

...but it's also beneficial in trying to find out what's going on...but just think we wouldn't have this discussion if we had just followed the law. Our law prohibits torture as well as international law. But the fact that this discussion is here and who said what is good. I have no idea who is telling the truth but I know it's very good for the country to get to the bottom of it.

You're right, maybe this will not lead to getting to the bottom of it because the administration is not all that interested in prosecuting the people who broke the law.

After he said this - surprise, surprise...Joe Scarborough changed the subject. While we had 6:11 minutes of David Gregory talking about this issue and 7:43 minutes of Kit Bond talking about this issue...We only had 1:30 minutes of Ron Paul's view on this topic. Of course Ron Paul was the only one of the three to actually talk about prosecuting people for lawbreaking and that doesn't agree with our establishment media narrative on torture so it's no surprise that they changed the subject. I guess we should all be grateful that at least they kept this part of the Paul interview in the video they posted online. When Doris Kerns Goodwin went off the reservation, like Ron Paul did today, they just eliminated her words from the online video.

Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy

Don Rumsfeld Greeted as War Criminal at WH Correspondent's Dinner

Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy

Unfortunately Chris Matthews thinks advocating for war crimes prosecutions and calling Don Rumsfeld a war criminal only belong in his show's "political sideshow" segment rather than having them treated as legimate statements covered on what he considers the more serious segments on his show. But at least he showed these video snippets on air which is more than most of the establishment media has done. 

I hope Rumsfeld, Cheney, Bush, Addington, Feith, and the rest of them are hounded for the rest of their lives like these women hounded Rumsfeld at the Washington Correspondent's dinner. 

Politicizing Torture, Again

Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy

What a pathetic panel to have discussing torture 

 Mika Brezinski - Mark Halperin - Willie Guist and Harold Ford Jr.  

What a bunch of no nothings! 

Here they are discussing the CIA log sheet that stated that Nancy Pelosi was briefed on interrogation techniques in 2002. They are so intent on nailing Pelosi that they consistently misrepresent the facts throughout the conversation. These people don't care about getting at the truth, they only care about how this issue can be used politically.  It's pretty obvious that the purpose of the discussion is to advance Republican talking points about Pelosi. While I think any investigation should include finding out exactly what Congress was told I also think the entire torture issue should be investigated, not just Pelosi. 

These people are not interested in an investigation they are only interested in scoring political points and appearing as though they are in the know (they aren't). Sadly this video is yet another example of how our establishment media continues to politicize torture. When I see vacuous people like the people in this video it just reinforces my low opinion of our establishment media. These people are certainly not the best and brightest and it's amazing to me that they have the jobs that they do. 

Around 7:20 in the tape you will see Harold Ford come out as another torture apologist. I'm so glad that he's no longer in Congress.

Unraveling the Torture Program

“What Went Wrong: Torture and the Office of Legal Counsel in the Bush Administration”

Senate Judiciary Committee
Subcommittee on Administrative Oversight and the Courts

DATE: May 13, 2009
TIME: 10:00 AM
ROOM: Dirksen-226 

OFFICIAL HEARING NOTICE / WITNESS LIST:

May 6, 2009 

NOTICE OF SUBCOMMITTEE HEARING 
The Senate Committee on the Judiciary, Subcommittee on Administrative Oversight and the Courts will hold a hearing entitled "What Went Wrong: Torture and the Office of Legal Counsel in the Bush Administration" on Wednesday, May 13, 2009 at 10:00 a.m. in Room 226 of the Senate Dirksen Office Building. 

Chairman Whitehouse will preside. 

By order of the Chairman 

Updated Witness List 

Hearing before the Senate Judiciary Committee, 
Subcommittee on Administrative Oversight and the Courts 

on 

"What Went Wrong: Torture and the Office of Legal Counsel in the Bush Administration" 

Wednesday, May 13, 2009 
Dirksen Office Building Room 226 
10:00 a.m. 


Philip Zelikow 
White Burkett Miller Professor of History 
University of Virginia 
Charlottesville, VA 

Ali Soufan 
CEO 
The Soufan Group LLC 
New York, NY 
Professor David Luban 
Professor of Law 
Georgetown University Law Center 
Hyattsville, Maryland 

Professor Robert Turner 
Associate Director 
Center for National Security Law 
University of Virginal School of Law 
Charlottesville, Virginia 

Professor Jeffrey Addicott 
Center for Terrorism Law 
St. Mary's University School of Law 
San Antonio, Texas 

Another Pathetic Beltway "Interview" of Former V.P. Dick Cheney

Watch Schieffer/Cheney Interview at CBS

Bob Schieffer provides yet another friendly, national forum for former V.P. Cheney to uncritically make accusations against the current administration and to once again defend torture by distorting the facts and just outright lying.  Schieffer's lack of appropriate follow up to Cheney's self-serving comments leads one to believe that Schieffer is either not up to speed on the most basic of information about this topic and/or he just isn't interested in getting to the truth on this issue. In fact, he actually tells Cheney that he doesn't support calls for investigations into this issue so maybe that includes media investigations, as well. Or maybe it's simply due to the fact that Schieffer is a dyed in the wool "villager"and he mistakenly believes that by ignoring war crimes that he's just protecting "his city." 

Check out the next video where Schieffer dumps on David Souter because Souter didn't show the proper "respect" for Schieffer's city and you'll see what I'm talking about.

Schieffer's comment on David Souter:

I had no problem with the justice’s legal work, but as one who has lived 40 years in Washington I’ll be honest I didn’t care for his attitude. He made it no secret that he hated the city - once describing his work as the best job in the world in the worst city in the world. Another time he called life here akin to an intellectual lobotomy.  Really…our nation’s capitol - one of the most beautiful cities in the world…

[Snip}

I’ve never know anyone who ever saw him outside the court and now he is leaving.  I take it he won’t miss Washington, but my guess is Washington will hardly miss him

Working the Refs

The Washington Post reported last night that according to two unnamed sources Bush administration officials were working behind the scenes to "soften" the ethics report about the lawyers who wrote the torture memos that the Justice Department's Office for Professional Accountability has been working on for the last five years. Putting aside the reliability and/or motive of the unnamed sources for a moment,  we know that during those five years there were Bush officials who worked to alter the report, or as the Post says in their current story,  "counterbalance" the report. 

In a separate effort to counterbalance the draft report, Attorney General Michael B. Mukasey and Deputy Attorney General Mark R. Filip wrote a 14-page letter before they left office this year. 

In addition to Mukasey and Filip getting a crack at this report, all three targets in the report, Steven Bradbury, John Yoo and Jay Bybee were also given the opportunity to make comments about the report before it was released, which is not in line with past DOJ practices. Normally an ethics report is released and then the subject of the report is able to appeal the decision.

Though Justice traditionally has allowed staffers to appeal OPR decisions, in this case, former Attorney General Michael Mukasey — a Bush appointee — allowed Bybee, Yoo and Bradbury to review a draft and comment before the report was finalized.

According to Sheldon Whitehouse and Dick Durbin,  even an outside agency like the CIA, has been given an opportunity to submit a comment about this supposedly internal inquiry.

“We will be interested in the scope of the ‘substantive comment’ the CIA is providing, and the reasons why an outside agency would have such comment on an internal disciplinary matter,” the duo said.

Even though the attorneys representing Bybee and Yoo (evidently Bradbury hasn't hired one yet) are not allowed to comment about this report in public due to a confidentiality agreement they signed, they most certainly have been able to at least verbally comment in private about this as yet unreleased report.

Miguel Estrada, an attorney for Yoo, said, "As a condition of permitting me to represent Professor Yoo in this matter, the Department of Justice required me to sign a confidentiality agreement. As a result of that agreement, there's nothing I can say."

Maureen Mahoney, an attorney for Bybee, also cited the confidentiality requirement in declining to comment.

There may also be others, who we don't know about yet, who were given the opportunity to influence this report over the years. But putting that aside, the number of people with a vested interest in the outcome of this report, who we already know were allowed to shape it's findings, are way too many people to make this an unbiased report. After all this is supposed to be an "ethics" report and letting so many people, with such obvious conflicts of interest work the refs, is in my view highly unethical.

The DOJ's Office of Professional Responsibility was originally created as the watchdog in charge of investigating DOJ misconduct because of the criminal role the Justice Department played in Watergate. But over the years they have become less of a watchdog and more and more of a tool for politically motivated Attorney Generals to use in order to downplay misconduct at the Justice Dept. If you really want to get to the bottom of DOJ misconduct you assign the investigation to the DOJ's Inspector General, but if you want to give the illusion of an investigation you give it to the OPR. 

George Stephanopoulos at ABC News reports:

This is the only outstanding Justice Department investigation into the Bush-era interrogation memos.  Attorney General Eric Holder has no plans (Stephanopoulos actually said "highly unlikely")  to open another investigation.  So, based on current facts, it is highly unlike that this will lead to any prosecutions.

So will the current Attorney General, Eric Holder, allow the OPR to white wash this investigation for the sake of political expediency or will he order an independent criminal investigation, free from the outside interference of those who have a stake in the outcome? How about it Mr. Attorney General? Does our current Justice Department support the rule of law or does it cave in to the rule of politics?

A brief comment about the unnamed sources used in the Post's story.

The Post states that their unnamed sources claimed that former Bush administration officials were lobbying to water down the ethics report. This information might be true but on the other hand, maybe this leak in the paper about Bush officials lobbying behind the scenes is total BS. Maybe Bush & Co. have decided to let the lawyers take the fall for them on torture and they're just putting out this smokescreen about lobbying on their behalf to keep the lawyers from turning on them? Or maybe the leak is from a current Justice Dept. official who wants to alert Americans that there are former Justice officials lobbying their old department to not only water down an ethics report but to lobby against criminal prosecutions and they want the public to push back? 

The point is that we just don't know what the reason is for this leak about back channel lobbying and that lack of knowledge makes a difference in how we understand the story.  The only thing that the Post  told us about these sources was that there were two of them. We don't know if they are former Bush officials, current Justice officials or maybe even Bybee and Yoo themselves. That's the trouble with newspapers who allow anonymous sources to remain so anonymous that they don't even bother to give the reader a basic understanding of their point of view so that we can make an intelligent decision about their motive for revealing information.

UPDATE:  TheraP posting in this thread at emptywheel made the observation that the media coverage on this subject has been misleading concerning what the OPR can and can't do.It is not up to the OPR to make a referral for prosecution, that would be the job of the Justice Dept. Inspector General.

Based on my reading (IANAL) of the Policies and Procedures of the Office of Professional Responsibility, OPR does not investigate crimes but instead investigates ONLY the:

professional ethics, competence or integrity of a Department attorney

If OPR does find “professional misconduct, it appears to have ONLY three options available as “penalties”:

Section 10. Formal Disciplinary Action (within DoJ itself)
Section 11. Referral of Findings of Professional Misconduct to Bar Disciplinary Authorities
Section 12. Public Disclosure of OPR Findings

The option of referral for prosecution does not appear to be available under OPR Policies and Procedures.

[Snip]

Thus, it would appear to me that media coverage of this issue has been misleading to an extreme. For I find no evidence that OPR itself can refer for prosecution.

It was a good comment and I'd encourage everyone to read the full comment at emptywheel

Update 2: Spencer Ackerman has a piece up at the Washington Independent that documents how former DOJ whistleblower Jesselyn Raddack's treatment by the OPR was very different from how the OPR treated Bybee, Yoo and Bradbury.