Warning: Undefined array key "rbname" in /data/rantburg.com/www/pgrecentorg.php on line 14
Hello !

Home Front: Politix

Torture memos author invited to testify

2009-04-30

[Iran Press TV Latest] Senate Judiciary Chairman Patrick Leahy has invited Judge Jay Bybee to testify before the panel regarding his role in writing several "torture memos". "By coming forward to testify, you will be able to explain your position with regard to these matters, including your involvement and your knowledge regarding how these memos were written and approved, what considerations went into that process, who was consulted in that process and the roles of various individuals," Leahy, D-Vt., said on Wednesday. Bybee served as Assistant Attorney General for the Justice Department's Office of Legal Counsel from 2001 to 2003 before taking his seat on the 9th Circuit. He signed two controversial August 2002 memoranda that outlined legal rationales behind the torture memos. The Bybee memo, also known as "the torture memo" was a document prepared by the United States Department of Justice's Office of Legal Counsel (OLC) in response to a CIA request to the White House. It was submitted on August 1, 2002 and officially titled Memorandum for Alberto R. Gonzales, Counsel to the President, from Jay S. Bybee, Assistant Attorney General, Office of Legal Counsel, and Re: Standards of Conduct for Interrogation under 18 U.S.C.

Link

Home Front: WoT

Prosecutors make a third attempt in Liberty City terror plot

2009-01-27

And the NYT dismisses their chances A group of Miami men accused of planning to blow up the Sears Tower in Chicago as part of an Islamic jihad will return to federal court this week as prosecutors try for a third time to win convictions. The government's first two efforts ended in mistrials. And legal analysts say the prosecutors face an even greater challenge this time because, nearly three years after the men were arrested, the public mind-set has changed. "The fear card was what they were playing," said Bruce Winick, a University of Miami law professor. "If it didn't work the first two times with the juries that were selected, I think it's less likely that it will work right now because that fear of terrorism is a little more distant in our minds." Former jurors in the first two cases have said they could not agree in part because of disputes over what some considered a lack of evidence. Prosecutors tried to prove that the original seven defendants, a group of laborers from the tough Liberty City neighborhood, provided "material support" to a terrorist organization, and planned to destroy buildings. But they relied mostly on the men's words, citing their loyalty oath to Al Qaeda and aggressive comments made to two F.B.I. informants. More concrete evidence did not emerge. Testimony showed that a search by the Federal Bureau of Investigation of what it called the group's headquarters did not yield guns, explosives or blueprints for an attack. Besides a samurai sword, no weapons were found. "There was really nothing that indicated that this was a real threat," said Jeffrey Agron, a lawyer who served as the foreman at the first trial in 2007. "Another thing was the credibility of the confidential informants. The first informant, in the minds of most jurors, had no credibility, and with the second informant, a lot of the jurors felt he was trying to lead these guys on." The first trial ended in December 2007 with an acquittal for one of the seven, Lyglenson Lemorin, and a mistrial for the other six: Narseal Batiste, accused of being the ringleader; Patrick Abraham; Burson Augustine; Rotschild Augustine; Naudimar Herrera; and Stanley G. Phanor. The second trial followed a similar path. Each side laid out many of the same arguments, and another jury deadlocked. On April 16, Judge Joan A. Lenard of Federal District Court ordered a mistrial for the second time. About a week later, prosecutors said they would try again. Assistant United States Attorney Richard Gregorie, at a hearing where the decision was announced, said another trial was necessary to "safeguard the community." Mr. Gregorie cited some of the violent comments allegedly made by Mr. Batiste, including a threat to "kill all the devils." Mr. Winick said that no new evidence was expected, and that this would probably be the last trial for a case that he, some former jurors and other legal scholars have seen as politically driven. The timing in particular has attracted scrutiny because the arrests came just a few months before the 2006 elections, and they were widely publicized by Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales, who outlined the most sensational evidence at a news conference. Mr. Winick said that by that point, "The plot, to the extent there was a plot at that point, was falling apart," suggesting that it would have made more sense to continue observing the group, rather than making arrests. Winning a conviction at this point, he and others said, will be difficult. "I don't see it ending any differently than before," said Mr. Agron, the former juror. Mr. Winick agreed. "It's a case where a government informant got a bunch of guys together to swear a loyalty oath to Al Qaeda," he said. "It's a B movie really, more than a criminal case."

Link

Fifth Column

Sandy Berglar lie test urged

2007-01-24

Eighteen House Republicans have urged the Justice Department to proceed with a polygraph test for Samuel R. Berger, the former national security adviser who agreed to take the test as part of a plea of guilty of stealing documents from the National Archives. "This may be the only way for anyone to know whether Mr. Berger denied the 9/11 commission and the public the complete account of the Clinton administration's actions or inactions during the lead-up to the terrorist attacks on the United States," the congressmen said in their letter to Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales. The congressmen – led by Rep. Thomas M. Davis III of Virginia – said a prompt lie-detector test is needed to determine the extent of Mr. Berger's thievery, especially because the former Clinton administration adviser reviewed original documents for which there were no copies or inventory. Other signers of the letter are Reps. Duncan Hunter, Darrell Issa and Brian Bilbray of California, John L. Mica of Florida, F. James Sensenbrenner Jr. of Wisconsin, Dan Burton and Mark Souder of Indiana, Christopher Shays of Connecticut, John M. McHugh of New York, Chris Cannon of Utah, John J. "Jimmy" Duncan Jr. of Tennessee, Michael R. Turner of Ohio, Kenny Marchant of Texas, Lynn Westmoreland of Georgia, Patrick T. McHenry and Virginia Foxx of North Carolina and Bill Sali of Idaho. Mr. Davis, former chairman and now ranking Republican on the House Government Reform Committee, released a report by his staff on Jan. 9, saying a Justice Department investigation of Mr. Berger's admitted document theft was "remarkably incurious." The report said the theft compromised national security "much more than originally disclosed" and resulted in "incomplete and misleading" information to the September 11 commission. It said Mr. Berger was willing to go to "extraordinary lengths to compromise national security, apparently for his own convenience." In October, Mr. Davis led an effort to hold hearings to determine whether any documents were "destroyed, removed or were missing" after visits by Mr. Berger to the Archives. He said the full extent of Mr. Berger's document removal "can never be known" and the Justice Department could not assure the September 11 commission that it received all the documents to which Mr. Berger had access. Mr. Davis said that during sentencing, Mr. Berger agreed to a polygraph examination as part of a plea deal, but Justice never administered the test, according to two Justice officials closely connected to the case -- John Dion, chief of the counterespionage section, and Bruce Swartz, deputy assistant attorney general for the Criminal Division. He said Mr. Berger assured the commission that it received all the documents it sought but that some of the papers Mr. Berger examined were originals for which there were no copies or inventory. He said there is no way to know whether Mr. Berger returned all of those documents. Lanny Breuer, Mr. Berger's attorney, has said the matter was thoroughly investigated by the Justice Department for more than two years and effectively closed for more than a year. He said the report's conclusions were based on "pure conjecture." "Sandy Berger made a mistake. But he has admitted that mistake, fully cooperated with the government's investigation, paid his debt to society, and moved on.org. It's time for the new congressional minority to do the same." Justice Department spokes-man Bryan Sierra has said the department "has no evidence that Sandy Berger's actions deprived the 9/11 commission of documents, and we stand by our investigation of this matter." Mr. Berger pleaded guilty in April 2005 to a misdemeanor charge of unauthorized removal and retention of classified material, including documents outlining the government's knowledge of terrorist threats to the United States. Fined $50,000 and barred from access to classified material until the next administration comes in for three years, he faced a year in prison and a $100,000 fine, but his plea deal reduced the fine and kept him out of prison.

Link

Home Front: Politix

Leahy Seeks Documents on Detention

2006-11-22

Sen. Patrick J. Leahy (D-ACLUVt), who will chair the Senate Judiciary Committee next year, asked the Justice Department to leak release two newly acknowledged documents, which set U.S. policy on how terrorism suspects are detained and interrogated. The CIA recently acknowledged the existence of the documents in response to a lawsuit by Khalid Sheikh Mohammed the American Civil Liberties Union.The first is a directive President Bush signed giving the CIA authority to establish detention facilities outside the United States and outlining interrogation methods that may be used against detainees. The second is a 2002 memo from the Justice Department's Office of Legal Counsel to the CIA's general counsel regarding interrogation methods that the spy agency may use against al-Qaeda leaders. "The American people deserve to have detailed and accurate information about the role of the Bush administration in developing the interrogation policies and practices that have engendered such deep criticism and concern at the ACLU home and in France around the world," Leahy wrote Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales. Leahy asked Gonzales to produce any revisions and analyses of those and other memos. He also requested agency documents that interpret the scope of interrogation practices permitted and prohibited by the Detainee Treatment Act or the Military Commissions Act. You know sources methods or whatever you got. "Doesn't matter, just send it all and we'll let the New York Times tell us what it all means." The Justice Department will respond appropriately, spokesman Brian Roehrkasse said yesterday. But he added that "it is vital to protect national security secrets," particularly in sensitive programs overseen by the intelligence committees. Roehrkasse also said the department will weigh whether the documents being sought fall under the category of confidential deliberations, including legal advice.

Link

Home Front: Politix

Legislators seek review of border agents' conviction

2006-08-23

Democrats and Republicans on Capitol Hill have asked for congressional hearings and reviews by the White House and Justice Department into the conviction of two U.S. Border Patrol agents who shot and wounded a fleeing drug suspect. The agents, convicted by a federal jury in El Paso in March, face 20 years in prison at a sentencing hearing next month. "It appears the facts do not add up or justify the length of the sentences for these agents, let alone their conviction on multiple counts," said Sen. Dianne Feinstein, California Democrat. "Border Patrol agents have a difficult and often dangerous job in guarding our nation's borders. "Undue prosecution of Border Patrol agents could have a chilling effect on their ability to carry out their duties," Mrs. Feinstein said in a letter Monday to Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Arlen Specter, Pennsylvania Republican, requesting a full hearing into the matter. She asked Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales last week to investigate the case. The U.S. attorney's office in El Paso, which reports to the Justice Department, prosecuted the two agents. In a letter to President Bush, Rep. Walter B. Jones, North Carolina Republican, asked the White House to review the case, saying the prosecution was "outrageous." He said it did nothing but "tie the hands of the Border Patrol and prevent the agency from securing America against a flood of illegal immigrants, drugs, counterfeit goods and, quite possibly, terrorists." "This demoralizing prosecution puts the rights of illegal smugglers ahead of our homeland security and undermines the critical mission of better enforcing immigration laws," Mr. Jones said. "These two agents should not be made scapegoats for our government's enforcement failures." A federal jury convicted agents Ignacio Ramos, 37, and Jose Alonso Compean, 28, in March of causing serious bodily injury, assault with a deadly weapon, discharge of a firearm in relation to a crime of violence, and a civil rights violation. The shooting occurred Feb. 17, 2005, near Fabens, Texas, about 30 miles southeast of El Paso. Osbaldo Aldrete-Davila, a Mexican national, was wounded as he ran from the agents along the Rio Grande after they said he pointed what appeared to be a gun at them as they tried to apprehend him. Nearly 800 pounds of marijuana, worth $1 million, was found in the van that he abandoned at the river's edge, the Border Patrol said. Mr. Aldrete-Davila, who was given immunity by prosecutors to testify against the agents, also received care at William Beaumont Army Medical Center in El Paso. He is suing the government for $5 million for violating his civil rights. "The circumstances do not justify the verdict, and these convictions are already having an adverse impact on the Border Patrol," Mrs. Feinstein said. Rep. F. James Sensenbrenner Jr., Wisconsin Republican and chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, called for a congressional investigation and open hearings on the case during an immigration field hearing in El Paso. The committee's investigation is expected to begin before the end of the year. Rep. John Hostettler, Indiana Republican and chairman of the House Judiciary subcommittee on immigration, border security and claims, who attended the El Paso hearing, said that if the arrest, trial and conviction of the two Border Patrol agents had resulted in a chilling effect on others, "then it's definitely something we should know about." Spotted in his van near the Rio Grande, records show that Ramos gave chase while Compean circled around to head off the suspect. When Mr. Aldrete-Davila jumped out of the van and ran south to the river, he was confronted by Compean, who was thrown to the ground as the two men fought. Ramos said that when he arrived, he saw Compean on the ground and chased Mr. Aldrete-Davila to the river, where the suspect suddenly turned toward him, pointing what looked like a gun. Ramos said he fired at the fleeing suspect but did not think he had been hit after watching him run through the bush, jump into an awaiting van in Mexico and speed off. An investigator from the Department of Homeland Security's Office of Inspector General tracked down Mr. Aldrete-Davila in Mexico, where he was offered immunity in exchange for testimony. The department oversees the Border Patrol. A U.S. probation officer has recommended in a report to the court that the agents be sentenced to 20 years.

Link

Fifth Column

Fired NSA Staffer Subpoena'd over Wiretap Press Leaks

2006-07-30

HT to Captain Ed Also done yesterday. Beat ya by a day, Frank ;-) A federal grand jury in Alexandria is investigating unauthorized leaks of classified information and has issued a subpoena to a fired National Security Agency officer who has acknowledged talking with journalists about the agency's warrantless surveillance program, according to documents released yesterday. admitted it, huh? The 23-member grand jury is "conducting an investigation of possible violations of federal criminal laws involving unauthorized disclosure of classified information" under the Espionage Act and other statutes, according to a document accompanying the subpoena. fry em The demand for testimony from former NSA officer Russell Tice provides a sign of the Justice Department's aggressiveness in pursuing the leak investigation, which follows a series of controversial news reports on classified programs. It also marks the latest potential use of the espionage statute to combat such leaks. In December, Justice opened a criminal investigation after the New York Times disclosed the existence of the eavesdropping program, which allows the NSA to monitor telephone calls to and from the United States without a court order if one party is linked to suspected of links to terrorist groups. The documents released yesterday do not make it clear whether the grand jury is focused on that report or on some other disclosure. Tice has publicly identified himself as a possible source for the report, saying that he talked to Times reporters before it was published. He also has said he believes he was fired by the NSA last year because he complained of possible Chinese espionage at the agency, and he has since sought to testify before Congress about "probable unlawful and unconstitutional acts" by the NSA director and other senior administration officials. Tice said in an interview that he viewed the subpoena as an attempt at intimidation by the government. "This is the king saying, 'How dare anyone challenge my authority and say that I'm a crook or a criminal?' " he said. king, huh? Sounds like a Clinton holdover The subpoena, dated July 25, requires Tice to appear Aug. 2. It was posted yesterday on the National Security Whistleblowers Coalition's Web site. Tice is a member of the group. New York Times spokeswoman Catherine Mathis said the newspaper has "not been contacted by the government" in the case. A Justice spokesman declined to comment. Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales has said that while prosecutors are focused on the "leakers," he cannot rule out the need to demand testimony from reporters as well. A separate grand jury investigation into the leak of CIA officer Valerie Plame's identity resulted in the jailing last year of one reporter and testimony from her and numerous others. Journalism and secrecy experts said the Alexandria investigation is another worrisome development for reporters attempting to inform the public about intelligence programs and policies. "They are playing hardball," said Lucy Dalglish, executive director of the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press. ". . . They're rounding up the most likely suspects, getting them to say 'Yes I was a source' or 'No I was not a source,' and then they'll go to the reporters jail the reporters too

Link

Home Front: Politix

DOJ heads threaten to Quit over Jefferson Document Return

2006-05-27

The Justice Department signaled to the White House this week that the nation's top three law enforcement officials would resign or face firing rather than return documents seized from a Democratic congressman's office in a bribery investigation, according to administration sources familiar with the discussions. Are they really this upset? And did they really leak this? The possibility of resignations by Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales; his deputy, Paul J. McNulty; and FBI Director Robert S. Mueller III was communicated to the White House by several Justice officials in tense negotiations over the fate of the materials taken from Rep. William J. Jefferson's office, according to the sources, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because of the sensitivity of the issue. My good fried Anonymous Sources is quoted again. Justice prosecutors and FBI agents feared that the White House was ready to acquiesce to demands from House Speaker J. Dennis Hastert (R-Ill.) and other lawmakers that the materials be returned to the Louisiana congressman, who is the subject of a criminal probe by the FBI. Vice President Cheney's chief of staff, David S. Addington, was among the leading White House critics of the FBI raid, telling officials at Justice and on Capitol Hill that he believed the search was questionable, several sources familiar with his views said. Administration officials said yesterday that the specter of top-level resignations or firings at Justice and the FBI was a crucial turning point in the standoff, helping persuade President Bush to announce a cease-fire on Thursday. Bush ordered that the Jefferson materials be sealed for 45 days while Justice officials and House lawmakers work out their differences, while also making it clear that he expected the case against Jefferson to proceed. White House officials were not informed of the search until it began last Saturday and did not immediately recognize the political ramifications, the sources said. By Sunday, however, as the 18-hour search continued, lawmakers began lodging complaints with the White House. So, Gonzales OK'ed this without checking with the Cowboy? Wonder why? Didn't tell him, but is willing to quit over it. Hmmm. Addington -- who had worked as a staffer in the House and whose boss, Cheney, once served as a congressman -- quickly emerged as a key internal critic of raiding the office of a sitting House member. He raised heated objections to the Justice Department's legal rationale for the search during a meeting Sunday with McNulty and others, according to several sources. Hastert wrote in an article published in USA Today yesterday that House lawyers are working with the Justice Department to develop guidelines for handling searches of lawmakers' offices. "But that is behind us now," Hastert wrote. "I am confident that in the next 45 days, the lawyers will figure out how to do it right." He knows he lost in the Court of Public Opinion. Also yesterday, Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist (R-Tenn.) met with Gonzales at the senator's Capitol Hill office. "We've been working hard already, and we'll continue to do so pursuant to the president's order," Gonzales told reporters on his way into Frist's suite just off the Senate floor. Got some suspects there too? I hope Specter is one of them. Jefferson, 59, has been under investigation since March 2005 for allegations that he took hundreds of thousands of dollars in bribes in exchange for using his congressional influence to promote business ventures in Africa. Two people have pleaded guilty to bribing him, including Brett Pfeffer, one of his former aides, who was sentenced yesterday to eight years in prison by a federal judge in Alexandria. I hate to pick nits, but don't the editors at the WaPo know that the past tense of plead is pled? Not that my grammar and spelling are ideal, but I don't claim to be writing the first draft of history. As the week progressed, the confrontation escalated further. At some point in the negotiations, McNulty told Palmer that he would quit if ordered to return the materials to Jefferson, according to several officials familiar with the conversation. McNulty, a former Alexandria prosecutor who was recently named Gonzales's deputy, was a central player in the contentious negotiations with Capitol Hill and the White House, sources said. He had also worked in the House for 12 years, as chief counsel for both the majority leader's office and a crime subcommittee. He probably knows where entire cemetaries are located. A message that McNulty might quit was passed along to the White House, along with similar messages for Gonzales and Mueller. Sources familiar with the discussions declined to say which Justice officials communicated those possibilities to the White House. The discussion of Gonzales and the others resigning never evolved into a direct threat, but it was made plain that such an option would have to be considered if the president ordered the documents returned, several sources said. "It wasn't one of those things of 'If you will, I will,' " one senior administration official said. "It was kind of the background noise." "One of the reasons the president did what he did was these types of conversations and other types of conversations in the House were escalating," the official said, referring to murmured threats by some House Republicans to call for Gonzales's resignation. Did those other conversations in the House involve words that begin with "I"? "If you tell the House to stick it where the sun don't shine, you're talking about a fundamentally corrosive relationship between two branches of government," the senior administration official said. "They could zero out funding; they could say, 'Okay, you can do subpoenas, so can we.' "

Link

Home Front: Politix

Press leaks hurt US national security

2006-05-27

Recent disclosures of classified information by the press have damaged the national security, several Republican members of the House intelligence committee said today at a hearing on news organizations' legal responsibilities. The criticism focused on articles in The New York Times concerning a National Security Agency surveillance program and, to a lesser extent, on disclosures in The Washington Post about secret C.I.A. prisons overseas. Some Republicans on the committee advocated the criminal prosecution of The Times. Their comments partly echoed and partly amplified recent statements by Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales that the Justice Department has the authority to prosecute reporters for publishing classified information. "The press is not above the law, including laws regarding unauthorized disclosure and use of classified information," said Peter Hoekstra, Republican of Michigan, the chairman of the committee. But he added that he was "not yet willing" to advocate criminal prosecution of reporters or newspapers. Some of his colleagues were less reticent. "I believe the attorney general and the president should use all of the power of existing law to bring criminal charges," said Representative Rick Renzi, Republican of Arizona. Democratic members of the committee, while generally praising the role the press plays informing citizens in a democracy, responded only indirectly to the comments concerning The Times. Representative Jane Harman, Democrat of California, said she was disturbed by Mr. Gonzales's statements. "If anyone here wants to imprison journalists," she said, "I invite them to spend some time in China, Cuba or North Korea and see whether they feel safer." Nice segue into a non-sequitor. Several lawmakers in both parties said that too much information is classified and that the disclosure of classified information to the press is commonplace. Ms. Harman expressed concern about a pending espionage prosecution of two former lobbyists for the American Israel Public Affairs Committee for receiving and passing along classified information. The legal theory used against the lobbyists, Ms. Harman said, could be used to apply not only to routine news reporting by journalists but also to discussion of published information by newspaper readers. The law professors and journalists who appeared as witnesses had starkly divergent views of the recent disclosures in the press. "We may be living in the golden age of journalism," said Jonathan Turley, a law professor at George Washington University, who described the revelations as an important public service. Gabriel Schoenfeld, an editor at Commentary magazine, said the disclosure of the N.S.A. program was a flat violation of a 1950 espionage law. "It compromised a program that allowed us to find al Qaeda terrorists," Mr. Schoenfeld said. Editors of The Times have disputed that contention, saying the paper published the articles after thorough reporting and careful consultation with the administration. But Mr. Hoekstra said that information about The Times's internal decision-making has not yet been made public. Addressing the witnesses who said they applauded the paper's decision to publish the N.S.A. articles, Mr. Hoekstra said, "You might reach a different conclusion as to whether they actually handled it well" if the paper made additional information available. Representative Mike Rogers, Republican of Michigan, said The Times and other news organizations should not be allowed to decide for themselves what classified information may be published. "Why should a for-profit corporation be the sole arbiter of what is or is not in the public interest?" he asked. In an interview, Mr. Freeman said the First Amendment contemplates an independent role for the press. "Allowing government to punish the press for publishing information it legally obtains," he said, "would be an awful and destructive break with tradition." But publishing classified information is by definition, illegal.

Link

Home Front: WoT

Lodi conviction is a major victory for Justice Department

2006-04-26

The conviction of a Lodi, Calif., man on terrorism-related charges Tuesday is a much-needed victory for the Justice Department, which has stumbled in its pursuit of terrorism suspects in the courts recently. Since the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, federal prosecutors have won verdicts against, among others, an Ohio truck driver accused of plotting to blow up the Brooklyn Bridge and a man who threatened to kill President Bush. But there have also been a series of missteps and false starts. The government has seen juries starting to reject charges in some high-profile cases. In one instance, a judge threw out terrorism charges because of alleged misconduct by a federal prosecutor who was later indicted. The flubs have provided ammunition to critics of the Justice Department and threatened to undermine public confidence in whether the prosecutions are protecting the nation from serious threats. Tuesday's guilty verdict against 23-year-old Hamid Hayat was a measure of vindication. Hamid had been charged in connection with attending a terrorist camp in Pakistan in 2003 and then lying about his attendance to the FBI. A separate jury deadlocked on charges that his father lied to authorities about his son's participation at the camp, and a mistrial was declared. Hayat was charged under a federal law that makes it a crime to provide "material support" to terrorists. The case shows how prosecutors are attempting to use the law to disrupt what they see as evolving terrorist plots before they reach fruition. But the strategy, first enumerated by Attorney General John Ashcroft a few weeks after the attacks in Washington and New York, has also been highly controversial. Its supporters say it is an important tool to head off threats. Critics say it allows the government to subject people to lengthy prison terms based on little evidence that they intended to hurt anyone. In effect, "you prosecute people not for what they have done but for what you fear they might do in the future," said David Cole, a Georgetown University law professor. Some courts have held parts of the "material support" law unconstitutional on grounds that the law fails to give defendants adequate notice of what is illegal. The prosecution of Hayat and his father appeared to be one such marginal case. The only evidence against the men were the videotaped confessions they gave last June to FBI agents and the testimony of a paid government informant. Defense lawyers said the confessions were obtained under duress. The informant's credibility also seemed hurt after he testified having seen a senior al-Qaida operative in Lodi -- a sighting that terrorism experts universally dismissed as unlikely. But ultimately, the government was able to prove that Hayat himself was not credible. Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales said in a statement after the verdict Tuesday that "justice has been served against a man who supported and trained with our terrorist enemies in pursuit of his goal of violent jihad." The courtroom victory was also unusual because most of the convictions the Justice Department has won since the Sept. 11 attacks have come by defendants pleading guilty to crimes rather than by the government proving its case in a court of law. The verdict also reverses what had been a worrisome trend for prosecutors. In a major setback two years ago, a federal jury in Idaho acquitted a computer science student accused of aiding terrorists when he designed a Website that included information on terrorists in Chechnya and Israel. Lawyers for Sami Omar al-Hussayen successfully argued that the government was seeking to criminalize his political views. The government suffered another loss in December when a jury in Tampa, Fla., acquitted a former college professor indicted on charges of supporting terrorists by promoting the cause of Palestinian groups. The case of Sami Al-Arian had been touted by the Justice Department as an illustration of how the Patriot Act was empowering investigators by enabling law enforcement officials and intelligence operatives to share information. And just last month, a former assistant U.S. attorney, Richard Convertino, was indicted by a federal grand jury in Detroit for alleged misconduct in connection with what was the first federal terrorism trial after the Sept. 11 attacks. Convertino has adamantly denied the charges, and has said he is being made a scapegoat for missteps by his Justice Department supervisors.

Link

Home Front: Politix

Gonzalez suggests legal basis for domestic eavesdropping

2006-04-07

Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales suggested on Thursday for the first time that the president might have the legal authority to order wiretapping without a warrant on communications between Americans that occur exclusively within the United States. "I'm not going to rule it out," Mr. Gonzales said when asked about that possibility at a House Judiciary Committee hearing. The attorney general made his comments, which critics said reflected a broadened view of the president's authority, as President Bush offered another strong defense of his decision to authorize the National Security Agency to eavesdrop without warrants on international calls and e-mail messages to or from the United States. Mr. Bush, in an appearance in North Carolina, told a questioner who attacked the program that he would "absolutely not" apologize for authorizing it. "You can come to whatever conclusion you want" about the merits of the program," Mr. Bush said. "The conclusion is I'm not going to apologize for what I did on the terrorist surveillance program." At the House hearing, Mr. Gonzales faced tough questioning from Democrats and Republicans but declined to discuss many operational details. Representative F. James Sensenbrenner Jr., the Wisconsin Republican who is chairman of the Judiciary Committee and one of the administration's staunchest allies, accused the administration of "stonewalling." "Mr. Attorney General, how can we discharge our oversight responsibilities if every time we ask a pointed question, we're told that the answer is classified?" Mr. Sensenbrenner asked. "Congress has an inherent constitutional responsibility to do oversight. We are attempting to discharge those responsibilities." The House and Senate have conducted limited inquiries into the surveillance program, which many Democrats contend is illegal. Republicans on the Senate intelligence panel have agreed on measures to impose new oversight but allow wiretapping without warrants for up to 45 days. Senator Arlen Specter, the Pennsylvania Republican who is chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, has proposed that the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court have a role in ruling on the legitimacy of the program. In the past, Mr. Gonzales and the administration have avoided discussing what they consider hypothetical possibilities in the face of Democrats' accusations that Mr. Bush has asserted unbridled authority to fight terrorism. At the hearing, Mr. Gonzales inched closer toward acknowledging that intercepting purely domestic calls could be considered legally permissible in his view if the communications involved Al Qaeda. "You would look at precedent," he said. "What have previous commander in chiefs done?" Answering his question, he cited Woodrow Wilson's authorizing the interception of all cables to and from Europe in World War I "based upon the Constitution and his inherent role as commander in chief." Mr. Gonzales said he would use that legal framework to decide whether intercepting purely domestic communications without a warrant was legally permissible. He would not say whether such wiretapping has been conducted. The attorney general and other administration officials have said the National Security Agency eavesdropping was authorized just to monitor communications with one end outside the United States. Representative Adam B. Schiff, the California Democrat who raised the question with Mr. Gonzales, said the refusal to rule out purely domestic interceptions without a warrant was "very disturbing." The position, Mr. Schiff said, "represents a wholly unprecedented assertion of executive power." "No one in Congress would deny the need to tap certain calls under court order," he added. "But if the administration believes it can tap purely domestic phone calls between Americans without court approval, there is no limit to executive power. This is contrary to settled law and the most basic constitutional principles of the separation of powers." The Justice Department later backed away somewhat from Mr. Gonzales's statement and said his comments should not be interpreted as a change in policy. A department spokeswoman, Tasia Scolinos, said, "The attorney general's comments today should not be interpreted to suggest the existence or nonexistence of a domestic program or whether any such program would be lawful under the existing legal analysis."

Link

Home Front: Politix

Justice Department reviewing role in NSA decision

2006-02-16

The Justice Department's Office of Professional Responsibility has opened an internal investigation into the department's role in approving the Bush administration's warrantless domestic eavesdropping program, officials said yesterday. In addition, Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales signaled in an interview with The Washington Post yesterday that the administration will sharply limit the testimony of former attorney general John D. Ashcroft and former deputy attorney general James B. Comey, both of whom have been asked to appear before the Senate Judiciary Committee regarding the program. "Clearly, there are privilege issues that have to be considered," Gonzales said. "As a general matter, we would not be disclosing internal deliberations, internal recommendations. That's not something we'd do as a general matter, whether or not you're a current member of the administration or a former member of the administration." "You have to wonder what could Messrs. Comey and Ashcroft add to the discussion," Gonzales added. In response to the comments last night, Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Arlen Specter (R-Pa.) said he has asked Gonzales for permission to call Ashcroft and Comey to testify but has not received an answer. "I'm not asking about internal memoranda or any internal discussions or any of those kind of documents which would have a chilling effect," Specter said. But he said he would expect Ashcroft and Comey to talk about the legal issues at play in the case, including debates within the administration that included a visit by high-level officials to Ashcroft while he was in a hospital bed in 2004. The remarks are among the latest developments in the debate over the National Security Agency program, which was first revealed in media reports in December. President Bush and his aides have strongly defended the program as both lawful and necessary to track suspected al Qaeda associates, but many legal scholars and lawmakers on both sides of the aisle have raised doubts about the program's legality. In a letter to Rep. Maurice D. Hinchey (D-N.Y.), Office of Professional Responsibility counsel H. Marshall Jarrett said that his office has "initiated an investigation" into the Justice Department's role in the NSA surveillance program. The letter, dated Feb. 2 but not received by Hinchey until yesterday, indicates that the probe will include "whether such activities are permissible under existing law." But Justice Department spokeswoman Tasia Scolinos said the inquiry will be more limited: "They will not be making a determination on the lawfulness of the NSA program but rather will determine whether the department lawyers complied with their professional obligations in connection with that program." Scolinos also said that "OPR routinely looks into issues of this kind." Hinchey, who requested the investigation along with three other House Democrats, said he welcomes a probe into "how President Bush went about creating this Big Brother program." Elsewhere in the Capitol yesterday, Democrats and Republicans skirmished on several fronts in the debate regarding proper congressional oversight of the program. The House Judiciary Committee, voting largely along party lines, rejected a Democratic measure asking the attorney general to provide the legal opinions and other documents related to the surveillance program. Rep. John N. Hostettler (Ind.) was the only Republican who joined the panel's Democrats in supporting the proposal by Rep. John Conyers Jr. (D-Mich.). The Senate intelligence committee is scheduled to vote today on a Democratic proposal to launch a congressional inquiry into the NSA program. One member, Sen. Mike DeWine (R-Ohio), opposes an investigation but wants legislation to exempt the surveillance program from the 1978 Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. That idea got a thumbs-down yesterday from some prominent players, including Specter and Rep. Jane Harman (Calif.), the House intelligence committee's top Democrat. The surveillance law can be modified as needed, and remains the best vehicle for setting guidelines for government efforts to eavesdrop on phone calls and e-mails, Specter told reporters. But thus far, he said, "the administration will simply not comply with that statute." Harman agreed that Congress can modify FISA or make other changes, such as appropriating more resources for the judges and aides handling requests for secret warrants, if the administration shows they are needed.

Link

Home Front: Politix

Justice Department reviews role of lawyers in NSA spying

2006-02-16

The ethics office of the Justice Department has begun a review of the department's role in the National Security Agency's domestic eavesdropping program, a move that could shed light on internal dissension over the legal status of the secret program. The review, being conducted by the department's Office of Professional Responsibility, is the first formal government inquiry into the surveillance program since its existence was reported by The New York Times in December. The head of the office, H. Marshall Jarrett, disclosed the inquiry in a Feb. 2 letter to Representative Maurice D. Hinchey, Democrat of New York, who had joined three other Democrats in calling for an investigation. The letter was received Wednesday because of a delay for routine irradiation of mail sent to Congress, Mr. Hinchey's spokesman said. The Justice Department review was begun despite public assurances by Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales and President Bush that the program is legal and closely monitored by government lawyers. Congress has not opened any investigation of the program, despite the urging of Democrats, some Republicans and privacy advocates, who believe that the eavesdropping violates the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act because it is conducted without court warrants. The Senate Intelligence Committee is scheduled to hold a closed meeting on Thursday to decide whether to conduct its own examination, but the White House strongly opposes an investigation, and Democrats say they are pessimistic that a full inquiry will be opened. The Office of Professional Responsibility investigates accusations of unethical or improper conduct by department lawyers. Justice Department officials played down the significance of the investigation, stressing that it will not look at whether the program was legal. "O.P.R. routinely looks into issues of this kind," said Tasia Scolinos, a department spokeswoman. "They will not be making a determination on the lawfulness of the N.S.A. program, but rather will determine whether the department lawyers complied with their professional obligations." Senior department officials, including Attorney General John Ashcroft and his chief deputy, James B. Comey, voiced concerns in 2004 about the program's legal underpinnings. Those concerns led the department to balk at approving the program for a time and led the administration to suspend the program for several months, officials with knowledge of the deliberations have said. The concerns also prompted the N.S.A. to impose tighter controls on how it determined that someone suspected of having links to Al Qaeda should have their communications monitored. The Justice officials' concerns were noted in the letter sent Jan. 9 to Mr. Jarrett, of the Office of Professional Responsibility, by Mr. Hinchey and Representatives Henry A. Waxman and Lynn Woolsey of California and John Lewis of Georgia. The letter asked Mr. Jarrett to open an investigation to answer questions about the department's role, including when and how the department authorized the program, what Mr. Comey's objections were and what led to the department's auditing of the program in 2004. In his reply, Mr. Jarrett acknowledged the Democrats' questions, including "whether such activities are permissible under existing law." "For your information, we have initiated an investigation," replied Mr. Jarrett. Some critics of the N.S.A. program said that they welcomed the review, but that a broader outside inquiry into the program was still needed. Senator Patrick J. Leahy of Vermont, the top Democrat on the Judiciary Committee, said the Justice review should be "independent and free from the strong-arming of those interested in trying to paper over this illegal program." He said the inquiry was "potentially constructive" but would not substitute for "strong Congressional oversight." Anthony D. Romero, executive director of the American Civil Liberties Union, said the decision was a "step in the right direction, raising some of the questions that need to be answered, but it doesn't go far enough." Lawyers for Adham Amin Hassoun, a co-defendant of Jose Padilla in a terrorism case, asked a federal judge on Tuesday to order the government to provide electronic intercepts by the N.S.A. that were not approved by a court. A second motion requests that the judge review intercepts collected under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act and throw out any that appear to have been illegal.

Link

Warning: Undefined property: stdClass::$T in /data/rantburg.com/www/pgrecentorg.php on line 132
-12 More