Addington and Cheney Implicated Definitively (Hurrah for ACLU!)

I have to admit it. I'm flabbergasted that this reporting has emerged (even if it's only within the blog world for now) within the first quarter of Obama's presidency. After seeing his administration fold/bow to greater realities/follow the true plan (however you describe the manipulations of public policy by the Dems under Rethug pressure since Inauguration Day), you've got to admit that it's like experiencing your very own localized earthquake to read that the data are appearing that define what Gonzo (no, not HST) the Goonzo did at the behest of Dick Cheney's right hand, David Addington (and obviously under the direction of the one true Dick guiding US policy). And thus his quick exit (stage right) many moons ago. Blue Gal has a nice exposition at her blog which is worth your while to grok it in all its fullness. Short. Sweet. Laser-edged.

"Our own" is the Constitution of the United States, and the rule of law, including international law, for which it stands. It's not something Dick Cheney can pay John Yoo to write IN A FUCKING MEMO to conduct illegal TORTURE to support an illegal war.

And how about that ACLU? I've supported this fine organization for over 30 years and forgot until today that I had been holding my breath in wonderment at the progress of their Freedom of Information request. (Emphasis marks were added - Ed.)

NPR is reporting today that significant new information has emerged per an ACLU FOIA request directly tying Alberto Gonzales, in his role at White House Counsel, to the torture of Abu Zubaydah. This confirms ex-FBI agent Ali Soufan's account in last week's Senate hearing that Zubaydah was subject to torture from at least April to June of 2002 (when Soufan left the interrogation team). NPR reports that contractor James Mitchell was in regular contact with the White House in the spring of 2002. One source with knowledge of Zubaydah's interrogations agreed to describe the legal guidance process, on the condition of anonymity.

The source says nearly every day, Mitchell would sit at his computer and write a top-secret cable to the CIA's counterterrorism center. Each day, Mitchell would request permission to use enhanced interrogation techniques on Zubaydah. The source says the CIA would then forward the request to the White House, where White House counsel Alberto Gonzales would sign off on the technique. That would provide the administration's legal blessing for Mitchell to increase the pressure on Zubaydah in the next interrogation. A new document is consistent with the source's account. The CIA sent the ACLU a spreadsheet late Tuesday as part of a lawsuit under the Freedom of Information Act. The log shows the number of top-secret cables that went from Zubaydah's black site prison to CIA headquarters each day. Through the spring and summer of 2002, the log shows, someone sent headquarters several cables a day. "At the very least, it's clear that CIA headquarters was choreographing what was going on at the black site," says Jameel Jaffer, the ACLU lawyer who sued to get the document. "But there's still this question about the relationship between CIA headquarters and the White House and the Justice Department and the question of which senior officials were driving this process." As Spencer points out, Gonzales wasn't in the DOJ, the CIA, State, or any other agency where he would have had the power to direct the actions of any other agency. He was the president's lawyer, period. And yet, he appears to have been the point of decision-making for torture pre-torture memos. But, obviously, he wasn't acting alone. We have at least a hint of which senior officials (besides Gonzales) were driving this process from a description in Barton Gellman's Angler, in which he describes how legal policy was shaped early on after 9/11, and the individuals involved:

By the afternoon of September 11, Addington had made contact with Timothy Flanigan, the deputy White House counsel. Flanigan's boss, Alberto Gonzales, was stranded in Norfolk . . . . No matter. His deputy was the one Addington wanted . . . . Flanigan was in the Situation Room on September 11. When Addington reached him from the bunker, Flanigan patched in the Justice Department Command Center across town. There he found a young attorney named John C. Yoo.... Responding to a request from Flanigan, Yoo wrote two weeks after the al Qaeda attacks that no law "can place any limits on the President's determinations as to any terrorist threat, the amount of military force to be used in response, or the method, timing, and nature of the response. These decisions, under our Constitution, are for the President alone to make.". . . . . . Addington, working almost invariably through proxies, requested OLC opinions on subjects calculated to elicit broad replies. Addington insisted on strict secrecy, preventing the circulation of drafts to agencies that might challenge Yoo's analysis. With the rulings in hand, the vice president's counsel wrote the regulations, directives, and executive orders that changed events . . . . Gonzales became the interpreter and salesman of new legal theories to Bush, without whose signature nothing big could happen. Thus formed the core legal team that Cheney oversaw, directly and indirectly, in the years after September 11. "Addington, Flanigan, and Gonzales were really a triumverate," recalled Bradford A. Berenson, then an associate White House counsel. "Gonzales had the relationship with the president. Addington had the relationship with the vice president. And Flanigan, as a former OLC head, had the legal expertise. It was a flying wedge of staffers backed up by the president and the vice president, and it doesn't get much better than that." It's easy to see how, using Yoo's "president as king" formulation, the president's lawyer could become the point person for the CIA in authorizing torture, particularly if, as Lawrence Wilkerson and others have alleged, that the vice president was pushing for the use of torture on Zubaydah. This actually isn't the first time Gonzales has been linked to the authorization of torture. Go back to his confirmation hearings for Attorney General when it was reported that Alberto R. Gonzales, the White House counsel, intervened directly with Justice Department lawyers in 2002 to obtain a legal ruling on the extent of the president's authority to permit extreme interrogation practices in the name of national security, current and former administration officials said Tuesday . . . . Current and former officials who talked about the memorandum have been provided with firsthand accounts about how it was prepared. Some discussed it in an effort to clear up what they viewed as a murky record in advance of Mr. Gonzales's confirmation hearings. Others spoke of the matter apparently believing that the Justice Department had unfairly taken the blame for the memorandum. A White House spokeswoman, Erin Healy, said Tuesday that while Mr. Gonzales personally requested the August opinion, he was only seeking "objective legal advice and did not ask the Office of Legal Counsel to reach any specific conclusion." Right. That revelation led to some tough questioning for Gonzales in his confirmation hearings. During which we now know he committed perjury:

Read the rest here. And try not to gasp too loudly at the ease of the process (and the mostly perfunctory signing off on it that must have occurred by those in the know in the loyal opposition) that led to the sure demise of our constitutional system of government. Suzan P.S. When will the show trials begin? ___________________

In the Election Afterglow We Ask What Now? (Who Got the Dough?)

If you were a little bit confused today when you heard through the MSM outlets that Treasury Secretary Hankie Paulson had decided that the initial bailout plan was flawed, and that he would not purchase "distressed mortgage-backed securities and other troubled assets on the books of banks," but instead "had changed the emphasis because of a need to get money into the financial system much more quickly because of a worsening credit crunch," that would have been a very intelligent response.

Critics have charged that some banks may be tempted to hoard the money or use it to pay out dividends to shareholders or boost compensation for their executives unless regulators tighten standards.

Paulson also "said the administration would continue to use $250 billion of the $700 billion rescue fund to make direct purchases of bank stock as a way of supplying hundreds and potentially thousands of banks with extra capital in hopes that they will resume more normal lending . . . . the administration had decided that the original focus of the bailout program - the purchase of distressed mortgage-backed securities and other troubled assets on the books of banks - would not be employed." It was reported that the "administration has already spoken for all but $60 billion of the initial $350 billion supplied by Congress, including the $250 billion for direct stock purchases from banks and $40 billion for a new loan supplied on Monday to help stabilize troubled insurance giant American International Group." Our surprise savior, John Boehner, House Minority Republican leader from Ohio, rode up on his white charger and formally called "for the Federal Reserve to disclose the recipients of almost $2 trillion of emergency loans from American taxpayers and the troubled assets the central bank is accepting as collateral" just a few hours ago. Could this have had anything to do with Paulson's announcement today? Boehner also asked "the Federal Reserve to comply with a Freedom of Information Act request seeking details about the loans." Thanks, Johnny! As you are one of the guys who usually knows exactly where the bones are buried (or the bucks come to rest), it is of a slight concern when you evoke confusion about the transactions or a desire for an accounting of where a mere $2 trillion from the Treasury has slipped away to. Now exactly how was that program implemented? No transparency you say? Too much secrecy involved? Why would secrecy be an issue for what must be public-domain transactions? For all that money (and not even real money yet, just newly-printed "promise" money), I hope it's not in those famous Cayman accounts already too. When the "regular" thieves can't track the movement of the new thieves, that is a problem.

The Fed "should comply with this Freedom of Information Act request, and in the interest of full and fair disclosure, they must begin providing lawmakers and taxpayers all information about how they are using federal tax dollars," Boehner said. Fed Chairman Ben S. Bernanke and Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson said in September they would comply with congressional demands for transparency in a $700 billion bailout of the banking system. Two months later, as the Fed lends far more than that in separate rescue programs that didn't require approval by Congress, there is little disclosure about how the programs are being implemented. Bloomberg News requested details of the Fed lending under the U.S. Freedom of Information Act and filed a federal lawsuit Nov. 7 seeking to force disclosure. A spokesman for the Federal Reserve didn't immediately respond to requests for comment. `Oversight, Transparency' Boehner said he is increasingly concerned that the government's actions to add stability to financial markets is moving into areas that were not the stated intention when Congress approved $700 billion for a Treasury-administered program to bail out the financial sector that is being weighed down by the housing crisis. "During the bipartisan negotiations between Congress and the administration, members of both parties made clear that Congress must have meaningful oversight over the use of taxpayer dollars," Boehner said. "Transparency is even more important now, given that the program appears to have been implemented in some ways that were given little to no discussion as Congress was being urged to pass the rescue plan." Senator John Cornyn of Texas, a member of the Republican leadership, said the lack of disclosure "should trouble taxpayers and policymakers alike." "There cannot be accountability in government and in our financial institutions without transparency," he said. "Many of the financial problems we are facing today are the direct result of too much secrecy and too little accountability." Representative Scott Garrett, a New Jersey Republican who serves on both the Financial Services and Banking committees, said "it's impossible to get to the bottom of where we are because we don't have transparency."

Party on, public servants! Where do you supposed Rahmbo will alight? Or has he already? Suzan _________________________________