The Third Court Order Bush Ignored
(Ed. Note: (A) First update: Since I initially posted this item, I made several revisions to improve clarity, syntax, etc. The overall content and fact-based items have not changed. Unfortunately, when I submitted the post earlier, I had several external interrupts and did not proof the post properly. My apologies for the mid-course changes. (B) Second update: I know it is sacrosanct to not make excuses for a post, and this is a first for me. First, the excuse/reason. Due to multiple demands of my time over the past 48+ hours, I have not slept; literally working non-stop. I was exextremely tired when I began this piece, and unfortunately it shows. I just re-read the post and found more areas that need improvement, but I’m simply brain dead at this point and must stop. Yep, I know many would do more than suggest I’m brain dead when at my best. In spite of the less than acceptable quality, the post will still "work" until I can get a bit of rest. My apologies and promise to not give excuses and long prefaces in the future.
— Davd Pleasant
Last night I mentioned — documenting video and all — a third federal court order existed that allegedly is “much more troubling for the administration [than the two previously known orders] in many ways.” This morning I began researching this beast, which as John Dean indicated last night, may be impossible for BushCo to lie their way out of this time, especially if one considers Dean’s description of the judge that issued the order.
He’s the one that disclosed the Abu Ghraib photos and had no hesitation to go eyeball-to-eyeball with this government.
The June 2005 order (see ACLU v. Department of Defense et al, (S.D. N.Y 2004)), which is centric to obstruction of justice charges and possibly more, is just one milestone among many, associated with a complaint filed by the ACLU in 2004 against the Department of Defense, the departments of the respective branches of the U.S. military (e.g. Army), Homeland Security, Justice Department and a plethora of divisions within, the FBI, State Department, and the CIA. Too many good high-level agencies to stick an et al. in there!
I cannot be sure, because the litigation “trail” is extensive, but I believe the case is broadly based on an October 7, 2003 FOIA request, “demanding the release of information about detainees held overseas by the United States. While many documents have been released, many vital records are still being withheld by the government,” and was denied, in part, in 2004.
The initial request (or related subsequent request submitted shortly thereafter - it’s hard to tell at this point), can be segregated into three “categories.” In the first category, he ACLU (plaintiff) wanted all records dating back to 9/11 that were related to the treatment, deaths, and rendition of all detainees.
In addition to the general detainee information request, the ACLU asked for “70 items” (categories or specifics - I don’t know); however, in its motion to deny access to the information by the ACLU, the CIA specifies only a few items. I don’t have a detail status of the “70 items” Remember, there may be considerably more asked for or denied — this is based on what I know today and it is sketchy at best. The CIA’s Declarative notes three items, which are obviously related, in varying degrees, to how the government defined torture, what techniques were employed, and an apparent attempt to determine who authorized what.
The image above is a bit fuzzy. Here are the specifics:
- “A Late 2001 Memorandum from DOJ to CIA interpreting the Convention Against Torture.”
- Item 19 - “a DOJ memorandum, specifying interrogation methods that the CIA may use against al-Qaeda members.”
- Item 61 - a “Directive signed by President Bush that grants CIA, the authority to set up detention facilities outside the United States and/or outlining interrogation methods that may be used against Detainees.”
The last big ticket item I have found thus far that may cause consternation, is the ACLU’s request for a speech Bush on September 6, 2006 and everything that went into the speech - directly or indirectly. And just to ensure everything is put in the proper perspective, the title of Bush’s speech was “President Discusses Creation of Military Commissions to Try Suspected Terrorists”.
In his speech, Bush officially acknowledged the existence of a CIA terrorist detention and interrogation program. Bush gave a broad and ambiguous description of the program: scope, location (details only previously released to the public), “an alternate set of interrogation procedures,” a legal blessing of the program by the DOJ, and assurances that “no detainees remained in the CIA program.” And, of course a heavy dose of the standard fear-mongering and countless confessions, but not a word about the fact that he was literally trying to kill people in an incredibly horrific manner.
The ACLU was not accepting anything the president said or did not say at face value, and appeared to be quite concerned about what impact the president’s speech may have or had on their case (submitted two years earlier). The ACLU wanted everything that was directly or indirectly related to drafting the speech. Data, processes, procedures, decision-making processes, documentation, mind-maps, etc.
According to court documents, in very broad language,and intentional I’m sure, the ACLU said it wanted to know ”
the effect of the President’s speech on the case, the CIA’s records search for documents responsive to Plaintiff’s FOIA request, the documents located and the FOIA exemptions upon which the CIA relies to withhold documents.”
No stone left unturned.
The White House is sweating, and rightly so. When Dana Perino cannot characterize the reaction anybody in the White House may have on any topic, it is clear they have seriously lawyered-up. One does not need a PhD from the university offering the best psychology, sociology, or kinesiology programs in the world, to make that determination. Maybe even Dana Milbank, the Perfect Journalist, could figure that out.
There is one very important fact that has come to the forefront, and especially with the matter discussed in this post. Before the Times released the story that the CIA had destroyed the evidence, George Bush may have been able to mitigate the potential judgments from the cases brought to light this week, but now the merits of each case are not absolutely paramount. They need to be adjudicated, but looming over every case are matters of obstructing justice, making false statements, perjury, or worse, which do not have a thing to do with how good or bad each litigant’s case is. The administration violated the courts’ orders. Not to minimize the importance of any of the numerous pending cases, but the Bush administrations lawbreaking put new life in the extant cases. Some may be on the fringe because of technicalities, but others are reportedly quite clear.
Now, if Democrats in Congress can manage to keep just one-fourth of their spine, maybe the judiciary will carry their weight and rightly nail BushCo.
0 Responses to “The Third Court Order Bush Ignored”