New US Congress

William Kelly · May 15, 2009

Denial is not only a river in Egypt.....weeks before the 2008 election, these were Obama's principled words:
http://www.swamppolitics.com/news/politics...an_convict.html
"I commend the military officers who presided over this trial and served on the hearing panel under difficult and unprecedented circumstances. They and all our Armed Forces continue to serve this country with valor in the fight against terrorism. That the Hamdan trial -- the first military commission trial with a guilty verdict since 9/11 -- took several years of legal challenges to secure a conviction for material support for terrorism underscores the dangerous flaws in the Administration's legal framework. It's time to better protect the American people and our values by bringing swift and sure justice to terrorists through our courts and our Uniform Code of Military Justice. And while it is important to convict anyone who provides material support for terrorism, it is long past time to capture or kill Osama bin Laden and the terrorists who murdered nearly 3000 Americans." (Emphasis added).

Now that Obama is the newest imperial president, these are the rationalizations he sends his "officials" out to tell us:

http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/20...-rights-ac.html
A White House official (ANONOMOUSLY, OF COURSE !) says that the president has "always envisioned a role for commissions, properly constituted," and that the August statement was not meant to preclude them.

The official points to President Obama's 2006 vote in favor of the commissions as proposed by GOP Sens. John Warner or Virginia, John McCain of Arizona, and Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, his statements during that debate, as well as work since November with Sen. Graham on re-creating the commissions in a way more likely to pass Supreme Court constitutional muster.

The reference then-Sen. Obama made to the Uniform Code of Military Justice (courts martial) last August, the official recalls, "was around the time of the debate with Sen. McCain that terrorism is not just a law enforcement matter but also a matter that is a question of the laws and rules of war."

Yeah, Bill, he's better than Bush, better than Milosevic and Cesar Chavez, too. But, is that the low standard we have sunk to?

"Better than Bush" is a pretty lame comparison in the America I want to live in. Change can either come at the point of a pen, or at the point of a gun. I'm using a pen, so why such a mocking, critical, unapologetic tone from you? It is not as if

my growing protests are without merit, they seem commensurate with the growth of that which I am objecting to:

http://dissentingjustice.blogspot.com/2009...bunals-you.html
....But Obama has embraced many of the same positions that liberals and Obama himself criticized. For example:

* Obama and members of his administration have embraced the use of rendition. Many of Obama's most ardent defenders blasted progressives who criticized Obama on rendition as jumping the gun. Today, their arguments look even more problematic than in the past.

* Obama has invoked the maligned "state secrets" defense as a complete bar to lawsuits challenging potential human rights and constitutional law violations.

* Obama has argued that detainees at Bagram Air Force Base in Afghanistan do not qualify for habeas corpus rights, even though many of the detainees at the facility were not captured in the war or in Afghanistan.

* Even though it no longer uses the phrase "enemy combatants," the Obama administration has taken the position that the government can indefinitely detain individuals, whether or not they engaged in torture and whether or not they fought the United States on the "battlefield." This logic combined with the denial of habeas to detainees in Afghanistan could make Bagram the functional equivalent of Guantanamo Bay.

If the New York Times article is accurate, then the use of military tribunals issue will join the list of policies that Obama has endorsed, despite the loud liberal criticism that Bush received when he did the same things. It remains unclear, however, whether these contradictions will erode any of Obama's political support. Despite his blatant departure from some of the most important progressive issues that defined his campaign, liberals remain quite pleased with Obama's performance....

There you go again, quoting blogs that accuse people of being liberals.

Obama is a liberally educated, pragmatic gentleman who is in the driver's seat and calling the shots.

He's also black, and has promised to open government and free government records, and I believe if given the opportunity, he can be convinced to release the remainder of the sealed JFK assassination records.

The new Attorney General is also black, and an open minded, liberally educated, pragmatic gentleman, who I believe can be convinced to convene a special federal grand jury to investigate the crimes related to the assassination.

The new chairman of the subcommittee responsible for NARA is a liberally educated, pragmatic black man who eats breakfast with his constituents, and who I believe can be convinced to hold oversight hearings on the JFK Act and pass the MLK Act.

The relatively new District Attorney for Dallas is a liberally educated, pragmatic black man who I believe can be convinced to convene a grand jury to seek the indictments of those responsible for the crimes of those who have been wrongfully convicted/accused, including the murder of Dallas polceman JD Tippit.

Now I know that the pragmatic politician part will be a big hurdle, but for some reason, after going up against real enemies like LBJ/Nixon/Ford and Bush, I believe that the good guys now have the power to do something, and when given the time and opportunity, they will do the right thing.

You want to endlessly quote articles and blogs that you read and suddenly react to and ramble about and wonder why everybody else isn't as outraged as you are, and I think those guys who just took over the reigns of power a chance to figure out how to run the horses.

And I want to keep this thread on track, so keep it focused on the New US Congress and the movement for oversight hearings, and not a rant against O'Bama.

Thanks,

BK

Edited May 15, 2009 by William Kelly

Don Jeffries · May 16, 2009

I agree with Tom; it appears that Obama is heading for that precious "middle" the mainstream media so cherish. You know, where principles and promises become political pragmatism.

As a diehard civil libertarian, and a firm believer in the sunshine rule at all levels of government, of course I support the release of all classified documents. However, are we really naive enough to believe that the conspirators left a written "smoking gun" in the record somewhere? Can there actually be a memo entitled "Re: Assassination of JFK" that they kindly left behind for us?

I really doubt there is much of anything significant left unreleased in the record.

William Kelly · May 16, 2009

I agree with Tom; it appears that Obama is heading for that precious "middle" the mainstream media so cherish. You know, where principles and promises become political pragmatism.
As a diehard civil libertarian, and a firm believer in the sunshine rule at all levels of government, of course I support the release of all classified documents. However,

YO! DON - the BIG BUT -

are we really naive enough to believe that the conspirators left a written "smoking gun" in the record somewhere? Can there actually be a memo entitled "Re: Assassination of JFK" that they kindly left behind for us?

NO, BUT WE HAVE HUNDREDS IF NOT THOUSANDS OF PAGES OF DOCUMENTS THAT ARE STILL BEING WITH-HELD - THAT IF RELEASED, WILL FILL IN THE BLANKS OF WHAT WE DON'T ALREADY KNOW.

I really doubt there is much of anything significant left unreleased in the record.

THAT'S YOUR OPINION. THE CIA AND DIA AND WHCA AND SS AND ONI THINK OTHERWISE, OR THEY WOULDN'T KEEP SEEKING RESTRICTIONS ON THE FEW SPECIFIC DOCUMENTS WE HAVE REQUESTED THAT ARE STILL SEALED.

BK

May 16, 2009

http://www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp/news/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1003933029

On Day One, Obama Overturns Era of White House Secrecy

By Mark Fitzgerald Mark Fitzgerald (mfitzgerald@editorandpublisher.com) is E&P's editor-at-large.

Published: January 21, 2009 4:58 PM ET

CHICAGO In his first full day in office, President Barack Obama issued a memorandum ordering government agencies to examine Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests with a bias toward release of the documents -- overturning eight years of a Bush administration directives to find ways not to disclose information.

"For a long time now there's been too much secrecy in this city," Obama said. "The old rules said that if there was a defensible argument for not disclosing something to the American people, then it should not be disclosed. That era is now over. Starting today, every agency and department should know that this administration stands on the side not of those who seek to withhold information, but those who seek to make it known."

Obama's "Presidential Memorandum on Transparency and Open Government" was immediately hailed by open government advocates, including the Sunshine in Government Initiative, an umbrella of media groups including the American Society of Newspaper Editors, The Associated Press, Association of Alternative Newsweeklies, National Newspaper Association, Newspaper Association of America, Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press and the Society of Professional Journalists.

"It's wonderful that Priority One on Day One for this administration is transparency and restoring public trust," said Rick Blum, the coalition's coordinator. "Yesterday's policy of 'When in doubt, leave it out,' today became, 'When it doubt, let it out.' And this policy will help keep the public informed in our technology-driven, connected society. On open government, the dawn is breaking."

Obama's memorandum orders an administration task force to come up with an "Open Government Directive" within 120 days laying out the specifics of the new marching orders on FOIA.

It also orders the attorney general to issue new guidelines favoring disclosure. Under the Bush administration, then-Attorney General John Ashcroft directed agencies to err in favor of non-disclosure -- promising legal backup from the Justice Department.

Obama also signed an "Executive Order on Presidential Records" that removes many of the barriers to public access to documents of past administrations. "This order ends the practice of having others besides the President assert executive privilege for records after an administration ends," a White House press release said.

That's an allusion to the Bush administration's novel interpretation of the Watergate-era law that allowed current and former vice presidents, including George H.W. Bush, to assert executive privilege to bar release of historic documents.

"Now, only the President will have that power, limiting its potential for abuse," the White House said. "And the order also requires the Attorney General and the White House Counsel to review claims of executive privilege about covered records to make sure those claims are fully warranted by the Constitution."

"I will also hold myself, as president, to a new standard of openness," Obama added.

120 Days - Let's see - according to my calculations that's May 20, 2009, a workday Wednesday.

BK

Also note Executive Order -- Presidential Records

http://www.whitehouse.gov/the_press_office...dentialRecords/

By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, and in order to establish policies and procedures governing the assertion of executive privilege by incumbent and former Presidents in connection with the release of Presidential records by the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA) pursuant to the Presidential Records Act of 1978, it is hereby ordered as follows:Section 1. Definitions. For purposes of this order:

(a) "Archivist" refers to the Archivist of the United States or his designee.

( "NARA" refers to the National Archives and Records Administration.

© "Presidential Records Act" refers to the Presidential Records Act, 44 U.S.C. 2201-2207.

(d) "NARA regulations" refers to the NARA regulations implementing the Presidential Records Act, 36 C.F.R. Part 1270.

(e) "Presidential records" refers to those documentary materials maintained by NARA pursuant to the Presidential Records Act, including Vice Presidential records.

(f) "Former President" refers to the former President during whose term or terms of office particular Presidential records were created.

(g) A "substantial question of executive privilege" exists if NARA's disclosure of Presidential records might impair national security (including the conduct of foreign relations), law enforcement, or the deliberative processes of the executive branch.

(h) A "final court order" is a court order from which no appeal may be taken.

Sec. 2. Notice of Intent to Disclose Presidential Records.

(a) When the Archivist provides notice to the incumbent and former Presidents of his intent to disclose Presidential records pursuant to section 1270.46 of the NARA regulations, the Archivist, using any guidelines provided by the incumbent and former Presidents, shall identify any specific materials, the disclosure of which he believes may raise a substantial question of executive privilege. However, nothing in this order is intended to affect the right of the incumbent or former Presidents to invoke executive privilege with respect to materials not identified by the Archivist. Copies of the notice for the incumbent President shall be delivered to the President (through the Counsel to the President) and the Attorney General (through the Assistant Attorney General for the Office of Legal Counsel). The copy of the notice for the former President shall be delivered to the former President or his designated representative.

( Upon the passage of 30 days after receipt by the incumbent and former Presidents of a notice of intent to disclose Presidential records, the Archivist may disclose the records covered by the notice, unless during that time period the Archivist has received a claim of executive privilege by the incumbent or former President or the Archivist has been instructed by the incumbent President or his designee to extend the time period for a time certain and with reason for the extension of time provided in the notice. If a shorter period of time is required under the circumstances set forth in section 1270.44 of the NARA regulations, the Archivist shall so indicate in the notice.

Sec. 3. Claim of Executive Privilege by Incumbent President.

(a) Upon receipt of a notice of intent to disclose Presidential records, the Attorney General (directly or through the Assistant Attorney General for the Office of Legal Counsel) and the Counsel to the President shall review as they deem appropriate the records covered by the notice and consult with each other, the Archivist, and such other executive agencies as they deem appropriate concerning whether invocation of executive privilege is justified.

( The Attorney General and the Counsel to the President, in the exercise of their discretion and after appropriate review and consultation under subsection (a) of this section, may jointly determine that invocation of executive privilege is not justified. The Archivist shall be notified promptly of any such determination.

© If either the Attorney General or the Counsel to the President believes that the circumstances justify invocation of executive privilege, the issue shall be presented to the President by the Counsel to the President and the Attorney General.

(d) If the President decides to invoke executive privilege, the Counsel to the President shall notify the former President, the Archivist, and the Attorney General in writing of the claim of privilege and the specific Presidential records to which it relates. After receiving such notice, the Archivist shall not disclose the privileged records unless directed to do so by an incumbent President or by a final court order.

Sec. 4. Claim of Executive Privilege by Former President.

(a) Upon receipt of a claim of executive privilege by a living former President, the Archivist shall consult with the Attorney General (through the Assistant Attorney General for the Office of Legal Counsel), the Counsel to the President, and such other executive agencies as the Archivist deems appropriate concerning the Archivist's determination as to whether to honor the former President's claim of privilege or instead to disclose the Presidential records notwithstanding the claim of privilege. Any determination under section 3 of this order that executive privilege shall not be invoked by the incumbent President shall not prejudice the Archivist's determination with respect to the former President's claim of privilege.

( In making the determination referred to in subsection (a) of this section, the Archivist shall abide by any instructions given him by the incumbent President or his designee unless otherwise directed by a final court order. The Archivist shall notify the incumbent and former Presidents of his determination at least 30 days prior to disclosure of the Presidential records, unless a shorter time period is required in the circumstances set forth in section 1270.44 of the NARA regulations. Copies of the notice for the incumbent President shall be delivered to the President (through the Counsel to the President) and the Attorney General (through the Assistant Attorney General for the Office of Legal Counsel). The copy of the notice for the former President shall be delivered to the former President or his designated representative.

Sec. 5. General Provisions.

(a) Nothing in this order shall be construed to impair or otherwise affect:

(i) authority granted by law to a department or agency, or the head thereof; or

(ii) functions of the Director of the Office of Management and Budget relating to budget, administrative, or legislative proposals.

( This order shall be implemented consistent with applicable law and subject to the availability of appropriations.

© This order is not intended to, and does not, create any right or benefit, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law or in equity by any party against the United States, its departments, agencies, or entities, its officers, employees, or agents, or any other person.

Sec. 6. Revocation. Executive Order 13233 of November 1, 2001, is revoked.

BARACK OBAMA

THE WHITE HOUSE,

January 21, 2009

.....And I want to keep this thread on track, so keep it focused on the New US Congress and the movement for oversight hearings, and not a rant against O'Bama.
Thanks,

BK

Oh! Okay...... one set of rules for you.....different set for me? No more about Obama, unless it is some huge euphoric thing, authored by a third party, that you decide to post here.... Did you consider, at all, why I chose to post the criticism of Obama's backsliding, of his prior, clear commitment to open, accountable, and lawful governance, on this, of all threads that I could have chosen?

Edited May 16, 2009 by Tom Scully

William Kelly · May 16, 2009

Tom,

Apparently there are no rules other than photo avitars.

You can post anything you want. I'm just asking you not to post long, drawn out copy of articles and blogs by the likes of Walter Pincus and McLachey and your other favorites, and to keep this on topic - Open Records, with an emphesis on Congressional Oversight, of which there has been none.

You want to talk about Congressional Oversight of torture and the release of torture pix, start your own thread.

You want to bash O'bama, Bash O'bama some where else.

You want to repost lengthly articles by writers who express the opinion that you can't seem to be able to express yourself, do it in another thread so I don't have to read it, or read it again.

You want to make quick judgements about people, well I've made some quick judgements about you.

BK

William Kelly · May 21, 2009

http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/05/20/los...ref=mpstoryview

So they announce they lost a hard drive with Clinton Administration records on it, and they hold a hearing of the NARA subcommittee two days later, so getting a Congressional Oversight Hearing on NARA isn't that hard after all. - BK

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- The National Archives -- a repository of important government documents, including the U.S. Constitution -- has lost a computer hard drive containing large volumes of Clinton administration records, including the names, phone numbers and Social Security numbers of White House staff members and visitors.

Officials at the Archives say they don't know how many confidential records are on the hard drive. But congressional aides briefed on the matter say it contains "more than 100,000" Social Security numbers, including one belonging to a daughter of then-Vice President Al Gore. It also contains Secret Service and White House operating procedures, the staffers said they were told.

he hard drive was last seen in the National Archive's complex in College Park, Maryland, sometime between October of last year and the first week of February. It was discovered missing in late March, prompting a thorough search for the small, 2.5 pound device, the Archives said. When it could not be located, the inspector general's office opened a criminal investigation.

On Wednesday, the Archives announced a $50,000 reward for information leading to its return.

The Archives said no national security information is on the hard drive, nor any original documents. But they said it does contain "personally identifiable information," and they take the loss "very seriously."

U.S. Rep. Darrell Issa, R-California, whose staff was briefed on the matter, said the House will hold a hearing Thursday on the incident.

"If they [the National Archives' staff] can't handle a hard drive that may be sensitive properly, we need to ask the question, will they handle the most secret materials properly?" Issa said.

The Archives Wednesday gave the following account of the disappearance:

Last October, the hard drive was moved from a "secure" storage area to a workspace where it was being used for routine recopying to ensure preservation of the records. But work was halted last year because archivists "wanted to investigate using automated tools to generate inspection reports."

Staffers were moved to other projects until an automated tool was found in mid-March -- that's when they found the hard drive was missing.

The device is described as a two terabyte Western Digital MY BOOK external hard drive, measuring 6.5 x 2.1 x 5.4 inches.

More than 110 4-millimeter tape cartridges were copied onto the hard drive. The records included records from the Clinton Administration Executive Office of the President.

The archives said no original records have been lost, and the Archives has a backup hard drive that will enable them to determine what information is on the missing device.

The inspector general said at least 100 people had access to the area where the hard drive was left unsecured, and that janitors, visitors and others also passed through the area.

The Archives said it is reviewing the data on a copy of the missing hard drive and compiling a list of people whose personal information may be compromised. It will notify individuals of the potential breach and will provide them with a year of credit monitoring, the Archives said.

"Because of the extremely large volume of data on the drive, we do not know yet the number of individuals whose privacy has been affected," the Archives said Wednesday. "As individuals are identified, they will be notified."

The Archives also said it has taken steps to improve security, including both physical control of records and the treatment of personal information

The hard drive was last seen in the National Archive's complex in College Park, Maryland, sometime between October of last year and the first week of February. It was discovered missing in late March, prompting a thorough search for the small, 2.5 pound device, the Archives said. When it could not be located, the inspector general's office opened a criminal investigation.

On Wednesday, the Archives announced a $50,000 reward for information leading to its return.

May 21, 2009

Far from being a sign of positive change, the "news" of a rapid response and a "hearing" before a congressional subcommittee, is instead, a partisan "Op":

I am sorry, Bill, but your optimistic post is actually a meaningless, partisan propaganda "Op" orchestrated by one of the most

rabidly partisan republicans in congress, Rep. Issa. He and his staff are the only folks quoted in the "news piece": you posted,

because it isn't "news"....dutiful stenographers at AP simply converted a press release from (powerless, ranking minority member)

Issa's office into an unattributed "fake news" piece chocked full of Issa's feigned outrage:

http://republicans.oversight.house.gov/New...aspx?NewsID=553
Security Breach Results in Potential Theft of Sensitive Clinton Administration Archives

Issa Calls for National Archives Acting Archivist to Appear Before Oversight Subcommittee

Tuesday, May 19, 2009

WASHINGTON. D.C. – House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform Ranking Member Darrell Issa (R-CA) today called for National Archives and Administration Acting Archivist Adrienne Thomas to appear before an Oversight and Government Reform Subcommittee on Thursday to answer questions regarding the loss of a hard drive containing national security information and other Clinton Administration records.....

(READ IT ALL....IT IS A MIRROR of THE AP "NEWS" article)

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/conte...ss=rss_politics

National Archives Loses Hard Drive

By Larry Margasak

Associated Press

Wednesday, May 20, 2009 .....

Here is the actual account of what will happen at todays's hearing from the actual chairman of the congressional committee:

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/federal-e...d=moreheadlines
Lawmakers Tracking Loss of Clinton-Era Data

....Committee Chairman Edolphus Towns (D-N.Y.) said in a statement that "The Committee will do everything possible to prevent compromising the integrity of the FBI’s criminal investigation while we fulfill our Constitutional duty to investigate the compromised security protocols at the National Archives and work to prevent future incidents."

Towns will not ask Thomas to appear before the subcommittee tomorrow, despite requests from Republican members, who want a full accounting of Thomas's tenure and are eager to learn what other data, if any, are missing. The subcommittee on information policy, census, and national security archives is scheduled to meet tomorrow at 2 p.m. ET to discuss issues that President Obama should consider in selecting the next archivist to lead NARA. ....

Bill, my entire motivation for objecting to Obama's decisions is that he actually takes and responds to b** s*** crazy, right wing partisans like Issa

as if they were serious partners committed to representing the best interests of the American people...consider Issa's recent history:

"At the time she was asked to leave, Lam was in the midst of securing indictments on CIA operative Dusty Foggo and defense contractor Brent Wilkes. "

http://www.cnn.com/2007/LAW/02/13/cia.foggo/index.html

Former CIA No. 3 indicted for steering contracts to friend

POSTED: 11:28 p.m. EST, February 13, 2007

....Lam did not address the controversy during her news conference Tuesday, but said she did not speed up the investigation in order to bring charges against Wilkes and Foggo before leaving office.....

http://www.voiceofsandiego.org/articles/20...01lam032107.txt

voiceofsandiego.org: News... E-mails Tell Story of Lam's Dismissal

Mar 21, 2007 ... A month later, Issa launched a public offensive against Lam. Issa's attack first surfaced in an Associated Press story May 18. ...

http://www.nctimes.com/articles/2007/03/22...1_523_21_07.txt

Issa used media in attacking Lam; Leaked report started ball rolling against former San Diego U.S. attorney

By: WILLIAM FINN BENNETT - Staff Writer | Wednesday, March 21, 2007

.....Last May, Issa leaked a Border Patrol memo critical of her office's record on prosecuting those responsible for smuggling immigrants into the U.S. He did so to focus a spotlight on what he saw as Lam's unacceptable performance, according to one of his top aides.

"There was a reason why we decided to give this memo to The Associated Press," Issa spokesman Hill said Tuesday. "It ran in newspapers across the country. That is how you bring the attention of Congress to an issue they need to deal with, and it's also the first step toward building consensus."

In December, Justice Department officials asked Lam and seven other U.S. attorneys to step down, a move that is now the focus of a congressional firestorm with Democrats and some Republicans calling for Attorney General Alberto Gonzales to resign.

Some members of Congress are accusing the Bush administration of firing the prosecutors for political motives. An investigation by Lam's office in 2005 led to the guilty plea of former 50th District Republican Rep. Randy "Duke" Cunningham for bribery and tax evasion.

While Issa began questioning Lam's performance months before the start of the Cunningham investigation, some lawmakers, including U.S. Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D.-Calif., have suggested that the firing was ordered because Lam was targeting other Republican lawmakers.

The Border Patrol memo leaked by Issa resulted in a May 18 Associated Press story painting a stark picture of the job Lam was doing when it came to pursuing cases of immigrant smuggling. Lam responded by saying the document used by the congressman was "substantially altered and passed off as an official report."

In a May 23, 2006, letter to Gonzales and statement to CNN, Lam cast doubt on the authenticity of the report, which she said "contained editorial comments and conclusions that were never seen by or authorized by the Border Patrol."

The next day, Issa went on the attack.

"Your failure to address the substantive issues raised in the memo is consistent with previous news reports," he wrote, in a letter released to reporters. "You have previously disregarded my requests for information."

Pressure appeared to be building within the Justice Department over the perception created by the article.....

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/conte...6051900576.html

Immigrant Smugglers Avoid Prosecution

By ELLIOT SPAGAT

The Associated Press

Friday, May 19, 2006; 2:44 PM

........The report was provided to the AP by the office of Rep. Darrell Issa, R-Calif., who has accused the chief federal prosecutor in San Diego of being lax on smuggling cases. Issa's office said it was an internal Border Patrol report written last August. It was unclear who wrote it.

The lack of prosecutions is "demoralizing the agents and making a joke out of our system of justice," said T.J. Bonner, president of the National Border Patrol Council, which represents agents. "It is certainly a weak link in our immigration-enforcement chain."

The 41-page report says federal prosecutors in San Diego typically prosecute smugglers who commit "dangerous/violent activity" or guide at least 12 illegal immigrants across the border. But other smugglers know they are only going to get "slapped on the wrist," according to the report.......

http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com/...among_those.php
......keep in mind that Lam's name appeared on a preliminary list of U.S. attorneys to be fired as early as January 2006. She was then fired in December of that year, one of eight U.S. attorneys asked to resign by the Justice Department, but one of the only ones (at least initially) to put up a fight. At the time she was asked to leave, Lam was in the midst of securing indictments on CIA operative Dusty Foggo and defense contractor Brent Wilkes.

http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com/...ives/002813.php

Cunningham, Under Investigation, Signed Letter Criticizing Prosecutor

By Paul Kiel - March 20, 2007, 11:02AM

It was nothing personal.

Four months after the San Diego United States Attorney's office launched an investigation into whether he had accepted bribes from defense contractors, and little more than a month before he pled guilty to those charges, Rep. Duke Cunningham (R-CA) signed on to a letter criticizing U.S. Attorney Carol Lam's "lax" handling of immigration crimes.

The letter, signed by 18 other Republican lawmakers, was sent October 20, 2005. Cunningham pled guilty November 28 to bribery charges and resigned from office.

http://www.perrspectives.com/blog/archives/001007.htm

5. Issa Drives the Firing of U.S. Attorney Carol Lam

As it turns out, Congressman Issa was also a key player in another major Bush administration scandal, the political purge of U.S. attorneys.

Carol Lam, who successfully prosecuted disgraced San Diego Republican Congressman Randy "Duke" Cunningham, was one of the 8 U.S. prosecutors forced out by Alberto Gonzales' Justice Department. But it was Issa who helped create the façade that supposedly lax immigration enforcement by Lam's office was behind her dismissal.

It was Issa, after all, who released an anonymously written 41 page Border Patrol report which claimed "that Lam was giving less attention to human smugglers than she should." As the Voice of San Diego reported in March 2007:

Six days after the Associated Press story broke, Issa's office sent a letter to Lam, in which the congressman called the memo "an embarrassment to your office."

Monica Goodling, a Justice Department spokeswoman, sent the letter to Kyle Sampson, Gonzales' chief of staff who resigned in the attorney firing scandal's wake, and two other high-ranking officials.

"FYI," she wrote, "the assault continues."

Lam was eventually sacked, as TPM Muckraker concluded, "despite the fact that no one from the Justice Department ever confronted Carol Lam over her performance on immigration prosecutions."

YouTube - Blackwater Hearing: Waxman's Opening

http://www.google.com/#hl=en&q=issa+bl...;fp=G7EFg_3LQek

Issa Issues Veiled Blackwater Threat Against Waxman ... Waxman Threatens to Kick Issa Out of Hearing Room · Added. 3:31. Waxman Threatens to ...

Edited May 21, 2009 by Tom Scully

William Kelly · May 21, 2009

I don't doubt they are politicians, if that's what you are accusing them of being.

And don't confuse my being facicious (sp?) with being opptomistic, since I'm the one whose been beating a dead horse for the past few years.

This hearing on NARA losing the Clinton disc will give those interested an opportunity to watch (on CSPAN) how these people work - and see this committee in action, or inaction, as the case may be.

BK

William Kelly · May 22, 2009

President Obama gave a speech on national security and secrecy at the National Archives today. For a complete copy of the speech:

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/21/us/polit...nted=6&_r=1

I've excerpted the relevant parts here:

http://jfkcountercoup.blogspot.com/

In the speech Obama said:

...Now, let me touch on a second set of issues that relate to security and transparency.

National security requires a delicate balance. One the one hand, our democracy depends on transparency. On the other hand, some information must be protected from public disclosure for the sake of our security - for instance, the movement of our troops, our intelligence-gathering, or the information we have about a terrorist organization and its affiliates. In these and other cases, lives are at stake.

Now, several weeks ago, as part of an ongoing court case, I released memos issued by the previous administration's Office of Legal Counsel. I did not do this because I disagreed with the enhanced interrogation techniques that those memos authorized, and I didn't release the documents because I rejected their legal rationales - although I do on both counts. I released the memos because the existence of that approach to interrogation was already widely known, the Bush administration had acknowledged its existence, and I had already banned those methods. The argument that somehow by releasing those memos we are providing terrorists with information about how they will be interrogated makes no sense. We will not be interrogating terrorists using that approach. That approach is now prohibited.

In short, I released these memos because there was no overriding reason to protect them. And the ensuing debate has helped the American people better understand how these interrogation methods came to be authorized and used.

On the other hand, I recently opposed the release of certain photographs that were taken of detainees by U.S. personnel between 2002 and 2004. Individuals who violated standards of behavior in these photos have been investigated and they have been held accountable. There was and is no debate as to whether what is reflected in those photos is wrong. Nothing has been concealed to absolve perpetrators of crimes. However, it was my judgment - informed by my national security team - that releasing these photos would inflame anti-American opinion and allow our enemies to paint U.S. troops with a broad, damning, and inaccurate brush, thereby endangering them in theaters of war.

In short, there is a clear and compelling reason to not release these particular photos. There are nearly 200,000 Americans who are serving in harm's way, and I have a solemn responsibility for their safety as Commander-in-Chief. Nothing would be gained by the release of these photos that matters more than the lives of our young men and women serving in harm's way.

Now, in the press's mind and in some of the public's mind, these two cases are contradictory. They are not to me. In each of these cases, I had to strike the right balance between transparency and national security. And this balance brings with it a precious responsibility. There's no doubt that the American people have seen this balance tested over the last several years. In the images from Abu Ghraib and the brutal interrogation techniques made public long before I was President, the American people learned of actions taken in their name that bear no resemblance to the ideals that generations of Americans have fought for. And whether it was the run-up to the Iraq war or the revelation of secret programs, Americans often felt like part of the story had been unnecessarily withheld from them. And that caused suspicion to build up. And that leads to a thirst for accountability.

I understand that. I ran for President promising transparency, and I meant what I said. And that's why, whenever possible, my administration will make all information available to the American people so that they can make informed judgments and hold us accountable. But I have never argued - and I never will - that our most sensitive national security matters should simply be an open book. I will never abandon - and will vigorously defend - the necessity of classification to defend our troops at war, to protect sources and methods, and to safeguard confidential actions that keep the American people safe.

Here's the difference though: Whenever we cannot release certain information to the public for valid national security reasons, I will insist that there is oversight of my actions - by Congress or by the courts.

We're currently launching a review of current policies by all those agencies responsible for the classification of documents to determine where reforms are possible, and to assure that the other branches of government will be in a position to review executive branch decisions on these matters. Because in our system of checks and balances, someone must always watch over the watchers - especially when it comes to sensitive administration - information.

Now, along these same lines, my administration is also confronting challenges to what is known as the "state secrets" privilege. This is a doctrine that allows the government to challenge legal cases involving secret programs. It's been used by many past Presidents - Republican and Democrat - for many decades. And while this principle is absolutely necessary in some circumstances to protect national security, I am concerned that it has been over-used. It is also currently the subject of a wide range of lawsuits.

So let me lay out some principles here. We must not protect information merely because it reveals the violation of a law or embarrassment to the government. And that's why my administration is nearing completion of a thorough review of this practice.

And we plan to embrace several principles for reform. We will apply a stricter legal test to material that can be protected under the state secrets privilege. We will not assert the privilege in court without first following our own formal process, including review by a Justice Department committee and the personal approval of the Attorney General. And each year we will voluntarily report to Congress when we have invoked the privilege and why because, as I said before, there must be proper oversight over our actions.

On all these matters related to the disclosure of sensitive information, I wish I could say that there was some simple formula out there to be had. There is not. These often involve tough calls, involve competing concerns, and they require a surgical approach.

But the common thread that runs through all of my decisions is simple: We will safeguard what we must to protect the American people, but we will also ensure the accountability and oversight that is the hallmark of our constitutional system.

I will never hide the truth because it's uncomfortable. I will deal with Congress and the courts as co-equal branches of government. I will tell the American people what I know and don't know, and when I release something publicly or keep something secret, I will tell you why. (Applause.)…….

Here's some responses to the speech:

Obama Opposes Truth Commissions But Not Prosecutions

http://washingtonindependent.com/44090/oba...ot-prosecutions

Just Keep Walking - Patrick Appel

http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_...-the-actio.html

A Government Attorney Responds by Lars Thorwald

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2009/5/2...n-Obamas-Speech

Edited May 22, 2009 by William Kelly

Christopher Hall · May 22, 2009

Documents from the Clinton Adm. missing from the National Archives.

Sounds familiar.

Kind of reminds me of Sandy Berger, who is presently serving a modest period of time in the penalty box before resuming his multi-million dollar lobbying business.

If Obama insists on transparency, why doesn't he demand that Congress and the CIA release any and all documents relating to the CIA's briefings of Congress (including the Speaker of the House) on interrogation of captured prisoners?

What could possibly be wrong with that?

May 22, 2009

Documents from the Clinton Adm. missing from the National Archives.
Sounds familiar.

Kind of reminds me of Sandy Berger, who is presently serving a modest period of time in the penalty box before resuming his multi-million dollar lobbying business.

If Obama insists on transparency, why doesn't he demand that Congress and the CIA release any and all documents relating to the CIA's briefings of Congress (including the Speaker of the House) on interrogation of captured prisoners?

What could possibly be wrong with that?

Christopher,

Your posted opinion as to the settled matter of Sandy Berger's crimes, (and your posted "take" on the Pelosi diversion) impress me as intensely partisan, rather than what I would expect from you, based on what you have posted elsewhere related to your education level and profession.

Did you read ANY of the details in my last post? Consider that Rep. Issa is the promoter of this "missing from the National Archives", .non-issue. Consider Issa's background, reputation and history of past manipulation of the press for partisan purposes. Consider that this is the same kind of diversion that attempts to shift the onus of attention in the matter of waterboarding a prisoner 83 times, possibly BEFORE an OLC ruling providing legal cover, and CERTAINLY BEFORE any briefing of even the proposed application of waterboarding as an "EIT", conscious, illegal treaty busting decisions made at the highlest levels of elected government, ONTO NANCY PELOSI, because...... why was it shifted to her....tell me again?

Compare the priorities of your POV, your concern over what Pelosi knew, and when she knew it, vs. your concern over public admissions by the former VP that "we ONLY tortured three people".

Consider what you proposed in your post, and how out of step your reference to (concern with) "the speaker of the house" may be with reality...what a reasonable person's reaction to extra-legal executive branch authorization of torture would be:

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.p...oryId=104350361
Legal Affairs Did White House OK Earliest Detainee Abuse?

by Ari Shapiro

Listen Now [5 min 2 sec] add to playlist

All Things Considered, May 20, 2009 · It is clear that increasingly abusive interrogation techniques were used on Abu Zubaydah, the first high-value detainee, in the months between his capture and the first Justice Department memo authorizing harsh interrogations. But the legal guidance that authorized those early interrogations remains shrouded in secrecy.

Zubaydah was picked up on March 28, 2002. The Justice Department issued its first memo on torture four months later on Aug. 1.

Zubaydah's lawyer, Brent Mickum, believes documents and testimony in the public record establish "beyond question that Abu Zubaydah was subjected to torture before the issuance of the Aug. 1 memorandum."...

...Soufan told senators of describing Zubaydah's treatment to FBI supervisors as "borderline torture."

The use of "borderline torture" against Zubaydah months before the first Justice Department memo authorizing harsh interrogations raises the question of whether Mitchell had legal permission to use abusive techniques.

The CIA suggests that he did.

"The Aug. 1, 2002, memo from the Department of Justice was not the first piece of legal guidance for the interrogation program," according to agency spokesman Paul Gimigliano.

But the CIA will not describe what the first legal guidance was.

Top-Secret Cables

(Do you refer to the political opposition by the partisan slur, "democrat" party, "democrat" leaders, "democrat" convention, instead of by the traditional and official name, democratic party?)

Has this "b** s*** crazy" extreme right garbage argument hit your inbox yet? Callers into SRN radio talk shows recite it as if they thought of it?:

http://johnltdo5455.wordpress.com/2009/05/...-supreme-court/
........The only torment President Obama wants Americans thinking about now is George Bush and his handling of everything — especially those who were “tortured.”

But isn’t death by sniper a torture? A denial of rights? A denial of the right to life?

Obama has spoken about negotiating with the “moderate” Taliban, has removed the word “terrorist” from the national lexicon, has reached out to Iran even as that nation’s president denies the Holocaust and marches toward a nuclear weapon. He’s the president who has called waterboarding terrorists “torture.” And now, the president of such great heart, love and understanding wants that same kind of empathy in his Supreme Court nominee.

Yet he authorized the execution of three Somali teen-agers who had held hostages before and never harmed or killed one. And this happened during negotiations.....

Christopher,

I'd advise you to "pick your shots", as the background of the investigation of Sandy Berger by the partisanized republican DOJ, the findings, the sentence, and the background of the sentencing judge seem to contradict the intensity of your opinion as to the severity of "the crime....i.e, it seems a "non-issue", as are the other examples in this post:

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html...mp;pagewanted=1
Ex-Clinton Official Draws Higher-Than-Expected Fine

By ERIC LICHTBLAU

Published: September 9, 2005

....In a plea deal reached five months ago, lawyers for the Justice Department and Mr. Berger agreed to seek a $10,000 fine as part of his sentence. But Magistrate Judge Deborah A. Robinson of Federal District Court here decided Thursday to impose the $50,000 fine, along with 100 hours of community service and two years' probation. She also barred Mr. Berger from access to classified material for three years.

The judge said the proposed $10,000 fine failed to reflect the severity of the crime or the financial resources of Mr. Berger, who founded an international consulting firm after serving as national security adviser from 1997 through 2000. ....

....But new court filings, prepared by the Justice Department and Mr. Berger's lawyers, did provide fresh details about the episode and possible explanations for his actions.

The filings suggest that prosecutors and defense lawyers believe Mr. Berger's decision to remove the documents was triggered by pressure, fatigue and confusion, rather than by any intent to hide damaging information about the Clinton administration, as Republican critics have charged. ....

....Prosecutors for the Justice Department, in their own memorandum to the judge, offered no evidence to suggest any ulterior motive by Mr. Berger. On the contrary, prosecutors noted that the Sept. 11 commission reviewed copies of all the documents that Mr. Berger took and that there was ''no evidence that any unique document was destroyed or lost.''...

...Instead, prosecutors said in their filing, Mr. Berger appeared to have taken the documents ''for his own convenience.'' He ''was entitled to review the documents any time he wished to, at the secure locations, but he decided that was too burdensome and so he chose to break the law,'' the prosecutors said.

However, Justice Department prosecutors made clear in their sentencing memorandum that no matter what may have motivated Mr. Berger, they considered his offense a serious crime.

''As a consultant to the government the defendant assumed an important task to review highly classified documents related to national security,'' they wrote, ''and in the course of that review he breached the trust given to him by unlawfully removing, retaining and destroying classified documents.''.....

Christopher, seven years and four months after republican president Reagan was inaugurated, do you thing Sandy Berger's sentencing judge, US Magistrate Deborah Robinson, "snuck in" to her position on the federal bench?

http://pqasb.pqarchiver.com/washingtonpost...mp;pqatl=google
U.S. District Court Magistrate Chosen

May 26, 1988

Deborah A. Robinson, an assistant U.S. attorney for the District of Columbia, has been selected as a federal magistrate in U.S. District Court here. Robinson, 34, was chosen by a vote of the District Court's judges last week.

http://www.citypaper.com/news/story.asp?id=15732

Federal Judge Deborah Robinson's Son Faces Drug and Gun Charges

By Jeffrey Anderson and Van Smith | Posted 5/15/2008

....At the time of Phillip Winkfield's birth, Robinson was an assistant U.S. attorney in the District of Columbia, where she worked for eight years, according to the federal court's web site. Before that she clerked for Chief Judge H. Carl Moultrie of the D.C. Superior Court, for whom the courthouse is named. Robinson graduated from Morgan State in 1975 and Emory University School of Law in 1978. She is an adjunct faculty member at Catholic University of America's Columbus School of Law.

As a federal magistrate Robinson presides over bail hearings, requests for search warrants, probation violations, preliminary hearings, and decisions from the grand jury. In 2007, she declined to revoke probation for former D.C. mayor Marion Barry in a criminal tax case. In 2006, she rejected then-Philadelphia 76ers star Allen Iverson's complaints about the location of his deposition in a civil case arising from a nightclub fight. She received the 2005 decision of a federal grand jury to indict Scooter Libby, the former chief of staff to Vice President Dick Cheney, on felony charges of perjury and obstruction of justice. Also in 2005, she fined former national security adviser Sandy Berger $50,000 for removing and destroying classified documents from the National Archives. Back in 1989, she presided over the preliminary hearing for Rayful Edmond III, the head of one of D.C.'s largest drug gangs of that era. .....

Here is an example of an actual important issue, don't you agree?:

http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/200...tion/index.html
(3) Questions for defenders of Obama's proposal:

.....For anyone making that claim, what is the basis for believing that? In the Bush era, the Government has repeatedly been able to convict alleged Al Qaeda and Taliban members in civilian courts, including several (Ali al-Marri, Jose Padilla, John Walker Lindh) who were tortured and others (Zacharais Moussaoui, Padilla) where evidence against them was obtained by extreme coercion. What convinced you to believe that genuine terrorists can't be convicted in our justice system?

For those asserting that there are dangerous people who have not yet been given any trial and who Obama can't possibly release, how do you know they are "dangerous" if they haven't been tried? Is the Government's accusation enough for you to assume it's true?...

or this....when "we do it", it's always better.....RIGHT?

Cheney:

Obama and Cheney clash on fight against terror
Boston Globe - ‎15 hours ago‎

Speaking in his familiar, somber baritone, he said the technique was used on only three hardened senior Al Qaeda operatives and only when all other methods ...

U.S. Congress to finally stand up against torture?

Yesterday, President Obama approved a proposed civilian nuclear technology-sharing agreement between the U.S. and the United Arab Emirates and requested its execution, but CNN -- in one of the all-time most unintentionally hilarious articles ever written -- reports that its ratification is in doubt:

"WASHINGTON (CNN) -- President Obama on Thursday sent a civil nuclear agreement with the United Arab Emirates to the Senate for ratification, but its passage remains uncertain, thanks to a recently disclosed video.

Senior U.S. officials said lawmakers critical of the deal could use the video, which shows a member of the UAE government's royal family torturing a man, to argue the United States should not have such nuclear cooperation with a country where the rule of law is not respected and human rights violations are tolerated."

How anyone could write or even read that last sentence without succumbing to painful, prolonged cackling is genuinely mystifying.

The videos in questions involve torture by a single individual citizen of the UAE, not an entire government. The individual torturer isn't even part of the UAE's government: he never worked in its Justice Department, doesn't currently sit as a judge on a high-level court, doesn't teach law in a prestigious university, doesn't have his torture-defending speeches broadcast on national television by UAE news networks, isn't constantly defended by admiring journalists any time he's criticized, and doesn't have hordes of TV pundits demanding that nothing be done to him.

And one other thing: the torturer in question -- in the UAE -- has been arrested while a criminal investigation takes place. More here.

The 13 people who made torture possible

....Yet 13 key people in the Bush administration cannot claim they relied on the memos from the DOJ's Office of Legal Counsel. Some of the 13 manipulated the federal bureaucracy and the legal process to "preauthorize" torture in the days after 9/11. Others helped implement torture, and still others helped write the memos that provided the Bush administration with a legal fig leaf after torture had already begun.

Edited May 22, 2009 by Tom Scully

William Kelly · May 22, 2009

President Obama gave a speech on national security and secrecy at the National Archives today. For a complete copy of the speech:
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/21/us/polit...nted=6&_r=1

DOESEN'T ANYBODY WANT TO TALK ABOUT WHAT THE COMMANDER IN CHIEF HAS TO SAY?

WILL HE SUBJECT THE JFK RECORDS TO THE SAME CONGRESSIONAL OVERSIGHT HE EXPECTS FOR HIS OWN ADMINISTRATIVE RECORDS?

BK

I've excerpted the relevant parts here:

http://jfkcountercoup.blogspot.com/

In the speech Obama said:

...Now, let me touch on a second set of issues that relate to security and transparency.

National security requires a delicate balance. One the one hand, our democracy depends on transparency. On the other hand, some information must be protected from public disclosure for the sake of our security - for instance, the movement of our troops, our intelligence-gathering, or the information we have about a terrorist organization and its affiliates. In these and other cases, lives are at stake.

Now, several weeks ago, as part of an ongoing court case, I released memos issued by the previous administration's Office of Legal Counsel. I did not do this because I disagreed with the enhanced interrogation techniques that those memos authorized, and I didn't release the documents because I rejected their legal rationales - although I do on both counts. I released the memos because the existence of that approach to interrogation was already widely known, the Bush administration had acknowledged its existence, and I had already banned those methods. The argument that somehow by releasing those memos we are providing terrorists with information about how they will be interrogated makes no sense. We will not be interrogating terrorists using that approach. That approach is now prohibited.

In short, I released these memos because there was no overriding reason to protect them. And the ensuing debate has helped the American people better understand how these interrogation methods came to be authorized and used.

On the other hand, I recently opposed the release of certain photographs that were taken of detainees by U.S. personnel between 2002 and 2004. Individuals who violated standards of behavior in these photos have been investigated and they have been held accountable. There was and is no debate as to whether what is reflected in those photos is wrong. Nothing has been concealed to absolve perpetrators of crimes. However, it was my judgment - informed by my national security team - that releasing these photos would inflame anti-American opinion and allow our enemies to paint U.S. troops with a broad, damning, and inaccurate brush, thereby endangering them in theaters of war.

In short, there is a clear and compelling reason to not release these particular photos. There are nearly 200,000 Americans who are serving in harm's way, and I have a solemn responsibility for their safety as Commander-in-Chief. Nothing would be gained by the release of these photos that matters more than the lives of our young men and women serving in harm's way.

Now, in the press's mind and in some of the public's mind, these two cases are contradictory. They are not to me. In each of these cases, I had to strike the right balance between transparency and national security. And this balance brings with it a precious responsibility. There's no doubt that the American people have seen this balance tested over the last several years. In the images from Abu Ghraib and the brutal interrogation techniques made public long before I was President, the American people learned of actions taken in their name that bear no resemblance to the ideals that generations of Americans have fought for. And whether it was the run-up to the Iraq war or the revelation of secret programs, Americans often felt like part of the story had been unnecessarily withheld from them. And that caused suspicion to build up. And that leads to a thirst for accountability.

I understand that. I ran for President promising transparency, and I meant what I said. And that's why, whenever possible, my administration will make all information available to the American people so that they can make informed judgments and hold us accountable. But I have never argued - and I never will - that our most sensitive national security matters should simply be an open book. I will never abandon - and will vigorously defend - the necessity of classification to defend our troops at war, to protect sources and methods, and to safeguard confidential actions that keep the American people safe.

Here's the difference though: Whenever we cannot release certain information to the public for valid national security reasons, I will insist that there is oversight of my actions - by Congress or by the courts.

We're currently launching a review of current policies by all those agencies responsible for the classification of documents to determine where reforms are possible, and to assure that the other branches of government will be in a position to review executive branch decisions on these matters. Because in our system of checks and balances, someone must always watch over the watchers - especially when it comes to sensitive administration - information.

Now, along these same lines, my administration is also confronting challenges to what is known as the "state secrets" privilege. This is a doctrine that allows the government to challenge legal cases involving secret programs. It's been used by many past Presidents - Republican and Democrat - for many decades. And while this principle is absolutely necessary in some circumstances to protect national security, I am concerned that it has been over-used. It is also currently the subject of a wide range of lawsuits.

So let me lay out some principles here. We must not protect information merely because it reveals the violation of a law or embarrassment to the government. And that's why my administration is nearing completion of a thorough review of this practice.

And we plan to embrace several principles for reform. We will apply a stricter legal test to material that can be protected under the state secrets privilege. We will not assert the privilege in court without first following our own formal process, including review by a Justice Department committee and the personal approval of the Attorney General. And each year we will voluntarily report to Congress when we have invoked the privilege and why because, as I said before, there must be proper oversight over our actions.

On all these matters related to the disclosure of sensitive information, I wish I could say that there was some simple formula out there to be had. There is not. These often involve tough calls, involve competing concerns, and they require a surgical approach.

But the common thread that runs through all of my decisions is simple: We will safeguard what we must to protect the American people, but we will also ensure the accountability and oversight that is the hallmark of our constitutional system.

I will never hide the truth because it's uncomfortable. I will deal with Congress and the courts as co-equal branches of government. I will tell the American people what I know and don't know, and when I release something publicly or keep something secret, I will tell you why. (Applause.)…….

Here's some responses to the speech:

Obama Opposes Truth Commissions But Not Prosecutions

http://washingtonindependent.com/44090/oba...ot-prosecutions

Just Keep Walking - Patrick Appel

http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_...-the-actio.html

A Government Attorney Responds by Lars Thorwald

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2009/5/2...n-Obamas-Speech

Robert Howard · May 28, 2009

President Obama gave a speech on national security and secrecy at the National Archives today. For a complete copy of the speech:
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/21/us/polit...nted=6&_r=1

DOESEN'T ANYBODY WANT TO TALK ABOUT WHAT THE COMMANDER IN CHIEF HAS TO SAY?

WILL HE SUBJECT THE JFK RECORDS TO THE SAME CONGRESSIONAL OVERSIGHT HE EXPECTS FOR HIS OWN ADMINISTRATIVE RECORDS?

BK

I've excerpted the relevant parts here:

http://jfkcountercoup.blogspot.com/

In the speech Obama said:

...Now, let me touch on a second set of issues that relate to security and transparency.

National security requires a delicate balance. One the one hand, our democracy depends on transparency. On the other hand, some information must be protected from public disclosure for the sake of our security - for instance, the movement of our troops, our intelligence-gathering, or the information we have about a terrorist organization and its affiliates. In these and other cases, lives are at stake.

Now, several weeks ago, as part of an ongoing court case, I released memos issued by the previous administration's Office of Legal Counsel. I did not do this because I disagreed with the enhanced interrogation techniques that those memos authorized, and I didn't release the documents because I rejected their legal rationales - although I do on both counts. I released the memos because the existence of that approach to interrogation was already widely known, the Bush administration had acknowledged its existence, and I had already banned those methods. The argument that somehow by releasing those memos we are providing terrorists with information about how they will be interrogated makes no sense. We will not be interrogating terrorists using that approach. That approach is now prohibited.

In short, I released these memos because there was no overriding reason to protect them. And the ensuing debate has helped the American people better understand how these interrogation methods came to be authorized and used.

On the other hand, I recently opposed the release of certain photographs that were taken of detainees by U.S. personnel between 2002 and 2004. Individuals who violated standards of behavior in these photos have been investigated and they have been held accountable. There was and is no debate as to whether what is reflected in those photos is wrong. Nothing has been concealed to absolve perpetrators of crimes. However, it was my judgment - informed by my national security team - that releasing these photos would inflame anti-American opinion and allow our enemies to paint U.S. troops with a broad, damning, and inaccurate brush, thereby endangering them in theaters of war.

In short, there is a clear and compelling reason to not release these particular photos. There are nearly 200,000 Americans who are serving in harm's way, and I have a solemn responsibility for their safety as Commander-in-Chief. Nothing would be gained by the release of these photos that matters more than the lives of our young men and women serving in harm's way.

Now, in the press's mind and in some of the public's mind, these two cases are contradictory. They are not to me. In each of these cases, I had to strike the right balance between transparency and national security. And this balance brings with it a precious responsibility. There's no doubt that the American people have seen this balance tested over the last several years. In the images from Abu Ghraib and the brutal interrogation techniques made public long before I was President, the American people learned of actions taken in their name that bear no resemblance to the ideals that generations of Americans have fought for. And whether it was the run-up to the Iraq war or the revelation of secret programs, Americans often felt like part of the story had been unnecessarily withheld from them. And that caused suspicion to build up. And that leads to a thirst for accountability.

I understand that. I ran for President promising transparency, and I meant what I said. And that's why, whenever possible, my administration will make all information available to the American people so that they can make informed judgments and hold us accountable. But I have never argued - and I never will - that our most sensitive national security matters should simply be an open book. I will never abandon - and will vigorously defend - the necessity of classification to defend our troops at war, to protect sources and methods, and to safeguard confidential actions that keep the American people safe.

Here's the difference though: Whenever we cannot release certain information to the public for valid national security reasons, I will insist that there is oversight of my actions - by Congress or by the courts.

We're currently launching a review of current policies by all those agencies responsible for the classification of documents to determine where reforms are possible, and to assure that the other branches of government will be in a position to review executive branch decisions on these matters. Because in our system of checks and balances, someone must always watch over the watchers - especially when it comes to sensitive administration - information.

Now, along these same lines, my administration is also confronting challenges to what is known as the "state secrets" privilege. This is a doctrine that allows the government to challenge legal cases involving secret programs. It's been used by many past Presidents - Republican and Democrat - for many decades. And while this principle is absolutely necessary in some circumstances to protect national security, I am concerned that it has been over-used. It is also currently the subject of a wide range of lawsuits.

So let me lay out some principles here. We must not protect information merely because it reveals the violation of a law or embarrassment to the government. And that's why my administration is nearing completion of a thorough review of this practice.

And we plan to embrace several principles for reform. We will apply a stricter legal test to material that can be protected under the state secrets privilege. We will not assert the privilege in court without first following our own formal process, including review by a Justice Department committee and the personal approval of the Attorney General. And each year we will voluntarily report to Congress when we have invoked the privilege and why because, as I said before, there must be proper oversight over our actions.

On all these matters related to the disclosure of sensitive information, I wish I could say that there was some simple formula out there to be had. There is not. These often involve tough calls, involve competing concerns, and they require a surgical approach.

But the common thread that runs through all of my decisions is simple: We will safeguard what we must to protect the American people, but we will also ensure the accountability and oversight that is the hallmark of our constitutional system.

I will never hide the truth because it's uncomfortable. I will deal with Congress and the courts as co-equal branches of government. I will tell the American people what I know and don't know, and when I release something publicly or keep something secret, I will tell you why. (Applause.)…….

Here's some responses to the speech:

Obama Opposes Truth Commissions But Not Prosecutions

http://washingtonindependent.com/44090/oba...ot-prosecutions

Just Keep Walking - Patrick Appel

http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_...-the-actio.html

A Government Attorney Responds by Lars Thorwald

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2009/5/2...n-Obamas-Speech

Much has been made of the fact that under the previous administration, the declassification process seemed to take a big jump backwards, there was some talk of documents being classified again, after already being declassified. Whether that is a correct understanding or not, it has come to my attention, that there is at least one instance where a declassified JFK Assassination document title was changed. Whether this is permissible under the JFK Records Act or not is not my responsibility, and I would imagine there are persons who are in a position to take up that issue specifically.

What follows is a FYI post regarding a recent experience researching Rogelio Cisneros who, was a fairly significant figure in the era of the JFK Presidency.

The story is as follows.

At the NARA website if one attempts a simple search using the last name CISNEROS, there are, as of 5/28/09 some 409 "hits."

One of those documents is listed at NARA as

104-10269-10104 CABLE DISCUSSING QUESTION OF GO-NO-GO SIGNALS FOR CISNEROS OPERATIONS Dated 10/22/63

But when looking at the actual document as it appears on the mary ferrell website it is titled.

“MR. HARVEY SUM, STATE REP MIAMI, ADVISED REUTEMAN PM 21 OCT THAT CISNEROS VISITED SUMM AM 21 OCT” with the same exact date and RIF number

It would not seem necessary to point out that each individual JFK Assassination document with an RIF number is a single number associated with that particular document for the very reason to provide a concise reference to the document in question; changing a title, as this case seems to definitively indicate, is not helpful to a serious resolution of the unsolved issues relating to the assassination of President Kennedy, perhaps someone from NARA would care to rationalize or explain this situation, as an explanation seems quite necessary.

In this case, this document reads roughly:

Mr Harvey Summ, State Rep. Miami, advised Reuteman PM 21 Oct that Cisneros visited Summ AM 21 Oct. During interview Cisneros stated he wanted permission mount infil GP which would leave 20 Oct. Summ indicated he told Cisneros OP would have to be run at Cisnero’s own risk. i.e If he got caught Customs would confiscate his boat, arms etc. Summ asked if Reuteman wanted help Cisneros clear Miami by calling Customs Coast Guard etc. as WAVE has had no word from Cisneros re this departure date. Reuteman indicated no WAVE intent to intercede on Cisneros behalf at this time. Summ asked if Reuteman could get word to Cisneros that OPS question go or no go was not state problem but one which would have to be resolved by Cisneros with Intel agencies. Summ stated he did not want to be in position of trying to broker go or no go signals for Cisneros although most sympathetic Cisneros desire do anti-Castro mission. Reuteman stated WAVE had no direct contact Cisneros but would see if word could be gotten Cisneros by some devious channel.

That OPS go or no go signals were not states problem. Summ advised that [sic] the be advised when and if such word passed Cisneros. How does HQS desire handle this matter?

C/S comment “Cisneros advised 15 Oct obtaining new infil point thru local contact.”

After example after example of missing, destroyed or lost documents associated with the assassination, that something like this is taking place is galling to say the least, whether it is quote legal unquote or not.

William Kelly · May 30, 2009

These are the most important actions Obama has taken on the most important issues that affect the JFK assassination records, and every word means something, and the game plan and rules of engagement for every agency and department as well as for the Congress and the Courts is laid out right here, and the names of those who will be responsible for carrying out these directives will be known to us all.

This, apparently, is the result of the 120 day report on these issues that Obama ordered on day one, and in postponing action for another 120 days he is buying time and getting more advice.

Now we the People and the Congressional Oversight Committee, that has done nothing so far, must make him adhere to these promises and bring to his attention the most important still-withheld JFK assassination records, beginning with Joannides and moving right on down the line from there.

If this Task Force does not make the JFK Assassination Records the most significant records still with held, then we've lost this battle.

BK

http://jfkcountercoup.blogspot.com/

Presidential Action Memos on FOIA, Government Transparancy and Secrecy

http://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing_room/PresidentialActions/

http://www.whitehouse.gov/the_press_office...ed-Information/

THE WHITE HOUSE

Office of the Press Secretary

_______________________________________________

For Immediate Release May 27, 2009

MEMORANDUM FOR THE HEADS OF EXECUTIVE DEPARTMENTS AND AGENCIES

SUBJECT: Classified Information and Controlled Unclassified Information

As outlined in my January 21, 2009, memoranda to the heads of executive departments and agencies on Transparency and Open Government and on the Freedom of Information Act, my Administration is committed to operating with an unprecedented level of openness. While the Government must be able to prevent the public disclosure of information where such disclosure would compromise the privacy of American citizens, national security, or other legitimate interests, a democratic government accountable to the people must be as transparent as possible and must not withhold information for self-serving reasons or simply to avoid embarrassment.

To these ends, I hereby direct the following:

Section 1. Review of Executive Order 12958. (a) Within 90 days of the date of this memorandum, and after consulting with the relevant executive departments and agencies (agencies), the Assistant to the President for National Security Affairs shall review Executive Order 12958, as amended (Classified National Security Information), and submit to me recommendations and proposed revisions to the order.

( :ice The recommendations and proposed revisions shall address:

(i) Establishment of a National Declassification Center to bring appropriate agency officials together to perform collaborative declassification review under the administration of the Archivist of the United States;

(ii) Effective measures to address the problem of over classification, including the possible restoration of the presumption against classification, which would preclude classification of information where there is significant doubt about the need for such classification, and the implementation of increased accountability for classification decisions;

(iii) Changes needed to facilitate greater sharing of classified information among appropriate parties;

(iv) Appropriate prohibition of reclassification of material that has been declassified and released to the public under proper authority;

(v) Appropriate classification, safeguarding, accessibility, and declassification of information in the electronic environment, as recommended by the Commission on the Intelligence Capabilities of the United States Regarding Weapons of Mass Destruction and others; and

(vi) Any other measures appropriate to provide for greater openness and transparency in the Government's security classification and declassification program while also affording necessary protection to the Government's legitimate interests.

Sec. 2. Review of Procedures for Controlled Unclassified Information.

(a) Background. There has been a recognized need in recent years to enhance national security by establishing an information sharing environment that facilitates the sharing of terrorism-related information among government personnel addressing common problems across agencies and levels of government. The global nature of the threats facing the United States requires that our Nation's entire network of defenders be able rapidly to share sensitive but unclassified information so that those who must act have the information they need.

To this end, efforts have been made to standardize procedures for designating, marking, and handling information that had been known collectively as "Sensitive But Unclassified" (SBU) information. Sensitive But Unclassified refers collectively to the various designations used within the Federal Government for documents and information that are sufficiently sensitive to warrant some level of protection, but that do not meet the standards for national security classification. Because each agency has implemented its own protections for categorizing and handling SBU, there are more than 107 unique markings and over 130 different labeling or handling processes and procedures for SBU information.

A Presidential Memorandum of December 16, 2005, created a process for establishing a single, standardized, comprehensive designation within the executive branch for most SBU information. A related Presidential Memorandum of May 9, 2008 (hereafter the "May 2008 Presidential Memorandum"), adopted the phrase "Controlled Unclassified Information" (CUI) to refer to such information. That memorandum adopted, instituted, and defined CUI as the single designation for information within the scope of the CUI definition, including terrorism-related information previously designated SBU. The memorandum also established a CUI Framework for designating, marking, safeguarding, and disseminating CUI terrorism-related information; designated the National Archives and Records Administration as the Executive Agent responsible for overseeing and managing implementation of the CUI Framework, and created a CUI Council to perform an advisory and coordinating role.

The May 2008 Presidential Memorandum had the salutary effect of establishing a framework for standardizing agency-specific approaches to designating terrorism-related information that is sensitive but not classified. As anticipated, the process of implementing the new CUI Framework is still ongoing and is not expected to be completed until 2013. Moreover, the scope of the May 2008 Presidential Memorandum is limited to terrorism-related information within the information sharing environment. In the absence of a single, comprehensive framework that is fully implemented, the persistence of multiple categories of SBU, together with institutional and perceived technological obstacles to moving toward an information sharing culture, continue to impede collaboration and the otherwise authorized sharing of SBU information among agencies, as well as between the Federal Government and its partners in State, local, and tribal governments and the private sector.

Agencies and other relevant actors should continue their efforts toward implementing the CUI framework. At the same time, new measures should be considered to further and expedite agencies' implementation of appropriate frameworks for standardized treatment of SBU information and information sharing.

( Interagency Task Force on CUI.

(i) The Attorney General and the Secretary of Homeland Security, in consultation with the Secretary of State, the Archivist of the United States, the Director of the Office of Management and Budget, the Director of National Intelligence, the Program Manager, Information Sharing Environment (established in section 1016 of the Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004, as amended (6 U.S.C. 485)), and the CUI Council (established in the May 2008 Presidential Memorandum), shall lead an Interagency Task Force on CUI (Task Force). The Task Force shall be composed of senior representatives from a broad range of agencies from both inside and outside the information sharing environment.

(ii) The objective of the Task Force shall be to review current procedures for categorizing and sharing SBU information in order to determine whether such procedures strike the proper balance among the relevant imperatives. These imperatives include protecting legitimate security, law enforcement, and privacy interests as well as civil liberties, providing clear rules to those who handle SBU information, and ensuring that the handling and dissemination of information is not restricted unless there is a compelling need. The Task Force shall also consider measures to track agencies' progress with implementing the CUI Framework, other measures to enhance implementation of an effective information sharing environment across agencies and levels of government, and whether the scope of the CUI Framework should remain limited to terrorism-related information within the information sharing environment or be expanded to apply to all SBU information.

(iii) Within 90 days of the date of this memorandum, the Task Force shall submit to me recommendations regarding how the executive branch should proceed with respect to the CUI Framework and the information sharing environment. The recommendations shall recognize and reflect a balancing of the following principles:

(A) A presumption in favor of openness in accordance with my memoranda of January 21, 2009, on Transparency and Open Government and on the Freedom of Information Act;

( The value of standardizing the procedures for designating, marking, and handling all SBU information; and

Sec. 3. General Provisions.

(a) The heads of agencies shall assist and provide information to the Task Force, consistent with applicable law, as may be necessary to carry out the functions of their activities under this memorandum. Each agency shall bear its own expense for participating in the Task Force.

( Nothing in this memorandum shall be construed to impair or otherwise affect:

(i) Authority granted by law or Executive Order to an agency, or the head thereof;

(ii) Functions of the Director of the Office of Management and Budget relating to budgetary, administrative, or legislative proposals.

(d) This memorandum is not intended to, and does not, create any right or benefit, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law or in equity by any party against the United States, its departments, agencies, or entities, its officers, employees, or agents, or any other person.

Sec. 4. Publication. The Attorney General is hereby authorized and directed to publish this memorandum in the Federal Register.

BARACK OBAMA

# # #

http://www.whitehouse.gov/the_press_office...nformation_Act/

Wednesday, January 21st, 2009 at 12:00 am

Freedom of Information Act

MEMORANDUM FOR THE HEADS OF EXECUTIVE DEPARTMENTS AND AGENCIES

SUBJECT: Freedom of Information Act

A democracy requires accountability, and accountability requires transparency. As Justice Louis Brandeis wrote, "sunlight is said to be the best of disinfectants." In our democracy, the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), which encourages accountability through transparency, is the most prominent expression of a profound national commitment to ensuring an open Government. At the heart of that commitment is the idea that accountability is in the interest of the Government and the citizenry alike.

The Freedom of Information Act should be administered with a clear presumption: In the face of doubt, openness prevails. The Government should not keep information confidential merely because public officials might be embarrassed by disclosure, because errors and failures might be revealed, or because of speculative or abstract fears. Nondisclosure should never be based on an effort to protect the personal interests of Government officials at the expense of those they are supposed to serve. In responding to requests under the FOIA, executive branch agencies (agencies) should act promptly and in a spirit of cooperation, recognizing that such agencies are servants of the public.

All agencies should adopt a presumption in favor of disclosure, in order to renew their commitment to the principles embodied in FOIA, and to usher in a new era of open Government. The presumption of disclosure should be applied to all decisions involving FOIA.

The presumption of disclosure also means that agencies should take affirmative steps to make information public. They should not wait for specific requests from the public. All agencies should use modern technology to inform citizens about what is known and done by their Government. Disclosure should be timely.

I direct the Attorney General to issue new guidelines governing the FOIA to the heads of executive departments and agencies, reaffirming the commitment to accountability and transparency, and to publish such guidelines in the Federal Register. In doing so, the Attorney General should review FOIA reports produced by the agencies under Executive Order 13392 of December 14, 2005. I also direct the Director of the Office of Management and Budget to update guidance to the agencies to increase and improve information dissemination to the public, including through the use of new technologies, and to publish such guidance in the Federal Register.

This memorandum does not create any right or benefit, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law or in equity by any party against the United States, its departments, agencies, or entities, its officers, employees, or agents, or any other person.

The Director of the Office of Management and Budget is hereby authorized and directed to publish this memorandum in the Federal Register.

BARACK OBAMA

http://www.whitehouse.gov/the_press_office...pen_Government/

Wednesday, January 21st, 2009 at 12:00 am

Transparency and Open Government

MEMORANDUM FOR THE HEADS OF EXECUTIVE DEPARTMENTS AND AGENCIES

SUBJECT: Transparency and Open Government

My Administration is committed to creating an unprecedented level of openness in Government. We will work together to ensure the public trust and establish a system of transparency, public participation, and collaboration. Openness will strengthen our democracy and promote efficiency and effectiveness in Government.

Government should be transparent. Transparency promotes accountability and provides information for citizens about what their Government is doing. Information maintained by the Federal Government is a national asset. My Administration will take appropriate action, consistent with law and policy, to disclose information rapidly in forms that the public can readily find and use. Executive departments and agencies should harness new technologies to put information about their operations and decisions online and readily available to the public. Executive departments and agencies should also solicit public feedback to identify information of greatest use to the public.

Government should be participatory. Public engagement enhances the Government's effectiveness and improves the quality of its decisions. Knowledge is widely dispersed in society, and public officials benefit from having access to that dispersed knowledge. Executive departments and agencies should offer Americans increased opportunities to participate in policymaking and to provide their Government with the benefits of their collective expertise and information. Executive departments and agencies should also solicit public input on how we can increase and improve opportunities for public participation in Government.

Government should be collaborative.

Collaboration actively engages Americans in the work of their Government. Executive departments and agencies should use innovative tools, methods, and systems to cooperate among themselves, across all levels of Government, and with nonprofit organizations, businesses, and individuals in the private sector.

Executive departments and agencies should solicit public feedback to assess and improve their level of collaboration and to identify new opportunities for cooperation.

I direct the Chief Technology Officer, in coordination with the Director of the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) and the Administrator of General Services, to coordinate the development by appropriate executive departments and agencies, within 120 days, of recommendations for an Open Government Directive, to be issued by the Director of OMB, that instructs executive departments and agencies to take specific actions implementing the principles set forth in this memorandum.

The independent agencies should comply with the Open Government Directive.

This memorandum is not intended to, and does not, create any right or benefit, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law or in equity by a party against the United States, its departments, agencies, or entities, its officers, employees, or agents, or any other person.

This memorandum shall be published in the Federal Register.

BARACK OBAMA

Edited May 30, 2009 by William Kelly

June 6, 2009

http://www.motherjones.com/mojo/2009/06/ho...-torture-photos
Finally some good news on the torture photos: top liberal Democrats in the House, led by Rep. Barney Frank (D-Mass.) are blocking the awful, Obama-supported Detainee Photographic Records Protection Act of 2009. The "records protection" law would allow the administration to unilaterally block the release of any photos of detainee treatment that it didn't want publicized, bypassing the Freedom of Information Act. The bill, sponsored by Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) and the odious Joe Lieberman (I-Conn.), passed the Senate by a voice vote earlier this week and was attached to the bill providing supplemental funding for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.....

.....The photo suppression bill is an abomination that is reminiscent of the worst Bush-era excesses. It gives the executive branch the power to withhold an entire category of information from public scrutiny without any review. This law is Example A of the theory of the Presidency that says citizens should just trust the benevolent executive to do the right thing. Even in you oppose releasing some of the photos, I don't see why you would want to give the White House the power to unilaterally decide what's best. It says a lot about the Congress that members are willing to give Obama this kind of power. It says a lot about Obama that he supports this bill....

New US Congress

Recommended Posts

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Guest Tom Scully

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Guest Tom Scully

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Guest Tom Scully

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Guest Tom Scully

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

Announcements