AIPAC, Alberto Gonzales, Jane Harman, and some unsavory allegations

Zaid

April 27, 2009

“So, yes, unlike Republicans, we are not such authoritarians that we declare always us-good, them-bad. However, we’ve got to keep in mind that it is really us-mostly-good-much-of-the-time, them-really-bad-all-of-the-time.”

Or at least us-serious-policy-debates them unhinged-frothing-at-the-mouth-idiocy

http://ugaliberal.blogspot.com/2009/04/peach-punditred-states-ericl-eriksons.html

odinseye2k

April 26, 2009

I thought this is an extremely good post on the original topic:

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2009/4/26/724137/-New-GOP-torture-meme:-Dems-fault.

So, yes, unlike Republicans, we are not such authoritarians that we declare always us-good, them-bad. However, we’ve got to keep in mind that it is really us-mostly-good-much-of-the-time, them-really-bad-all-of-the-time.

odinseye2k

April 26, 2009

Wow. That’s pretty horrible. Amazing how many of these things are estranged lovers.

I remember at UW a year or so back this architecture student that was shot by an old boyfriend. He just marched on in to the building and killed her.

This isn’t about everyone being armed. Violating restraining orders of this nature should result in some duration of imprisonment and mandatory psychological evaluation. I’m not really sure what to do with the results, although declaring said person unfit to carry a firearm would be a good first step.

And I really wouldn’t mind if the whole Georgia Carry crowd was shipped to Somalia. Maybe they’d see what a wonderful society results when the only law is the gun.

Zaid

April 25, 2009

In all seriousness, commenting on this event, it’s tragic for this campus.

His facebook page shows a pretty normal person. Just yesterday he listed his “top 5 favorite vacation spots.”

More and more this stinks to me of an argument that went wrong, a crime of passion.

However, the NRA, “if everyone had been armed this wouldn’t have happened” crowd is already jumping into this. I wish I could personally tell every one of them to piss off. This wasn’t on UGA campus, it was legal to concealed carry on prince ave. and it wouldn’t have made a difference.

J.M. Prince

April 25, 2009

No Safety. No dancing.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/04/25/george-zinkhan-univ-of-ge_n_191403.html

JMP

Zaid

April 25, 2009

hey u know what jmprince

u know what?

SAFETY DANCE

Zaid

April 24, 2009

Like this?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NosccTbCVdg

innerredneckexposed

April 24, 2009

Goodness, don’t you nerds have anything better to do?

odinseye2k

April 24, 2009

“Be they Hypocrites, liars, thieves & knaves. None of them should be spied on w/o just cause & a specific warrant.”

Yes, but there is still psychic pleasure in watching said hypocrites taking on some pain.

If nothing else, it would be good to see Harman beaten up with this if only to impress upon her colleagues that you can’t cede power (without a trap door to bring it back) to a tyrant and expect that he’ll leave you alone.

J.M. Prince

April 24, 2009

Sorry for the double post, but this runs very slow on my machine.

And once again, nothing in Z’s response or quotes really addresses the central issue. And again, if it’s the NSA that the wiretaps are from, that would implicate the regular FISA Court process. We can find out if & when this was done & why. But we do know that no charges from this yes, 4+ Year Old action was taken. It also more strongly than ever suggests that this is well & truly a ‘push back’ from the blackbag crowd, your buds, Z.

Let’s do a hypothetical legal thought experiment here Z. Say a wily King you were suffering under you calls your family to arms to defeat a ‘dangerous’ foreign foe. You’re ambivalent, but you reluctantly agree to do so & support his forces to defeat this ‘common foe’ Even though you don’t much see the point. Later the King takes offense at something you or your family might have done, and uses secret, private & privileged information against you to charge you and your entire clan with treason. Now you try and defend yourself and the lives of your kinsmen by asserting that you came to the defense of your country & king when it was demanded of you. Yet, still the King seeks to persecute you to gainsay his own power, and to expand his now thoroughly dangerously despotic rule. What rights do you have against the King & his secret evidence against you? Not much, and you lose your fortune, land, and most of the lives of your kinsmen who are summarily slaughtered by ‘just order of the King’, all the time claiming ‘treason most foul’ against you & yours.

Now most of this will not sound at all familiar to you perhaps. But it was how things stood before the advent of the Magna Carta in 1215, and the subsequent slow but steady establishment of English Common Law, that protected the rights of citizens against the claims of ‘treason’ & other crimes against them by their Kings.

You? You’ll happily dispense with all this august and glorious history, the rights of man etc, with a swipe of your hysterical brow. All those lowly ‘appeasers’, those ‘complicit’ Dems, they are now & forever unworthy of any defenses nor any rights. It’s because of what they do. Those treasonous malefactors! How is this any different than any tyrant? Again we need a complete & urgent restoration of our Constitutional order from all the poison nonsense and BS that’s been poured into & on it. JMP

Zaid

April 24, 2009

How was it illegal when they did it to Harman? How?

Just explain to me how the government isn’t allowed to wiretap someone WITH a warrant. I’m pretty sure they’re allowed to. The issue is when they bypass the courts and do not get warrants, then we start getting into civil liberties infringements.

You’ve joined the likes of David Frum by defending Harman here (http://hotair.com/archives/2009/04/23/frums-confused-defense-of-jane-harman-and-aipac/).

J.M. Prince

April 24, 2009

Again, I care not to burn anyone at the stake, nor very much what Greenwald is saying on the issue. I enjoy his writing, but essentially he’s also missing the big picture here. It was & is wrong, illegal & a gross invasion of privacy when they (BushCo) were doing it to other Americans, before, during & after they did it to Rep. Harman. It’s not only “an outrageous invasion of privacy and a violent assault on her rights as an American citizen” but to & for Every citizen. Everywhere. Her case does not make this any less so for being more prominent & fraught with more policy implications. That’s the missing element here, and the legal framework of the Constitution that protects her, and all citizens, regardless of their ‘worthiness’ in the eyes of others.

We need a restoration of our ‘regular Constitutional order’, and now as always, I’m not too particular about who or what the ‘aggrieved parties’ should be in anyone’s humble estimation. Be they Hypocrites, liars, thieves & knaves. None of them should be spied on w/o just cause & a specific warrant. That’s the Bill of Rights. I want it back, for everyone to enjoy. JMP

J.M. Prince

April 24, 2009

Again, I care not to burn anyone at the stake, nor very much what Greenwald is saying on the issue. I enjoy his writing, but essentially he’s also missing the big picture here. It was & is wrong, illegal & a gross invasion of privacy when they (BushCo) were doing it to other Americans, before, during & after they did it to Rep. Harman. It’s not only “an outrageous invasion of privacy and a violent assault on her rights as an American citizen” but to & for Every citizen. Everywhere. Her case does not make this any less so for being more prominent & fraught with more policy implications. That’s the missing element here, and the legal framework of the Constitution that protects her, and all citizens, regardless of their ‘worthiness’ in the eyes of others.

We need a restoration of our ‘regular Constitutional order’, and now as always, I’m not too particular about who or what the ‘aggrieved parties’ should be in anyone’s humble estimation. Be they Hypocrites, liars, thieves & knaves. None of them should be spied on w/o just cause & a specific warrant. That’s the Bill of Rights. I want it back, for everyone to enjoy. JMP

Zaid

April 23, 2009

And I’m getting so sick of your willful obfuscation on behalf of anyone with a (D) next to their name, I’m going to post ThinkProgress’s entire timeline on Harman and wiretapping (http://thinkprogress.org/2009/04/21/harman-wiretapping-disappointed/):

On Sunday, CQ reported that the NSA had wiretapped Rep. Jane Harman (D-CA), listening in on a call in which she apparently offered a quid pro quo to a lobbyist group. Harman has vigorously denied the reports. Today, she appeared on MSNBC to express her shock and outrage that her phone calls were listened to, saying she was “disappointed” that the U.S. could have allowed such “a gross abuse of power”:

HARMAN: I’m just very disappointed that my country — I’m an American citizen just like you are — could have permitted what I think is a gross abuse of power in recent years. I’m one member of Congress who may be caught up in it, but I have a bully pulpit and I can fight back. I’m thinking about others who have no bully pulpit and may not be aware, as I was not, that right now somewhere, someone’s listening in on their conversations, and they’re innocent Americans.

Watch it:

Harman’s anger seems a bit disingenuous, considering that she was one of the earliest supporters of Bush’s warrantless wiretapping program. When the practice was revealed by the New York Times in 2005, she defended it as “essential,” though admitted she was “concerned” about its scope:

“I have been briefed since 2003 on a highly classified NSA foreign collection program that targeted Al Qaeda. I believe the program is essential to U.S. national security and that its disclosure has damaged critical intelligence capabilities,” Harman said. “Like many Americans, I am deeply concerned by reports that this program in fact goes far beyond the measures to target Al Qaeda about which I was briefed.”

In fact, in 2004 she “urged that The [New York] Times not publish the article” revealing Bush’s program.

Indeed, she issued a press release in 2007 specifically highlighting that the updated FISA bill she approved of would fully allow warrantless wiretapping:

This bill does a good job — a far better job than the bill reported last month by the Senate Intelligence Committee. … This legislation arms our intelligence professionals with the ability to listen to foreign targets — without a warrant — to uncover plots that threaten US national security. The bill also protects the Constitutional rights of Americans by requiring the FISA court, an Article III Court, to approve procedures to ensure that Americans are not targeted for warrantless surveillance.

To her credit, Harman warned against “a slippery legal slope to potential unprecedented abuse of innocent Americans’ privacy” and stated her opposition to granting telecommunications companies retroactive immunity. Perhaps her outrage at being a target of wiretapping herself will force her to realize that the program she deemed “essential” invaded the privacy of untold millions of Americans.

Zaid

April 23, 2009

To quote Greenwald, for those of you who don’t follow his blog (http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/):

“So if I understand this correctly — and I’m pretty sure I do — when the U.S. Government eavesdropped for years on American citizens with no warrants and in violation of the law, that was “both legal and necessary” as well as “essential to U.S. national security,” and it was the “despicable” whistle-blowers (such as Thomas Tamm) who disclosed that crime and the newspapers which reported it who should have been criminally investigated, but not the lawbreaking government officials. But when the U.S. Government legally and with warrants eavesdrops on Jane Harman, that is an outrageous invasion of privacy and a violent assault on her rights as an American citizen, and full-scale investigations must be commenced immediately to get to the bottom of this abuse of power. Behold Jane Harman’s overnight transformation from Very Serious Champion of the Lawless Surveillance State to shrill civil liberties extremist. ”

Is Greenwald, too, a shrill pundit out to burn Democrats at the stake? I think he’s just a very concerned civil liberties lawyer.

The fact that Harman and Pelosi knew about waterboarding and illegal wiretaps and kept quiet about it is reprehensible. Bush and Cheney aren’t in office anymore, but these folks are.

Zaid

April 23, 2009

”

Again regardless if she’s a “she’s a flaming hypocrite and hack”, she like everyone else deserves the same protections under the Constitution”

She got them, she was wiretapped with a warrant.

And she defended the Bush Admin. wiretapping people bypassing FISA courts and eavesdropping on Americans WITHOUT WARRANTS.

I put it in caps, because the read slowly bit you’re advising me to do isn’t working with you very much.

And I claim to be a college grad? I’m not.

Also, please inform me how constitutional lawyer and Salon.com author Glenn Greenwald, and others who have pointed out her hypocrisy somehow misunderstand the law even more than you do…

J.M. Prince

April 23, 2009

Again regardless if she’s a “she’s a flaming hypocrite and hack”, she like everyone else deserves the same protections under the Constitution. Yes, even if she’s undermining same in your not humble opinion. Even all those idiotic ‘appeasers’ or people who don’t think or believe as you do. Go figure. That’s the beauty of the Constitution. Now the ACLU does that sort of work day in & day out. For well over 90 years. Nazi’s & all. Is this just too damn difficult to understand? And you claim to be a college grad too?

Let’s take it again from the top, S-L-O-W-L-Y.

1.) The ‘investigation’ (IF ANY) happened 4 years ago. Again, 4 YEARS AGO. NO ACTION WAS TAKEN THEN. There’s NO active or pending investigation that we know of, as the case in question is at the docket presently and evidently being adjudicated.

2.) Exposing any innocent or Uncharged person to any charges NOT made under such an investigation or indictment is in & of itself a crime. If there’s Another investigation ongoing, someone needed to inform the DoJ about it, or convene another Grand Jury and/or the FISA Court. To our knowledge this has not been done.

3.) Ergo you and others are happily participating in yet another slander campaign with little or no evidence, or even knowledge of what the hell went on, or again, IF any thing remotely criminal was claimed.

Lobbying the DoJ on behalf of constituents, yes, even criminals? Goes on every day, year in & year out. See the yearly pardon list for a start. Not a crime. Lobbying on behalf of an American constituent? Even the slimy coal companies that blow up things (mountains) & kill people illegally? Still legal & perfectly OK by the Constitution, for example.

Clearly your blind hatreds condition you to supect any & all Dems of ‘certain crimes’ if they’re ‘lobbying for those fat cats’, but sorry Z, that’s pretty well protected by our Constitutional system.

4.) Again what’s the crime here? Did she get goods like Sen. Ted Stevens in return for her lobbying efforts? That’s when it Starts to be criminally suspect!

Read something & run your mouth less. Really. we just don’t know much now, other than ‘someone’ wanted us talking about how suspect & complicit all the Congressional Dems are. Why is that? Why Now? JMP

Zaid

April 23, 2009

And you don’t prove something is legal, you prove it is illegal by finding the law it broke. They had warrants when they wiretapped Harman. They didn’t for the people they wiretapped, that she vigorously defended because she’s a flaming hypocrite and hack.

Zaid

April 23, 2009

So essentially all your arguments boil down to Bush is Evil and everyone who appeased or helped him is just an innocent bystander that was taken and used.

Your line of reasoning is laughable.

J.M. Prince

April 23, 2009

Again Z, Please describe for us the US Code section or relevant legal ruling that says that any Prez can wiretap anyone in Congress to try and do his bidding, via extortion. Please find that. Or the wholesale blanket approval of wiretaps on your fav Congresscritters. I’m still waiting on that one. There was nothing legal about it W/O an ongoing DoJ investigation, which evidently stopped some 4 years ago. And still the case may be dismissed for lack of evidence from a legacy of the idiotic & highly partisan & corrupt Bush DoJ. Was torture legal Z? How, when & why?

And again, the wiretapping story was already being held by the NYT during the 2004 election, at the insistence & behest of the WH & the Bush’s. That’s the record here. Deny it at your peril. So again, the first instance of crime? Advantage, BushCo. Initiation of criminal activity & motives to do so? BushCo again. Who broke the law, and then sought to cover it up & why?

I just love it that you never see or examine your partisan motives, but that any and all Dems are automatically guilty of something. Even if you really can’t describe any real crime that may have been committed. And there’s all the dead & bleeding bodies all over the floor that you love to conveniently ignore.

This was & is meant as a distraction from the main event. Any torture investigations & possible prosecutions, and they’re scared witless over that. make no mistake about it. You know that too. It’s textbook black propaganda & disinformation. And still you want to argue over who’s a hypocrite here? Geez, and I still have not seen nary a post from you over at Peach Pundit defending anyone. Now who’s the hack? JMP

Zaid

April 23, 2009

I’d still like you to respond to me JMP why it’s right for Harman to defend warrantless wiretapping and even clamp down on the story from going into the NYT and then complain about being legally, with warrants, wiretapped.

It sounds like the 7th level of hell hypocrisy to me.

Zaid

April 23, 2009

Although it should be noted making a quid-pro-quo with lobbyists is no good not matter who’s doing it for what. I’m pretty sure John Lewis and the DOJ or whoever he’s speaking to did not make under the table deals.

Zaid

April 23, 2009

This topic got so much better when it became about odins and IRE arguing about sea otters.

Drew

April 23, 2009

I think we can infer Harman’s motives from her reported behavior.

I think Lewis is distinguishable from Harman. He’s not using his unique power as Congressman to influence anyone; he’s not arguing that Troy Davis deserves special consideration because he’s a friend of a friend; and he’s not asking for anything in return for his advocacy.

I don’t think that it’s inappropriate for a member of Congress to express an opinion on a case, but I don’t think that we should define “express an opinion” so broadly that it might include anything, with the possible exception of bribery.

innerredneckexposed

April 23, 2009

We are done brocephus. You’re dead to me. You forget I’m part of the horse family.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donkey

odinseye2k

April 23, 2009

Sorry man. It’s what happens when you ally yourself with a member of the weasel family:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sea_otter

innerredneckexposed

April 23, 2009

jerk. no need to make fun of me asshole.

odinseye2k

April 23, 2009

Well, your belly is certainly of the proper size for eating from.

Sorry, couldn’t let it go by.

innerredneckexposed

April 23, 2009

AAA is the sh*t. It is so obvious that you pathetic humans are no match for us Sea Otters (BTW: I’ve been a spy for the Sea Otters this whole time.)

odinseye2k

April 23, 2009

United Atheist League versus United Atheist Alliance.

innerredneckexposed

April 23, 2009

WTF, there were like 10 comments on this yesterday.

JerryT

April 23, 2009

Drew: Your argument based on “political considerations” is an assumption of what is in someone’s mind, it’s pretty much unprovable, and likely not even an ethical problem anyway.

John Lewis has tried to intervene on behalf of Troy Davis. Is that wrong? How is it different? Do we just “trust” him to be doing it for good reasons?

So any time a legislator speaks out about an issue, say, bank fraud, and urges the Justice Department to use the full weight of the law to prosecute the wrongdoers, that is wrong? That is also intervention.

J.M. Prince

April 23, 2009

Gee Z, I read PeachP, and I’ve just not seen ‘Zaid’ comment all too often. In fact, I can not recall it for this month, and I’ve read most of the posts. Must have been very noticeable & highly controversial too, not the usual baseless crap & clueless sniping you do over here, right? JMP

Zaid

April 23, 2009

”

Me, I’ve rarely seen you openly criticize as many Repug’s here as you do Dems.”

Well, gee, maybe you should spend some time on Peach Pundit, where I spend 90% of my posts defending Obama and the Democrats.

Do you think it has something to do with me trying to point things out to different groups of people, that it doesn’t make sense to carbon copy the same message to everyone despite the audience?

No way that’s possible right, that makes too much sense..

J.M. Prince

April 23, 2009

Z says: “I blame people for doing bad things no matter what party they are…”

Gee this is quite a step down from treason or complicity for torture. Did Congress do stupid & unhelpful & quasi legal things? You betcha. If today’s Thursday, they’ll be off tomorrow though. And of course they’ll continue to do so, it’s a tradition. I don’t have to like & agree with every damnable little thing that they do. I live here in ga. recall.

But actually thinking that a member of Congress ‘might have committed treason’ on the say so of 4 year old rumors by the very same gang who got us into all this crap? (Yes, Including the NYT & Wash Post crowd). That’s pretty silly, or in your case deliberately deceptive.

Which is the point. Whatever the Bush’s may have told Congress, (or selected members thereof), we know from the public record that they lied on each and every occasion possible when facing any public scrutiny on the matters. That’s public record. So is former Sen. Bob Graham’s thoughts & comments on the record as part of the select Intel Comm that they we’re ‘repeatedly lied to by the Bush administration’ and that alone warranted Impeachment.

So again, I’ll take the badge & honor of defending Democrats vehemently here & elsewhere, anytime, anyplace. It’s what I do & who I am. Still, I’m not making excuses for the numskulls and the run of the mill mendacity here and elsewhere though. We just do not know the facts on this matter, and yet you and others are perfectly willing to viciously speculate, not only on severely limited info, but upon those with biased & partisan suspected motives & sources as well.

Me, I’ve rarely seen you openly criticize as many Repug’s here as you do Dems. I’d want a count on that claim of yours. I kind of doubt it’s even close. Hence my disinformation claim for your operation here Z. You’ve not denied that either. Wonder why? JMP

Zaid

April 22, 2009

You know what? I don’t have any better opinion of Bush-Cheney than you do, but unlike you, I’m not a partisan hack. I blame people for doing bad things no matter what party they are, and if you are saying that makes me a user of “disinformation and slander of all Democrats” you have some sort of severe logical thinking disability mate.

You’ve yet to refute the WaPo article that says that Pelosi knew about waterboarding in 2002 or that Harman was a vociferous defender of the illegal Bush program and clamped down on the NYT to not reveal it before the election.

All you have is blind partisan outrage. And our problems in this life are not by party, bud.

J.M. Prince

April 22, 2009

[This is a repost, as it was not seen].

Thanks for demonstrating once again Z your consistent use of disinformation and slander against all Dems here. Again I’ll ask, who’s paying you?

Let’s take it slowly so that even small children like yourself might understand.

Again the concept is of Command Responsibility for Torture. And for Illegal Wiretapping. Who drew up the papers? Who Demanded it? Who Conducted it? When? Why? Your pals over @ the CIA were torturing subjects on the order of the President & VP & other Exec officials even Before ANY legal findings. Or ‘cover’ from Congress. Months, perhaps even as much as a year before anyone Retroactively thought to get any sort of Congressional OK.

And you know what happened next Z? They LIED. BushCo did, and they continue to. Massively. Regularly. Hourly if needed to get anything they could though Congress. Yes, Your Pals the Bush’s & the CIA. Criminals. Lied TO Congress. About how, when & where & who. All the basics. Then they worked their secret & illegal ops to cover up their nefarious tracks. Naturally, as they had in prior Rethug administrations.

The Government ceases to work properly or as intended by the founders if several branches of it, having being taken over by criminal minded Confederates are dedicated to preventing the truth ever coming out, even to their own Congress. Nothing in the Constitution foresaw or prepared us for such perfidy, criminality & madness. They really should have been impeached, but then as now, we did not have the votes for that. Why? Probably precisely because of widespread Disinformation campaigns like the one you wage here. Ditto for Global warming etc. Rinse & repeat.

So no one should be distracted by the ‘nice shiny things’ that are effectively planted & leaked to the papers. Only a rube or a plant, like you would be arguing that ‘all Dems who voted this way are as complicit as Bush’. And yes, you’ve been doing that here since Day 1.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/04/22/AR2009042203141.html?hpid=topnews

What was the point of the torture? To fulfill BushCo needs to justify an illegal & immoral war with Iraq, a country that had not previously attacked us.

wonkroom.thinkprogress.org/2009/04/22/torturing-the-al-qaeda-iraq-connection/

Again, Command Responsibility. For Torture. It’s been pretty damn clear from the start. Except to those whose job it is to not see it and to prevent others from seeing it too.

Those are the real crimes we know about here. Everything else you speak of is rank speculation, 3rd hand news via very biased, partisan & unreliable sources. Why should we now take the word of the torturers for much of anything Z? Hmmm? JMP

Zaid

April 22, 2009

Does this count as NYT confirms that Harman quashed the NSA story?

http://thinkprogress.org/2009/04/22/nyt-harmon-wiretapping/

It’s from thinkprogress, run by CAP, which is basically obama’s idea shop. A real anti-Democrat source am i rite!

Zaid

April 22, 2009

And Pelosi can screw herself too as far as I’m concerned:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/12/08/AR2007120801664.html

Zaid

April 22, 2009

“But typically, you’ll promote the lies that imagine that she was singly responsible for the torture & wiretapping that went on.”

Oh quit, the hyperbole, my faux intellectual friend.

She was the most vocal of all Democrats — save for maybe Joe Lieberman, but does he count anymore? — in defending warrentless wiretapping of citizens. Now that she’s wiretapped — legally, if I may say, and with warrants — she’s outraged.

Glenn Greenwald is right. What a fucking hypocrite she is.

Drew

April 22, 2009

In general, isn’t it wrong for a member of Congress to ask the Justice Department to set aside the facts of a case in favor of political considerations? That is the accusation against Harman. It undermines the credibility of the justice system when some criminals can rely on their proximity to powerful politicians to escape punishment for their crimes, while less connected defendants feel the full force of the law.

And then there’s the accusation that she did this not out of the goodness of her heart but in return for lobbying on her behalf before Pelosi -so it can’t even be said that she acted in the interest of justice, but on her own self-interest.

I don’t think it can be said that the accusations, even if true, are unimportant. I think they’re pretty damning if true.

JerryT

April 22, 2009

No, I think the “not far from treason” would be for Larry Franklin, the guy who actually passed the classified info. Lobbying for the court to have leniency isn’t treason.

If those guys were sentenced to death, and anti-death penalty advocates tried to “affect the outcome”, would that be treason?

Many, many people file “friend of the court” briefs or otherwise try to “affect the outcome” of judicial proceedings.

She may be dirty, she may not be a progressive, but I don’t see the “bombshell” or “blockbuster scandal”. We have to be careful about trying to restrict perfectly appropriate behavior because we may not like someone.

Fyi, it looks like Justice is about ready to drop charges against the AIPAC guys after all:

http://tinyurl.com/cjr26y

J.M. Prince

April 22, 2009

The difference Z? Say it with me now: Command Responsibility. That’s what we’re talking about here. I’m sure you understand. And if you don’t think there was an effective Bush crime regime, you’ve just not been paying very close attention, right?

Harman is a side light here. Not the main ring event. But typically, you’ll promote the lies that imagine that she was singly responsible for the torture & wiretapping that went on. No where was there realistic, credible legal authorization to wiretap members of Congress. It was another gross abuse of power. But you want to defend it. Again, why?

Nothing about ‘conspiracy theories’ here either, but since the ‘Dems’s finally got it into the light of day, I’m sure you’ll automatically fault them for this for some ‘suspect reason’. We’ve got your number now Z.

http://armed-services.senate.gov/Publications/Detainee%20Report%20Final_April%2022%202009.pdf

JMP

odinseye2k

April 22, 2009

“Is there something wrong with a Congressperson on the Intelligence Committee lobbying the Justice department on an espionage case?”

It depends if that lobbying is about dedicating more resources, revisiting the case, or directly trying to affect the outcome.

1 and 2 are kosher, but 3 would be not too far from treason.

JerryT

April 22, 2009

Is there something wrong with a Congressperson on the Intelligence Committee lobbying the Justice department on an espionage case?

I’m no Harmon fan, but I just don’t see the issue here. I am curious about how they got a wiretap on her, but what would be the criteria preventing this sort of contact? And it sounded like as soon as that guy offered something in return (which I’m not sure is improper anyway) she hung up.

odinseye2k

April 22, 2009

Also, from the article:

“Rep. Jane Harman, a California Democrat long involved in intelligence issues, was overheard on a 2005 National Security Agency wiretap telling a suspected Israeli agent that she would lobby the Justice Department to reduce espionage-related charges against two former officials of the American Israeli Public Affairs Committee.”

odinseye2k

April 22, 2009

I think the whispered allegations are dealing with a foreign agent contrary to the interests of the United States while in office.

JerryT

April 22, 2009

I don’t get it. What exactly is the alleged wrongdoing here?

Zaid

April 22, 2009

JM Prince why are you always being an apologist for Democrats and demonizing Republicans (Bush crime machine, etc)?

You do realize right and wrong is not by party, right?

Harman was was of the most vicious defenders of the Bush Admin. NSA program, she sold her soul. I don’t care about conspiracy theories of her being blackmailed by Bush or whatever — you’re a high member of Congress and you have a little responsibility in your life to do the right things, no matter what someone else is threatening you with. If you don’t think that way, don’t take the f’ing job.

http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2009/04/21/harman/index.html

As Greenwald notes, she was completely fine with the NSA program because she probably thought all it was going to do was target Muslims or Arabs, not Blue Dog defense contractor-happy corporadems like herself.

And guess what? The wiretaps on her were legal and with warrants. The program she took to the airwaves to defend was without warrants and was illegal.

She’s a flaming hypocrite, and that isn’t disinformation, that’s the facts. She was OK with warrant-less wiretapping on Muslims or other such non-persons, but she’s outraged at this legal wiretapping of her. Cry me a fucking river.

odinseye2k

April 22, 2009

“the guy only came out now to try to cover his own ass before something comes out on him.”

Yup. But luckily we don’t need purity of motives. We need just enough shame and fear of divorce/ostracism/prosecution to talk.

J.M. Prince

April 22, 2009

Right on Z, Keep at it with that disinformation campaign. Thanks Harman for 4 more years of Bush? Please. And the NYT ‘confirms’?? Yeah that’s really trustworthy too. Truthiness as they see fit. The NYT was holding the bag for Bush in so many ways it was not funny. They held back several stories, including more torture & wiretapping until after the 2004 election. That’s the history here. Even you can’t dispute it. So is the fact of BushCo using & abusing their powers in every conceivable way. They went far beyond Nixon’s crimes, and this time the Press just stood back and let them, with nary a word allowed of dissent on their august pages. Again try this on for size cowboy:

http://washingtonindependent.com/39902/bush-era-rule-grants-fbi-broad-investigative-powers

Bush-Era Rule Grants FBI Unprecedented Investigative Powers

FBI Authority Extends Even to Those Not Suspected of Criminal Activity

By Daphne Eviatar 4/21/09 3:52 PM

Via the Wash Indy Paper

Yeah, and inquiring minds want to know if anyone’s paying you for all the constant efforts at disinformation here & elsewhere. JMP

BEZERKO

April 22, 2009

I’m sure most of you have seen the clip of Christopher Hitchens going through waterboarding. It was hard to see what was going on in the video becasue it was shot from a distance and you couldn’t see his face that well. I saw this demonstration on Current TV the other day from a guy who paid two guys 900 bucks to waterboard him on video. I found it hard to watch. http://current.com/items/76347282_getting-waterboarded.htm

Zaid

April 22, 2009

I read that the NYT confirmed that it was Harman who told them to hold on to the NSA story until after the election, too. So we can thank her for 4 more years of Bush, too.

Really, this woman has always been a creep. Her and Feinstein are just mil-indus. hacks, and it’s surprising their careers are still around.

Zaid

April 22, 2009

I watched the interview with the legal counsel. When Maddow started sparring with him over why he didn’t resign it became increasingly obvious to me that the guy only came out now to try to cover his own ass before something comes out on him.

odinseye2k

April 22, 2009

One of the legal counsel that was against all of this just appeared on Maddow last night. Thus, we add a parameter to the problem: the desire of those that were innocent to dissociate themselves as much as possible from this horrible thing vs. the desire of those involved to try to keep everyone together and responsibility murky.

She also made a good point – as things become declassified, whistleblowers are much less likely to be prosecuted for disclosing secrets.

J.M. Prince

April 22, 2009

I’m with Kos on this one. This was the CIA’s & BushCo’s way of ‘putting the horse head in the bed of Congress’ to warn them off any serious investigations of the Bush crime syndicate. You know the torture, illegal renditions, ~100 or more deaths in detention, evisceration of Habeas corpus, etc. They know how to do domestic subversion & counter surveillance, right Z? Who knew he was the plant?

But Harman’s just the tip of the ice berg here. What continues to be the missing story is the extent & involvement of all the known & unknown crimes of the Bush administration. This is how they get away with it, the usual Mafioso dirty extortion deals, blackmail most foul & ‘we’ve got a file on you’ & watching your every move’ of ‘ol J Edgar. Right Z? Anything to delay or subvert the cause of real justice or investigations into ‘what went on’. This can be mighty successful, BTW. Look at all the CIA crimes in Central & South America the Reagan & Bush administrations got away with!

Again see http://www.consortiumnews.com/ for some of the details of this. You can read that (Robert Parry) site for months and not be ‘done’! Start with the ‘Lost history’ posts and work your way up the timeline.

But yeah it was Nixon time all over again with Dick Cheney in charge. Everything this time was just much bigger & more secret. Illegal wiretapping & surveillance of Congress? All in a days work my friends, and they were caught at it More than once while doing it too! JMP

BEZERKO

April 21, 2009

From the same thread, The First Fubar:

http://www.examiner.com/examiner/x-1765-Underground-Examiner~y2009m4d21-The-First-FUBAR

BEZERKO

April 21, 2009

Found on a DU discussion thread:

http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/CIAtimeline.html

A Timeline of CIA Atrocities

By Steve Kangas

The following timeline describes just a few of the hundreds of atrocities and crimes committed by the CIA. (1)

CIA operations follow the same recurring script. First, American business interests abroad are threatened by a popular or democratically elected leader. The people support their leader because he intends to conduct land reform, strengthen unions, redistribute wealth, nationalize foreign-owned industry, and regulate business to protect workers, consumers and the environment. So, on behalf of American business, and often with their help, the CIA mobilizes the opposition. First it identifies right-wing groups within the country (usually the military), and offers them a deal: “We’ll put you in power if you maintain a favorable business climate for us.” The Agency then hires, trains and works with them to overthrow the existing government (usually a democracy). It uses every trick in the book: propaganda, stuffed ballot boxes, purchased elections, extortion, blackmail, sexual intrigue, false stories about opponents in the local media, infiltration and disruption of opposing political parties, kidnapping, beating, torture, intimidation, economic sabotage, death squads and even assassination. These efforts culminate in a military coup, which installs a right-wing dictator. The CIA trains the dictatorÔøΩs security apparatus to crack down on the traditional enemies of big business, using interrogation, torture and murder. The victims are said to be “communists,” but almost always they are just peasants, liberals, moderates, labor union leaders, political opponents and advocates of free speech and democracy. Widespread human rights abuses follow.

This scenario has been repeated so many times that the CIA actually teaches it in a special school, the notorious “School of the Americas.” (It opened in Panama but later moved to Fort Benning, Georgia.) Critics have nicknamed it the “School of the Dictators” and “School of the Assassins.” Here, the CIA trains Latin American military officers how to conduct coups, including the use of interrogation, torture and murder.

The Association for Responsible Dissent estimates that by 1987, 6 million people had died as a result of CIA covert operations. (2) Former State Department official William Blum correctly calls this an “American Holocaust.”

The CIA justifies these actions as part of its war against communism. But most coups do not involve a communist threat. Unlucky nations are targeted for a wide variety of reasons: not only threats to American business interests abroad, but also liberal or even moderate social reforms, political instability, the unwillingness of a leader to carry out WashingtonÔøΩs dictates, and declarations of neutrality in the Cold War. Indeed, nothing has infuriated CIA Directors quite like a nationÔøΩs desire to stay out of the Cold War.

The ironic thing about all this intervention is that it frequently fails to achieve American objectives. Often the newly installed dictator grows comfortable with the security apparatus the CIA has built for him. He becomes an expert at running a police state. And because the dictator knows he cannot be overthrown, he becomes independent and defiant of Washington’s will. The CIA then finds it cannot overthrow him, because the police and military are under the dictator’s control, afraid to cooperate with American spies for fear of torture and execution. The only two options for the U.S at this point are impotence or war. Examples of this “boomerang effect” include the Shah of Iran, General Noriega and Saddam Hussein. The boomerang effect also explains why the CIA has proven highly successful at overthrowing democracies, but a wretched failure at overthrowing dictatorships.

The following timeline should confirm that the CIA as we know it should be abolished and replaced by a true information-gathering and analysis organization. The CIA cannot be reformed ‚Äî it is institutionally and culturally corrupt.

Zaid

April 21, 2009

Homeland Security/GEMA is at least here mostly just atlanta PD, GBI, and a bunch of private groups they train. They aren’t really the spooks so much as people who train people at places that are high value targets how to identify behavior and defend against terrorism (one of the other roleplayers in the first simulation I did was head of security at Coke).

The stereotype about these sorts of folks is they’re all black helicopter hardcore slit your throat at a moments notice people but that’s not really true. A lot of them are very worldly, they’ve traveled a lot, quite a few minorities. Now, my sister’s boss was very much a Republican who made lots of Clinton jokes at every opportunity, but it wasn’t like what you’d see in Special Ops or the CIA’s operational wing.

odinseye2k

April 21, 2009

“I also was a homeland security roleplayer and her an analyst, and now she’s a military advisor.”

Huh, that’s fascinated. How does that work? With you as a brother? Is she misguided or do you prefer having someone with a little more sensitivity than hoo-ah in the mix?

Zaid

April 21, 2009

I think her reference was more towards things that you need security clearance for. I’m pretty sure the post office is kosher.

TBS

April 21, 2009

Cheney wants the memos that will show how we “broke” those “terrist muzzzlems”. Or something.

Be interesting to see if you get blacklisted for ALL federal jobs, or just ones that touch national security or law enforcement 🙂

Zaid

April 21, 2009

Cheney isn’t too clever by half, he’s just calling everyone’s bluff. America doesn’t prosecute itself for hurting or killing other people illegally. Never has, probably never will. He’s just enjoying the ride.

odinseye2k

April 21, 2009

Ha, ha… Cheney may be too clever by half. I just heard he is telling Fox News that he’s been calling for memos showing his “interrogation” program works.

It would be great if he inadvertently triggered a systematic release of information in this area to show that they’ve turned every stone without proof of a good result.

Zaid

April 21, 2009

The immigration people were watching you for protesting?

Sis told me that her boss once said that pretty much everyone that does SOAW gets blacklisted for federal jobs.

Jules

April 21, 2009

I was photographed pretty heavily during the SOA trial in 2007. They took a lot of pictures of us, our cars etc.. I don’t think it was FBI but rather ICE.

Zaid

April 21, 2009

I was wiretapped for about 5 years, because my sister was in the CIA admissions process during all that time. I also was a homeland security roleplayer and her an analyst, and now she’s a military advisor.

Every now and then I leave messages for the FBI in whatever I’m writing or saying, just to keep them entertained…

innerredneckexposed

April 21, 2009

Awwwwwwwwwww!

You’ve melted my heart of stone!

I shall let you know of the results!

Jules

April 21, 2009

Thunder:

Just cause I love you…

http://www.usdoj.gov/oip/04_1.html

Drew

April 21, 2009

Is there any evidence for a “feud” between Pelosi and Harman other than Pelosi’s decision not to make her chair of the intelligence committee? Which, in retrospect, may not have even had anything to personality OR policy, but issues like this.

innerredneckexposed

April 21, 2009

How do I do that?

Jules

April 21, 2009

IRE: I think you should request your FBI file- see what they go on ya..

Freedom of Information Act requests are super fun.

odinseye2k

April 21, 2009

We’re also about to see another demonstration of blogstorm investigation vs. tradmed investigation … the immediate question from this is people looking around to see whose sphincters just tightened a little in seeing Harman being outed, particularly by those that might actually have been her friends not so long ago.

innerredneckexposed

April 21, 2009

I want to be wiretapped.

I think it would be fun.

odinseye2k

April 21, 2009

“I agree with odinseye here – there is something much deeper going on here… I think this has the makings of purge in the intel community (but then again this might just be wishful thinking on my side)”

And I think the degree to which we find out what is happening will have to do with the solidarity / fractiousness of the intel community. If there’s a large contingent that thinks all that has been done in the past few years is horribly wrong and wants to speak out, there will be many leaks that start building the momentum toward thorough investigation. If the intel community senses a common threat and bands together, then we’ll have to rely on power dynamics to open this thing up.

Even something as simple as the release of those memos and the level of their redaction likely foreshadows the battle for the soul of that community.

BigD

April 21, 2009

My understanding is that Pelosi and Harman have a blood feud going back many years the origins of which are murky (But, I would bet part of it is that while they are both wealthy, smart and ambitious women with very different personalities and they are from opposites ends of the state but, don’t underestimate the North South struggle in California politics) most recently renewed by the fight in 2006 when Pelosi tried to get Alcee Hastings into the chairmanship of Intelligence. Word was Pelosi felt that Harman wasn’t partisan enough during the run up to the Iraq war and supported the Bushies too much (Iraq, Warrantless wiretaps, etc.) so she tried to rotate her off the committee. Even back then there were rumors I saw on Blogs that Harman was under federal investigation related to her closeness with AIPAC.

I agree with odinseye here – there is something much deeper going on here… I think this has the makings of purge in the intel community (but then again this might just be wishful thinking on my side)

Drew

April 21, 2009

The fact that Harman isn’t Chair of the House Intelligence Committee tells us how effective their lobbying was on Pelosi.

And the fact that she doesn’t have a position in the Obama Administration tells us how effective their lobbying was on Obama.

Harman doesn’t seem to have many friends in government anymore. I’d like to know why. I’d guess the reason is less flattering than this story.

But in Harman’s defense, what Josh Marshall said, maybe “Harman, fairly or unfairly, [was] compromised by these wiretaps and thus beholden to the administration.” I wouldn’t put blackmail past BushCo; maybe Harman was, in that sense, a victim.

http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/2009/04/walking_and_chewing_gum.php

Zaid

April 21, 2009

I say height of Congressional leadership because the initiating post did not mention that part of the quid pro quo was Harman getting AIPAC to lobby Pelosi for her. Considering Pelosi was part of the effort to nix Obama’s NIC chief on behalf of AIPAC’s bidding, I don’t know how much anyone can think she’s going to stand up to them.

Zaid

April 20, 2009

Investigations that reach into the height of Congressional leadership and the most powerful foreign policy lobby of them all? I really doubt those are going to get anywhere.

odinseye2k

April 20, 2009

Definitely yes on the investigation. Although with the facts so in flux on the first day, it’s probably going to take a while to say much more than the whole warrantless system is messed up.

Apparent guilt and innocence by a lot of involved parties are going to flop around for a while.

Also, the release of the torture memos with less redacting than the CIA wanted (which was probably total blackout) is probably the first shot in a major brouhaha with the national security apparatus. Even with Emanuel’s “we won’t prosecute” dictate (presumably straight from the boss), a clash is in the air. Just like with Gates let off the leash to take several contractor-friendly programs off the table.

I think in all of this, we are just seeing pebbles skittering off the mountainside. Who knows when boulders will start shaking loose?

And I’m not thinking of Obama and whatever allies he may have around as playing three-dimensional chess on this one. I’m thinking it is more of a fear as to how deep this particular rabbit hole goes.

AIPAC, Alberto Gonzales, Jane Harman, and some unsavory allegations

Comments

80 responses to “AIPAC, Alberto Gonzales, Jane Harman, and some unsavory allegations”

Leave a Reply