deep thought

we have to keep them in guantanamo 'cause we can't hold them legally.

quote of the day

gonzalo boye, spanish human rights lawyer and co-plaintiff filing torture and war crimes charges against the bush white house:

if they are innocent, they shouldn’t be afraid.

another one bites the dust

(art by aarrgghh)

gonzales bids hasta la vista.

what's striking to me is how little sadness there is on the right that he is leaving. a quick look over at "the corner" shows that most conservatives there view his departure with relief. michelle malkin wasn't upset to seem him go either. a quick blogosphere check shows that most on the right are okay with this decision. but i wonder why republicans and wingnuts aren't angry about gonzo's departure. gonzalez has been radioactive for months now. he became the walking symbol of the bush administration's failures — incompetence, corruption and cronyism (loyalty uber alles). for him to resign now — after the disastrous appearances on the hill, after his deceptions, after stubbornly refusing to do so months ago when it could have stemmed the tide — well, it seems like defusing a bomb after it had already gone off. it's like rumsfeld all over again. this departure brings back memories of the phrase, the mayberry machiavellis. bush and friends seem intent on going down hard and taking the gop with them.

alberto piñata

and lo, a new talking point is born ...

(video courtesy of talkingpointsmemo.com)

warrentless wiretaps 101

the cliff notes edition, courtesy of duncan black (aka atrios @ eschaton):

look, all the parsing of statements is a waste of time. they were eavesdropping on whoever they wanted to without any warrants or oversight. whether or not "whoever they wanted to" included, say, the john kerry campaign or markos moulitsas is still an open question. they obviously claimed the power to do so, it just isn't clear if they did it.

no halli-prisons, either

i'm starting to think that the white house, now that it's entering lame duck mode, is leaking executive orders for no other reason than to savor the sheer sadistic joy of scaring the bejeezus out of left blogistan every few days. and left blogistan never fails to deliver on the shrieks.

my previous post covered the latest presidential "finding" on iran and gave my reasons, once again, why we aren't going to be nuking iran tomorrow. it's probably no coincidence that washington and teheran thawed a 27-year diplomatic freeze in the same week this "finding" was leaked. "don't worry," seems to be the message to their fellow neocon war-mongers, "we're just putting on a show for the cameras ... we're still planning to screw these guys" — wink, wink.

now "national security presidential directive 51/homeland security presidential directive 20" has hit the internets and once again the old ladies are fanning their breasts because bush is apparently stealthily grabbing dictatorial emergency powers for himself. considering that the directives are posted on the white house web site, it's not much of a stealth move.

in fact, enough of a to-do was raised that the ordinarily agnostic investigative blogger josh marshall decided to invite a small panel of experts in law, government and civil rights to vet the directives. how scary were bush's orders? not so much:

the consensus amongst experts seems to be that the directive, aimed at establishing "continuity of government" after a major disaster, is not new nor does the policy seem to expand executive power. in fact, mike german, the policy counsel to the aclu’s washington office told me that an executive continuity plan actually might “not be that bad of an idea.” executive power expert, nyu law professor david golove, also sent me an email saying the directive didn’t appear to be a power grab. ... german called the release a positive sign, but said he urges the release of all previous directives so we can get a real sense of what has changed. the concept of continuity of government applies to all branches of government. christopher kelleye, a presidency expert and political science professor at miami university ohio told me in an email that he didn’t see any new powers listed in the directive, but wondered why congress hasn’t done the same thing.

granted, marshall's panel is an informal poll, but the great majority of his commenters were hardly reassured:

"the directive that was signed may 14/15 is the most troubling ... it is his way of having total power in the event of a natural or man made disaster ..." "i scare myself just thinking that an administration could/would perpetrate a catastrophy on it's [sic] own people just to retain political power ..." "even if this power is nothing new, what is new is a president so untrustworthy that i'll not be surprised if a false flag attack occurs next year in october, bush declares martial law, and he suspends the national election. i expect this supreme court would support him and gonzales (should he survive his term in the doj) would bring all the police power of the federal government to maintain bush." "of course, a blatant "coup" by bush, turning the federal government into the bushchaneyrove junta has been slowly in the making for some time, or haven't you noticed? the directive 51 is just the vaseline to make slide in more easily when they decide to not just ignore, but do away with the congress ..." "can homeland security remove you from your home, or place you in one of the haliburton camps? direct which corporations or other businesses get priority on the highways? on rail transit? will the internet be coopted, in the naqme [sic] of national security to keep us from commmunicating?" "remember that halliburton contract a yr ago to build new u.s. detention camps" "he is probably preparing to take over the country after the next presidential elections. he will have one of his goons call in an attack on us and then say 'look we just got attacked and i think i am the best person to take over, new president elect and the constitution be damned.'" "george has nothing to look forward too once he leaves office, he's served his purpose and will be of no concern. but, if he can make sure that the us military is effectively stuck in iraq, and not able to offer any resistance, his private army made up of mercs from blackwater and dyncorp to name just two can establish martial law and he can keep remain the president for as long as he pleases."

hmmm ... now let's all take a deep breath.

look people, a lot of you guys — too many — sound like the same chicken littles who were endlessly predicting false flag attacks and martial law all of last year in the run-up to the midterms, and all of 2004 in the run-up to the presidential elections ...

while it makes exciting and breathless blog chatter, i still don't see it, folks. it's not like bushco™ hasn't already had ample opportunities to set these paranoid fantasies into motion.

because i don't recall congress being abolished nor any martial law decrees being issued nor any halliburton death camps being filled after 9-11.

nor any after katrina.

nor before the 2002 midterms. nor the 2004 elections. nor the 2006 midterms.

so tell me, just what are our neocon overlords waiting for?

dominoes

it's been an eventful week ...

(photo-edit by dave hill)

deputy secretary of state randall tobias resigns ... one day after confirming to abc news that he had been a customer of a washington, d.c. escort service whose owner has been charged by federal prosecutors with running a prostitution operation. the married tobias had used his diplomatic perch as a vocal international proponent of abstinence and monogamy as well as anti-prostitution over condoms ... deputy chief of staff robert coughlin of the justice department's criminal division resigns ... after coming under scrutiny in the department’s expanding investigation of convicted super-lobbyist jack abramoff. former justice department director of public affairs monica goodling subpoenaed ... by the house judiciary committee and offered immunity for her testimony into the u.s. attorney scandal. according to dismissed new mexico u.s. attorney david iglesias, goodling holds, as the doj liaison to the white house (see: rove, karl), "the keys to the kingdom." rep. john doolittle (r-ca) resigns from the house appropriations committee ... after fbi agents raided his house as part of a congressional influence-peddling investigation (see: cunningham, duke et abramoff, jack). just three days earlier former doolittle aide kevin ring resigned from his lobbying firm. "ring seems poised to follow the path of other aides who've pled guilty in the abramoff scandal — pleading guilty to lesser charges in return for delivering their former bosses to investigators."

catch me if you can

so y'all have probably heard there's a new posse in town.

but will the honorable sen. leahy and his faithful deputy rep. waxman ever catch up to that insufferable li'l varmit and the pet chihuahua he rode in on?

from the looks of where alberto's headed today, they may not have to ...

(image by aarrgghh)

it's not nice to fool madam justice

(image by aarrgghh)

remember that margarine commercial from the '70s starring none other than mother nature herself? of course you do. she didn't take kindly to being pranked and from the noise coming out of congress in the wake of the u.s. attorney mess it doesn't sound like her sister madam justice is any kinder.

now that congress is back in the business of asking questions, the answers (and endless "clarifications") coming out of the justice department — and just about every other department of the most pervasively corrupt (and, not surprisingly, pervasively amnesiatic) administration in the nation's history — make it pretty clear that bush's cronies — having for the first time in six years to publicly account for themselves — couldn't fool a blind person.

---

update: emptywheel @ firedoglake.com has posted a schedule of the coming attractions:

march 23: deadline for condi to turn over (condi apparently ignored this deadline — see her upcoming date with waxman below) march 30 (today!): house and senate [correction — doj wanted joint interviews, but it appears only the house judiciary is involved at this point] judiciary committees begin to interview [in private interviews — so don't look for it on cspan] 7 current and former doj employees on the usa purge; interviewees include: paul mcnulty william moschella michael elston william mercer david margolis monica "five for freedom" goodling michael battle march 30 (today!): deadline for state department to turn over information on problems with the dyncorp contract to train iraqi police april 5: [house oversight] deadline for fred fielding to turn over information on the gwb43 and other non-governmental email practices (with interviews to occur the week of april 2) april 5: [house oversight] susan ralston scheduled to give deposition on the white house role in the jack abramoff scandal; this will include questions on the gwb43 email server april 6: [house oversight] deadline for josh bolten to turn over all paperwork on mzm's contract to install furniture sanitize the mail in ovp april 7: [house oversight] deadline for information related to doj interference in tobacco settlement april 10: [closed ssci hearing] cia detention april 12: [closed ssci hearing] national security letters april 13: [house oversight] deadline for karl rove to answer questions regarding the powerpoint targeting democrats and potential hatch act violations april 17: soon to be former ag alberto gonzales testifies before senate judiciary committee april 17: [closed ssci hearing] telecom liability act april 18: [house oversight] condi visits (ha!) waxman's committee to answer questions on the niger intelligence and all the other things condi ignored from 16 letters waxman wrote her before he got his gavel april 19: [closed ssci hearing] fisa modernization legislation may 17: hearing on the wilson's lawsuit june 5: libby's sentencing hearing

document dump

the white house staff seems on the verge of being completely swept away in the ongoing deluge of internal department of justice emails — regarding last year's ouster of eight u.s. attorneys — delivered to the house judiciary committee ...

(art by aarrgghh)

for bush, his last days in office may prove to be very, very lonely.

bring me the head of alberto gonzales

... and the ass of karl rove.

during the next two years, our nation must address critical questions affecting the investigation, pursuit, and prosecution of terrorism at home and abroad. in this effort, we must have a strong, credible attorney general who holds the confidence of congress and the american people. i do not believe alberto gonzales can fill that role. the president should fire the attorney general and replace him as soon as possible with someone who can provide strong, aggressive leadership prosecuting the war on terrorism, running the department of justice, and working with the president and congress on important homeland security matters. senator john sununu (r-nh)

for the justice department to be effective before the u.s. senate, it would be helpful [if gonzales resigned]. senator gordon smith (r-or)

---

cafferty: ... and it's not enough that the attorney general of the united states is a glorified water boy for the white house. the bush administration also is admitting now that its number one political hack, karl rove, passed along complaints from republican lawmakers about u.s. attorneys to the justice department and to the white house counsel's office — a political adviser playing a role in the hiring and firing of u.s. attorneys. it's disgraceful. here's the question: should u.s. attorney general alberto gonzalez resign? e-mail your thoughts to caffertyfile@cnn.com or go to cnn.com/caffertyfile. if you look up the word weasel in the dictionary, wolf, you'll see alberto gonzales' picture there. blitzer: you don't like him? cafferty: that's correct. i don't. [snip] cafferty: don writes from florida: "jack, a better question is: how soon should alberto gonzales resign? and what should be the punishment for his crimes?" ralph writes: "nah. they would just replace him with somebody more dangerous, someone who knows how to run a police state without getting caught." john in philadelphia: "actually, he should have been fired. we all know how long that takes, though. remember rumsfeld? this worm is exactly the type of hatchet man that bush likes. don't ever do the people's work. just do my dirty work." larisa in seattle: "alberto gonzales should have resigned yesterday or last year or two years ago. look at the guy's legacy: torture memos, spying on americans, and now substituting gop cronies for lawyers who are supposed to be defending the public good and upholding the constitution." robert writes from ohio: "resign? he ought to be perp-walked." j. writes: "jack, of course he ought to resign, but we both know he won't. his role right now is to cover the backside of the most corrupt administration in history, which is a tall order for such a little man." jody in tennessee: "yes, he ought to, but that won't happen. he's a bush buddy. every time i see him on tv, he looks like he's laughing at us." and jenny in new york: "from this administration? no way. he's doing a heck of a job." we got no letters suggesting that alberto gonzales was doing a great job, and that we were out of line by quoting some of the people, like chuck schumer in the senate, who are calling for the man's resignation. nobody wrote and said, "this guy is doing a good job." blitzer: out of how many? about hundreds did we get, thousands? cafferty: i don't know. yes, it was 800, 900 e-mails. i didn't read eight or nine hundred of them, but i — i spun through probably a couple of hundred. there were none — none. nobody wrote to say, "alberto gonzales is doing a good job as the attorney general of the united states." i mean, that alone says something, doesn't it? blitzer: it certainly does. jack, thank you very much.

---

blitzer: let's check in with jack cafferty. he's got the cafferty file — jack: cafferty: i want to see patrick leahy interview karl rove under oath in front of the senate judiciary committee. i don't care who wins. i don't care who comes out of it unscathed. i just want to watch it. it would be — it would be like watching ali-frazier iv. it would just be terrific theater. blitzer: sort of like a pay-per-view moment. cafferty: the same idea, yeah, you know, like geraldo getting hit in the face with a chair.

---

leahy: ... in some cases i have not gotten answers that appear even to be honest. blitzer: well, do you think someone... leahy: i want to have those. blitzer: do you think someone committed perjury? leahy: well, we'll find that out. that's not always the easiest thing to prove. but we can certainly prove that we have not gotten complete answers. it's a lot more. i think the american public deserves to have answers on this, instead of every day a little bit more dribbling out. let's get all of the facts. but let's have it under oath. it's interesting, sometimes, when people are sworn in. it focuses their attention a little bit more. blitzer: the white house counsel, fred fielding, was up on the hill today. i don't know if you had a chance to meet with him. but he's not necessarily ruling out allowing some white house staffers, maybe even karl rove, to come and testify. do you want karl rove to testify before your panel? leahy: i've never met mr. fielding. i don't — frankly, i don't care whether he says he's going to allow people or not. we'll subpoena the people we want. if they want to defy the subpoena, then you get into a stonewall situation i suspect they don't want to have. blitzer: well, will you subpoena ... leahy: i have ... blitzer: will you subpoena karl rove? leahy: yes. he can appear voluntarily if he wants. if he doesn't, i will subpoena him. and we had — the attorney general said well, there are some staff people or lower level people i'm not sure whether i want to allow them to testify or not. i said, frankly, mr. attorney general, it's not your decision. it's mine and the committee's. we will have subpoenas. i would hope that they will not try to stonewall subpoenas. blitzer: the white house, the president, the attorney general, they insist there was no politics involved in these decisions to get rid of these eight u.s. prosecutors. but you've seen some of the e-mail, the traffic, the paper trail, where there do appear to be some political decisions involved. what's going on? leahy: i'm surprised that they're saying that there's no politics involved and we're still two-and-a-half weeks away from april fool's day. there was obviously politics. i mean this is something both republicans and democrats know. you go in the cloak rooms, you hear both republicans and democrats saying it. everybody knows there's politics involved. everybody knows — in one instance — arkansas, you had a very highly rated u.s. attorney. they were told they had to get rid of him because karl rove had an acolyte of his that had to be put in his place. how can they possibly stand there with a straight face and say that's not politics. of course it's politics. blitzer: but is there anything illegal in putting one of karl rove's associates in and making him the u.s. attorney in arkansas? leahy: there's nothing illegal in a president firing, by itself, firing a u.s. attorney. what it does say, however, to law enforcement, you either play by our political rules — by our political rules, not by law enforcement rules, but by our political rules — or you're out of a job. what i am saying is that that hurts law enforcement, that hurts fighting against crime. and if it is done to stop an ongoing investigation — and this is something we don't know — if it is done to stop an ongoing investigation, then you do get into the criminal area. blitzer: and so that's the focus of your investigation, whether or not somebody committed a crime? leahy: the first thing i want in my investigation is to find out exactly what happened, sort of the old just the facts. i want to find out what the facts are. but i don't want to have somebody come up in a briefing and say well, no, here's really what we think happened. no. i want them in public. i want both democrats and republicans able to ask the questions. but those answers are going to be under oath or they're not acceptable to me.

---

the new e-mails show conclusively that karl rove was in the middle of this mess from the beginning. it is now imperative that he testify before congress and give all the details of his involvement both in the proposal to fire the 93 u.s. attorneys at the beginning of george bush's second term and his involvement in the firings of the individual eight u.s. attorneys who were fired throughout 2006. the bottom line is: if the white house prevents karl rove from testifying, it will be thumbing its nose at the american people and at the rule of law. and the reason it's so imperative that people testify under oath is that every time new information comes out, it proves that the white house was not telling the truth in their previous statements. white house presss secretary tony snow told people on tuesday that miers had suggested the 93 — firing the 93 — and quote: "it was her idea only." now it's clear that karl rove is involved. so statements from the white house press office and others involved proved to be false, false, false, time after time after time. the only way that we can get to the truth and clear up this sorry mess is when the white house and the justice department release all the documents involved in the firing of the u.s. attorneys and when the parties who were involved testify under oath before congress.