BUCKNACKT'S SORDID TAWDRY BLOG
We should not be a journey to the grave with the intention of arriving safely in an attractive & well preserved body, but rather to skid in sideways, chocolate, bier or wein in hand, body thoroughly used up, totally worn out and screaming "WHOO-HOO, WHAT A RIDE!!!!!!"
NORTON META TAG
Showing posts with label attorney general. Show all posts
Showing posts with label attorney general. Show all posts
sen jeff sessions r AL is a bigoted, fascist, neo-nazi pig who would have been qualified for Generalstaatsanwalt in hitler's third reich but is no way qualified to the the US Attorney General. His selection by drumpf/trump-pence is more proof of the coming battles over the US Constitution, our civil librties, civil rights, human rights, the fate of our Republic. From +NPR ...
Sen. Jeff Sessions of Alabama talks to the media at Trump Tower in New York Thursday. Sessions was picked to be President-elect Donald Trump's attorney general Friday.
Jewel Samad/AFP/Getty Images
President-elect Trump's selection of Sen. Jeff Sessions of Alabama to be Attorney General is stirring old memories-about his first failed foray on the national political scene.
In 1986, the Senate Judiciary Committee rejected Sessions, nominated by Republican President Reagan to be a a federal judge, after he acknowledged making racially insensitive remarks and calling the NAACP, the ACLU, the Southern Christian Leadership Council, and the National Council of Churches "un-American."
It was the first time that the committee had rejected a lower-court nomination in nearly a half century, and it came, amazingly, at a time when Republicans controlled the Senate.
The vote to reject the nomination was 10-8, with two Republicans joining all eight Democrats on the committee, to defeat the nomination after more than 20 hours of hearings.
In many ways, it was fellow Alabamian Howell Heflin, the former chief justice of the state, and a conservative Democrat, who cast the decisive vote against sessions.
'I must vote no'
The "overriding inquiry," Heflin said, is "will Jeff Sessions be a fair and impartial judge? Frankly, I have to say I don't know."
But "fairness and impartiality go to the very heart of our justice system," Heflin continued, and "as long as I have reasonable doubts, my conscience is not clear, and I must vote no."
The dramatic vote capped two sets of hearings over several months, and testimony from Sessions that changed significantly over time. At issue, were Sessions' racial attitudes in comments expressed to a variety of people, and a prosecution he brought as U.S. Attorney against three civil rights leaders for alleged voter fraud.
A jury of seven blacks and five whites subsequently acquitted all three after deliberating for just three hours, and civil-rights groups charged that the prosecution had been aimed at intimidating black voters, who in the previous election had turned out in record numbers.
The KKK 'OK'... except for the pot-smokers
For years, Democrats had held back in their opposition to Reagan's attempt to reshape the judiciary, treating it as a back-burner issue. But in Sessions they saw a target-rich environment. And the Reagan administration knew it. After initially refusing to allow Justice Department lawyers who had worked with Sessions to testify, the department relented, only to hear career attorneys testify about racially tinged remarks Sessions had made.
Sessions maintained that he was just "joking" when he said thought the Ku Klux Klan "OK" until he found out its members smoked pot. He denied ever bringing a prosecution in order to discourage black voters from casting ballots.
But Sessions made so many damaging admissions at his March hearing that Republicans called a second round of hearings in May, and at that second hearing, his answers changed so significantly that he faced credibility questions.
White civil-rights lawyer 'a disgrace to his race'
In March, asked about testimony that he had characterized a white civil-rights lawyer as "a disgrace to his race," the nominee replied, "trying to recollect on it, the best I could recall was I said, 'Well, he's not that popular around town. I've heard him referred to as 'a disgrace to his race.'"
In May, however, he said, "I am absolutely convinced that I did not call Mr. Blacksher a disgrace to his race, and I did not acknowledge it in any form."
In March, two lawyers, including a 13-year Justice Department veteran, testified that Sessions had referred to the NAACP, the National Council of Churches, the ACLU, and other groups as Communist-inspired and "un-American." Sessions conceded that he had made such remarks.
"It's probably something I shouldn't have said," Sessions said then. "But I really didn't mean any harm."
He went on to explain that he had not actually meant these groups were un-American but that "they take positions that are considered un-American," and thus "hurt themselves" and "lose credibility."
But by the May hearing, Sessions proclaimed that these organizations "are essential in a pluralistic society.... quintessentially American organizations. They are not un-American organizations."
Under questioning from then Sen. Joseph Biden. Sessions maintained that these organizations may have taken positions "adverse to the security of the United States," but if you hold such views "in good faith, you are not an un-American person ... or organization."
'I am not a racist'
Session sought to explain his changed answers by saying he had been taken by surprise at the previous hearing. But under further questioning from Biden, he conceded that he had been informed well in advance of the March hearing about all the controversial areas on which he would be questioned.
In a final plea, he told the committee, "I am not the Jeff Sessions my detractors have tried to create; I am not a racist. I am not insensitive to blacks. I supported civil-rights activity in my state. I have done my job with integrity, equality and fairness for all."
His answers, however, seemed to add a credibility problem to his troubles.
As a pained Sen. Heflin put it in hearkening back to his experience as a judge, these "admissions, explanations, partial admissions" leave one "in a quandary."
On that day in 1986, Sessions would lose his fight to be a federal judge. But 10 years later, in a moment of exquisite irony, he would win the election in Alabama to succeed the retiring Heflin.
He has served in the Senate for 20 years, earning the respect, if not the agreement of some of his liberal adversaries. This year, he was the first and for many many months, the only U.S. senator to endorse Trump for president.
In the GOP primary and general-election campaign, he campaigned hard for Trump, gaining increasing influence with the nominee and the now president-elect.
And on Friday, Trump picked Sessions to serve as the nation's chief law-enforcement officer.
TERRORIST pariah Iran is showing it's desperation with factions of the Iranian government being involved in this plot. It reminds me of the deadly plot carried out by Cuban dissidents contracted by the government of Chilean dictator Pinochet who killed the former Chilean ambassador to the U.S. with a car bomb in D.C. There are a lot of conspiracy theorist out there who are doubting the American government's claims, and honestly, who can blame them? Look at how we were lied to about the reasons "justifying" the Iraq war, "justifying" the excesses of the Patriot Act, and how we have been lied to about the Afghanistan war, and we are getting into the 2012 campaign season so the Obama administration is going to want to look tough on national security. But I do believe our government about this because of the evidence presented and because the Iranian government is an embodiment of evil, much on the same level as hitler's Third Reich. My fear is this will be used as justification for more war, and if it happens it will be another war we can not win, and will probably involve nuclear weapons. From the Washington Post
U.S. officials on Tuesday said that they had foiled an elaborate terrorist plot backed by factions of the Iranian government aimed at assassinating the Saudi ambassador to Washington.
At a news conference, Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr. said two Iranians have been charged with conspiracy to murder a foreign official and conspiracy to commit an act of international terrorism, among other charges. One of the suspects, an Iranian with U.S. citizenship, was arrested in New York last month; the other, an Iranian, remains at large.
“The United States is committed to holding Iran accountable for its actions,” Holder said.
The suspects were identified as Manssor Arbabsiar, a 56-year-old from Texas, and Gholam Shakuri, an Iran-based member of Iran’s Quds Force, an elite division of that country’s Revolutionary Guard Corps responsible for foreign operations.
In addition to killing the Saudi ambassador, Adel al-Jubeir, officials said, the plot envisioned later striking other targets. The officials said that the plan to kill the ambassador was directed by Tehran, and that Arbabsiar has acknowledged that he was recruited and funded by men he understood to be senior officers in the Quds Force.
Shortly after the announcement, the Obama administration said it was imposing financial sanctions on five Iranians, including the two suspects, connected to the plot. Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton said the administration would consider more actions to further isolate the Islamic Republic.
The Iranian government immediately denied the accusations, calling them a new round of “American propaganda,” according to state news agency IRNA.
“The U.S. government and the CIA have very good experience in making up film scripts,” Ali Akbar Javanfekr, a spokesman for Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, said in Tehran. “It appears that this new scenario is for diverting the U.S. public opinion from internal crises.
Officials described the details of the plot as chilling, saying that the conspirators considered blowing up a restaurant frequented by the ambassador.
According to a criminal complaint unsealed Tuesday, Arbabsiar met with a DEA informant — who was posing as a representative of a Mexican drug cartel — to arrange the killing. At one point, the complaint says, Arbabsiar told the informant that he would need four men to carry out the ambassador’s murder and that he would pay $1.5 million for the operation.
As a down payment, Arbabsiar allegedly later arranged for $100,000 to be wired to an account that was secretly overseen by the FBI.
“Though it reads like the pages of a Hollywood script, the impact would have been very real and many lives would have been lost,” said FBI Director Robert Mueller.
According to the Justice Department, Arbabsiar was arrested by federal agents Sept. 29 after he had been under surveillance or investigation for more than four months. His arrest came eight days after two U.S. hikers who had spent more than two years in Iranian custody on suspicion of spying were released from prison and allowed to leave the country.
A spokesman for the National Security Council said President Obama had been briefed on the case in June.
The United States has listed Iran as a state sponsor of terrorism since 1984. The government in Tehran has long denied accusations that it backs terrorism.
Iran and Saudi Arabia are bitter political enemies in a long-running Middle Eastern conflict fueled largely by sectarian rivalries. Saudi Arabia, a monarchy with a predominantly Sunni Muslim population, has felt threatened by the Shiite leadership of Iran ever since the 1979 revolution toppled Shah Mohammad Reza Pahlavi and replaced him with a theocratic government.
Jubeir, 49, is one of the best-known Saudi figures in the West and among the most powerful foreign policymakers outside the royal family. The son of a Saudi diplomat, he speaks fluent German and virtually unaccented American English. A political science and economic graduate from the University of North Texas, he also holds a master’s degree in international relations from Georgetown University.
He first appeared as a spokesman for the Saudi government during the 1991 Persian Gulf war, and quickly became known as a foreign policy adviser to then-Crown Prince Abdullah, with particular influence on policy toward the United States. When it became known that the Sept. 11, 2001, al-Qaeda attacks were carried out by Saudi citizens, Jubeir was dispatched to Washington to represent the kingdom’s interests before the American public and policymakers. He became ambassador the the United States in 2007.
His extensive contacts within the administration and among lawmakers, policy experts and journalists — and his closeness to the most senior figures of the Saudi government — have helped Jubeir work to strengthen U.S.-Saudi ties. Staff writers Jerry Markon, William Branigin, Craig Whitlock, Karen DeYoung and Scott Wilson, correspondent Thomas Erdbrink in Tehran and staff researcher Julie Tate contributed to this report.
I am afraid the wall street bankers and financiers that brought our economy to it's knees will get away with their crimes and will keep on laughing all the way to their off shore bank accounts....this from AlterNet.....
The FBI and the DOJ are unlikely to prosecute the elite bankers who ran the enormous fraud that drove the financial crisis.
The role of the criminal justice system with regard to financial fraud by elite bankers in 2011 is likely to reprise its role last decade — de facto decriminalization. The Galleon investigation of insider trading at hedge funds will take much of the FBI’s and the Department of Justice’s (DOJ) focus.
The state attorneys general investigations of foreclosure fraud do focus on the major players such as the Bank of America (BoA), but they are unlikely to lead to criminal liability for any senior bank officials. It is most likely that they will lead to financial settlements that include new funding for loan modifications.
The FBI and the DOJ remain unlikely to prosecute the elite bank officers that ran the enormous “accounting control frauds” that drove the financial crisis. While over 1000 elites were convicted of felonies arising from the savings and loan (S&L) debacle, there are no convictions of controlling officers of the large nonprime lenders. The only indictment of controlling officers of a far smaller nonprime lender arose not from an investigation of the nonprime loans but rather from the lender’s alleged efforts to defraud the federal government’s TARP bailout program.
What has gone so catastrophically wrong with DOJ, and why has it continued so long? The fundamental flaw is that DOJ’s senior leadership cannot conceive of elite bankers as criminals. On Huffington Post, David Heath writes:
Benjamin Wagner, a U.S. Attorney who is actively prosecuting mortgage fraud cases in Sacramento, Calif., points out that banks lose money when a loan turns out to be fraudulent. An investor in loans who documents fraud can force a bank to buy the loan back. But convincing a jury that executives intended to make fraudulent loans, and thus should be held criminally responsible, may be too difficult of a hurdle for prosecutors. ‘It doesn’t make any sense to me that they would be deliberately defrauding themselves,’ Wagner said.”
Mr. Wagner is confused by his own pronouns: “It doesn’t make any sense to me that they would be deliberately defrauding themselves.” This direct quotation needs to be read in conjunction with the author’s description of his position: “banks lose money” when loans “turn out to be fraudulent.” Wagner was responding to a question about control fraud — frauds led by the person controlling the seemingly legitimate entity who uses it as a “weapon.” The relevant “they” is the person looting the bank — the CEO. The word “themselves” refers not to the CEO, but rather to the bank. The CEO is not looting the CEO; he is looting the bank’s creditors and shareholders. Two titles capture this well known fraud dynamic. The Nobel laureate in economics, George Akerlof, and Paul Romer co-authored Looting: the Economic Underworld of Bankruptcy for Profit in 1993 and I wrote The Best Way to Rob a Bank is to Own One (2005). The CEO becomes wealthy by looting the bank. He uses accounting as his ammunition because, to quote Akerlof & Romer, it is “a sure thing.” The firm fails (or in the modern era, is bailed out), but the CEO walks away wealthy.
Here is the four-part recipe for maximizing fraudulent accounting income in the short-term:
1. Grow extremely rapidly
2. By making bad loans at high yields
3. While employing extreme leverage, and
4. Providing only minimal loss reserves
A bank that follows this recipe is mathematically guaranteed to report record income in the near term. The first two ingredients in the recipe are linked. A bank in a reasonably competitive, mature market such as home mortgage lending cannot decide to grow extremely rapidly by making good loans. A bank can, however, guarantee its ability to grow rapidly — and charge a premium yield — if it lends to the tens of millions of people who cannot afford to own a home. Equally importantly, if many lenders follow the same recipe they will cause a financial bubble to hyper-inflate. Financial bubbles extend the lives of accounting control frauds by making it simple to refinance loans to those who cannot afford to purchase the asset. The longer that delinquencies and defaults can be delayed the more the CEO can loot the bank.
Note that the same recipe that maximizes short-term fictional income in the near term maximizes real losses in the longer term. Mr. Wagner is unable to understand that accounting control fraud represents the ultimate “agency” problem — the unfaithful agent (the CEO) enriches himself at the expense of the principals he is supposed to serve and the firm’s creditors. Agency problems are well known to white-collar criminologists, economists, lawyers that practice corporate, securities, or criminal law, and financial regulators. Yes, accounting control fraud causes the bank to suffer huge losses. The loans don’t “turn out to be fraudulent” — they are fraudulent when made. The recognition of the losses is delayed when an epidemic of accounting control fraud hyper-inflates a bubble, but the bubble will increase the ultimate losses. Sacramento, California is one of the epicenters of the mortgage fraud that drove the financial crisis, so Mr. Wagner’s lack of understanding of fraud mechanisms is particularly harmful.
Financial regulators are essential to prevent this kind of error by senior prosecutors. The regulators have to serve as the Sherpas for the criminal justice system to succeed against epidemics of control fraud. The FBI cannot have hundreds of agents expert in many hundreds of industries. The regulators have to do the heavy investigative lifting. They have the expertise and greater staff resources. The regulators also have to serve as the guides. Their criminal referrals have to provide the roadmaps that allow the FBI to conduct successful investigations. The regulators played this role successfully at key times during the S&L debacle, filing thousands of criminal referrals that led to over 1000 priority felony convictions. During the current crisis the OCC and the OTS - combined - made zero criminal referrals. None of the federal regulatory agencies appear to have enforced the regulatory mandate that federally insured depositories file criminal referrals - and noncompliance with that requirement was and is the norm. There is no indication that the FBI has demanded that the regulators enforce their rules.
Absent guidance and support from the regulators, the FBI turned to the worst conceivable source of guidance and support - the trade association of the “perps” — the Mortgage Bankers Association (MBA). The MBA, predictably, defined its members as the victims of mortgage fraud. The MBA invented a nonsensical definition of mortgage fraud which made accounting control fraud impossible. All fraud supposedly fell into one of two categories: “fraud for housing” or “fraud for profit.” The MBA members are, in fact, victims of accounting control fraud. The mortgage banks, however, do not set MBA policy. The CEOs of the mortgage banks determine MBA policy and they are not about to tell the FBI that they are the primary source of the epidemic of mortgage fraud. Similarly, they are not about to make criminal referrals, which might cause the FBI to investigate why some lenders made loans that were overwhelmingly fraudulent. MBA members virtually never made criminal referrals even though they made millions of fraudulent loans. Why don’t the victims make criminal referrals and help the FBI protect them from the frauds?
Why did an industry, home mortgage lending, which had traditionally been able to keep losses from all sources to roughly one percent suddenly begin to suffer 80-100 percent fraud incidence on “liar’s” loans? Why would an honest mortgage lender make “liar’s” loans knowing that doing so would produce intense “adverse selection” and a “negative expected value”? They would not do so. They were not mandated to do so by federal regulation or law. They were not encouraged to do so by federal regulation or law. They did so because their CEOs decided they would do so in order to maximize fictional income and real bonuses. The CEOs increased the number of liar’s loans they made after they were warned by the FBI that there was an “epidemic” of mortgage fraud and the FBI predicted it would cause an “economic crisis” were it not contained. The CEOs increased their liar’s loans after the MBA’s own anti-fraud experts stated that they deserved the name “liar’s” loans because they were pervasively fraudulent and after those experts said that “liar’s” loans were “an open invitation to fraudsters.” The industry’s formal euphemisms for liar’s loans were “alt-a” and “stated income” loans. None of this makes sense for honest CEOs.
The federal regulators have not made any public study of liar’s loans. The FDIC and OTS’ joint data system on mortgages is an anti-study — it uses a categorization system that ignores whether the loans were underwritten. This makes the data base useless for studying loans made without full underwriting — the loans that were overwhelmingly fraudulent and drove the crisis. Credit Suisse reported that mortgage loans without full underwriting constituted 49% of all new originations in 2006. If that percentage is even in the ballpark it indicates that that there were millions of fraudulent loans originated in 2005-2007. It is appalling that the regulators are not studying the facts necessary to understand the crisis and hold the perpetrator accountable.
Fortunately, the state attorneys general have studied these mechanisms and they have found that it was the lenders and their agents that overwhelmingly (1) prompted the false loan application data and (2) coerced appraisers to inflate market values. An honest lender would never engage in either practice or permit its agents to do so. The federal regulators, however, have spent their passion trying to preempt state efforts to protect borrowers. The federal regulators took no effective action in response to the State AGs’ findings.
The combined effect of these private sector, regulatory, and criminal justice failures has created a set of intellectual blinders that have caused DOJ to mischaracterize the nature of mortgage fraud. Attorney General Mukasey famously dismissed the epidemic of mortgage fraud as “white-collar street crime.” He did so in the context of refusing to establish a national task force against mortgage fraud. A national task force is essential in this crisis because of the national lending scope of many of the worst accounting control frauds. Attorney General Holder has maintained Mukasey’s passive approach to the elite frauds that drove the crisis.
The U.S. needs to take three major steps to be effective against the epidemic of accounting control fraud. First, DOJ needs to realize that it is dealing with accounting control fraud. That task is not terribly difficult. The criminology, economics, and regulatory literature — as well as the data on fraud and analytics are all readily available. The FBI must end its “partnership” with the MBA.
Second, the regulators need new leadership picked for a track record of success as vigorous regulators and a willingness to hold elites accountable regardless of their political allies. The regulators need to make assisting prosecutions, and bringing civil and enforcement actions, against the senior officers that led the control frauds their top priority. The regulators need to make detailed criminal referrals, enforce vigorously the regulatory mandate that insured depositories file criminal referrals, and prioritize banks that made large numbers of nonprime loans but few criminal referrals. The regulators need to work with DOJ to prioritize the cases. In the S&L debacle we used a formal process to create our “Top 100″ priority cases. The regulators need to investigate rigorously every large nonprime lending specialist by creating a comprehensive national data base. We have unique opportunities given the massive holding of nonprime paper by the Fed and Fannie and Freddie to create a reliable data base and use it to conduct reliable studies and investigations.
Third, the regulators and the DOJ need to partner with the SEC and the state AGs to share data (where appropriate under Grand Jury rule 6e). The federal regulators need to end their unholy war against state regulatory efforts and the SEC needs to end its disdain for the state AGs. The SEC needs to clean up accounting and the Big Four audit firms. The bank control frauds’ “weapon of choice” is accounting. The Big Four audit firms consistently gave clean opinions to even the most egregious frauds. Provisions for losses (ALLL) fell to farcical levels. Losses were not recognized. Clear evidence of endemic fraud was ignored.
What are the prospects for these three vital changes occurring in 2011? They are poor. There is no evidence that any of the three changes is in process. The new House committee chairs have championed even weaker regulation and have not championed the prosecution of Wall Street elites.
The media, however, has begun to pick up our warnings about the failure of the criminal justice response to the epidemic of fraud. Prominent economists, particularly Joseph Stiglitz and Alan Greenspan, have joined Akerlof, Romer, Galbraith,Wray, and Prasch in emphasizing the key role that elite fraud played in driving this crisis. Even Andrew Ross Sorkin, generally seen as an apologist for the Street’s elites, has decried the lack of prosecutions.
Our best bet is to continue to win the scholarly disputes and to continue to push media representatives to take fraud seriously. If the media demands for prosecution of the elite banking frauds expand there is a chance to create a bipartisan coalition in Congress and the administration supporting prosecutions. In the S&L debacle, Representative Annunzio was one of the leading opponents of reregulation and leading supporters of Charles Keating. After we brought several hundred successful prosecutions he began wearing a huge button: “Jail the S&L Crooks!” Bringing many hundreds of enforcement actions, civil suits, and prosecutions causes huge changes in the way a crisis is perceived. It makes tens of thousands of documents detailing the frauds public. It generates thousands of national and local news stories discussing the nature of the frauds and how wealthy the senior officers became through the frauds. All of this increases the saliency of fraud and increases demands for serious reforms, adequate resources for the regulators and criminal justice bodies, and makes clear that elite fraud poses a severe danger. Collectively, this creates the political space for real reform, vigorous regulators, and real prosecutors.
Bill Black is a NewDeal2.0 braintruster, an associate professor of economics and law at the University of Missouri-Kansas City, a white-collar criminologist, a former senior financial regulator, and the author of The Best Way to Rob a Bank is to Own One.
ANOTHER attack on civil liberties from the Obama administration...this time to expand the governments online surveillance of Americans.....this from the ACLU, please sign the petition and pass on to others.
The Obama administration and law enforcement officials are seeking greater power to invade your privacy.
Sign the ACLU's petition to Attorney General Holder: Rein in FBI surveillance power.
Did you hear about this? The Obama administration is seeking to expand the government's ability to conduct invasive surveillance online.1
This outrageous proposal would mandate that all online communications services use technologies that would make it easier for the government to collect private communications and decode encrypted messages that Americans send. This includes communications sent using texting platforms, BlackBerries, social networking sites, and other "peer to peer" communications software such as Skype.
While the country tends to other issues, the administration and law enforcement officials are seeking greater power to invade your privacy. We must take a stand against this proposal before it even makes its way to Congress.
Instead of securing our online communications and protecting our privacy, the government wants to pave the road for more out-of-control government spying. Concern over cyber security is at an all-time high. This proposal will create even more security risks by mandating that our communications have a 'backdoor' for government use — making our online interactions even more vulnerable and easier to collect.
It's not only the government that will go through this 'door.' In 2004, hackers took advantage of a similar law in Greece to hack into mobile communications systems and listen to the calls of high government officials — including the Prime Minister.2
The government has yet to make the case that encryption is actually hindering their investigations. According to the most recent Wiretap Report3, law enforcement encountered only a single encrypted call last year, and they were able to learn the contents of that call in spite of the encryption.
P.S. The ACLU is sounding the alarm about this dangerous proposal, but we need your help. Forward this email to all your friends and family who care about privacy. Or, spread the word on Facebook or Twitter.
Click the header to go to the ACLU website and read more and to participate in actions from this newsletter.
A Big Win and A Big Step Forward
Google's New Transparency Tool: A Window into Government Surveillance
Texas Rewrites History, Jeopardizing the Educational Future of Children Nationwide
Attorney General Stands Behind Use of Criminal Courts for 9/11 Terrorism Suspects
Is Facebook Having Another Privacy Disconnect?
ACLU In Court Last Week to Challenge Warrantless Surveillance Law
Is Facebook Having Another Privacy Disconnect?
The first sentence on Facebook's privacy guide page states: "You should have control over what you share." But many of Facebook's recent actions, such as its much-criticized "privacy transition," have made it harder for users to retain control over their information.
Earlier this week, following up on its recent policy changes, Facebook announced its plans to create more dynamic profiles using "Connections." What exactly counts as a connection wasn't clearly defined but seems to include things like friends lists, likes and interests, events, groups, and activities.
More importantly, it's also unclear whether users will have real control over how their connections are shared. Both Facebook's Monday announcement and its recent policy changes have suggested that users cannot prevent applications (also know as "apps"), pages, and other third parties from accessing these connections. They may be able to "hide" them from other Facebook users but not from the government, advertisers, or anyone else with the ability and incentive to create apps or pages. However, new documents for app developers point to the Extended Permissions page which requires apps and pages to explicitly ask for user permission before accessing various "connections"—including interests, events, groups, and location.
If Facebook believes that you "should have control over what you share," it should resolve this by giving users real control over whether their connections can be accessed by apps and pages. Doing so still won't resolve other issues, like the "app gap" that allows your friends' applications to view your personal information without your knowledge or consent, but it would be a step in the right direction.
Otherwise, the only way you can keep control of your information is to refuse to use Facebook to share or connect at all.
ACLU In Court Last Week to Challenge Warrantless Surveillance Law
Last week, the ACLU argued in a New York federal appeals court that its lawsuit challenging an unconstitutional government spying law should be reinstated. The ACLU filed the landmark lawsuit in July 2008 to stop the government from conducting surveillance under the FISA Amendments Act (FAA), which gives the executive branch virtually unlimited power to monitor Americans' international e-mails and telephone calls.
"This law allows the government to engage in dragnet surveillance of Americans' international telephone calls and e-mails," said Jameel Jaffer, Director of the ACLU National Security Project. "It intrudes on constitutionally-protected privacy and free speech rights and sweeps far more broadly than is necessary to serve any legitimate government interest. In this context, the courts have not just the authority but the obligation to intervene. The lower court decision, which relegated Americans' privacy rights to the mercy of the political branches, should be reversed."
U.S. District Court Judge John G. Koeltl of the Southern District of New York dismissed the case in August on "standing grounds," ruling that the plaintiffs—who include journalists, defense lawyers and human rights workers who rely on confidential communications to perform their jobs—did not have the right to challenge the new surveillance law because they could not prove with certainty that their own communications had been monitored. The ACLU is asking a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit to overturn Judge Koeltl's ruling.
In November, the ACLU filed a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request for records related to the implementation of the new law, including reports indicating how the FAA is being interpreted and used, how many Americans are affected by this sweeping spying regime and what safeguards are in place to prevent abuse of Americans' privacy rights. The government has not yet released any of the records requested.
Learn more about the ACLU's lawsuit challenging the FAA.
A Big Win and A Big Step Forward
by James Esseks
From a courtroom in Arkansas to the President's desk in the Oval Office, we've seen critical steps forward in the struggle for LGBT rights.
In 2008, an Arkansas state law went into effect banning gay and other unmarried couples from being adoptive or foster parents. The ACLU immediately went to court to challenge this outrageous law. And now, a state court, in response to the ACLU's lawsuit, has declared the law unconstitutional.
We were set to start a trial in early May, but the court agreed with the arguments we made in a pre-trial motion that the ban is so clearly unconstitutional that no trial was needed. Taking down this law means that many Arkansas children will have a better chance of finding the permanent home they've been seeking. And it advances LGBT rights law, as well—a great combination.
The reasoning in this decision will help us fight a range of restrictions against gay and lesbian people all across America—from parenting bans in other states, to the federal government's Don't Ask, Don't Tell policy, to state bans on marriage for same-sex couples. And it shows that, with persistence and hard work, we can successfully push back against those who want to impose their narrow-minded beliefs and values on the rest of us.
Another big step forward happened recently—on an issue that the ACLU and others have been working on for decades. President Obama directed that hospitals receiving Medicare or Medicaid money—which means virtually all hospitals—must allow patients' same-sex partners to visit in the same way that spouses and other immediate family members can.
The President expressed a determination to end the practice of members of the LGBT community being "barred from the bedsides of the partners with whom they may have spent decades of their lives—unable to be there for the person they love, and unable to act as a legal surrogate if their partner is incapacitated."
Victories like these are hard-earned. But, the profound difference they make in people's lives makes all that effort worthwhile.
Google's New Transparency Tool: A Window into Government Surveillance
Google's just-released Government Requests tool tracks requests for user information and content removal.
We've known for a long time that electronic privacy law is woefully outdated. But what we haven't known is how often the government is taking advantage of this fact to engage in a shopping spree in the treasure trove of personal information being collected by companies like Google.
So, we're happy to see Google's just-released Government Requests tool, which is the company's attempt to shine some light on how often governments around the world request user information and content removal from Google.
Google's new tool displays the number of "user requests" that Google received from various governments from July to December 2009. According to the tool, the company received thousands of such requests from the U.S. government during that period —requests digging into the intimate details of individual lives that are captured in emails, search histories, reading and viewing logs, and the like.
There are a few shortcomings with Google's new tool. First, it tracks requests that are received as part of an official criminal investigation—which would exclude, for example, the infamous Department of Justice subpoena asking for millions of users' search queries, something that was not part of an official criminal investigation. Second, Google's tool only counts the number of requests it receives, not the number of user records that were requested—and a single request may seek to collect countless individual records. Finally, Google is barred by law from disclosing the number of requests it receives pursuant to National Security Letters, although we know that upwards of 50,000 of these secret government requests are issued every year. All told, the requests that show up in Google's tool are just the tip of the iceberg.
The ACLU has been calling on Google and other corporations to disclose this kind of information for years. We hope this step will provide momentum for reforming the out-of-date Electronic Communications Privacy Act. Further, we hope that Google will continue to improve this tool to shine more light on how many non-criminal requests for user records it receives, break those down by type, provide more information on how many users were or would have been affected by those requests, and explore ways to disclose how it has responded to those requests—which is admittedly difficult to do.
Texas Rewrites History, Jeopardizing the Educational Future of Children Nationwide
Send your public comment opposing the extremist takeover of textbooks that will be studied by millions of students.
The Texas State Board of Education recently released amendments to the state's social studies curriculum which essentially rewrite history to comport with the personal, ideological and religious beliefs of some members of the board.
If the proposed changes are implemented, it could affect the education of students from kindergarten to 12th grade across the country for the next 10 years. Because Texas is one of the largest purchasers of textbooks nationwide, the changes the board makes to its standards often end up in textbooks purchased by other school districts around the country.
Among the more troubling recommendations are changes that minimize the importance of constitutional protections requiring the separation of church and state and that paint the country as rooted entirely in sectarian ideology—a claim that educators and historians dispute. For instance, the board eliminated a standard that would require students to "examine the reasons the Founding Fathers protected religious freedom in America by barring government from promoting or disfavoring any particular religion over all others."
The proposed amendments also distort the rights of minorities and women and minimize their roles as historical figures. For example, Archbishop Oscar Romero, an important leader in the Hispanic community, was removed from the curriculum. Meanwhile, under the proposed amendments, Confederate leaders are painted in a positive light. This pro-Confederacy bias may explain why civil rights movements—specifically those of African-Americans, Latinos and women—are given short shrift under the revised curriculum. This portrays such key advances as the result of government action and suggests that equality on paper equals equality in reality.
These changes will affect the education of a generation. If an entire generation of children grows up thinking that it's permissible for our government to favor one view of religion over others, what will the next generation believe? If these same children fail to understand the importance of the struggle for civil rights, how can we be sure that they will remain committed to correcting such abuses in the future?
Public schools should be used to educate—not indoctrinate—students on political and religious belief systems, and decisions about curriculum should be decided by educators, not politicians.
>> Take action! The public has 30 days to comment on the proposed amendments to the curriculum released last week. Send a letter to the Texas Board of Education and help stop the extremist takeover of textbooks.
Attorney General Stands Behind Use of Criminal Courts for 9/11 Terrorism Suspects
While testifying last week before the Senate Judiciary Committee, Attorney General Eric Holder defended the merits of his November decision to try the 9/11 suspects in federal criminal court, but acknowledged that the administration may still consider using the fatally-flawed military commissions instead. Holder said a final decision on which court system would be used for the trials was "weeks away."
The ACLU strongly believes that the appropriate place to try these and all terrorism cases is in federal criminal court and that the military commissions are unable to deliver effective and certain justice—and should be shut down for good. Since 9/11, the military commissions have completed only three terrorism-related cases, with two of the three convicted defendants already having been released. Federal courts, on the other hand, have successfully completed over 400 terrorism-related cases. During his testimony, the attorney general also stated that the administration will continue to indefinitely hold 48 Guantánamo detainees that it believes are "too dangerous to transfer but not feasible to prosecute."
The ACLU rejects the notion that there is a significant class of prisoners who simultaneously cannot be prosecuted nor safely released and insists that detaining terrorism suspects without charge or trial is illegal and un-American.
>> Take action! Urge President Obama to Try the 9/11 Suspects in Federal Court.
Cheney likes to run his big mouth, and this time he may be sorry. He has confessed to a war crime, torture. We all knew he was guilty, but proof was almost impossible to come by. Thank you Dick for living up to your name and now giving the government the proof it needs to prosecute you. Click the header to sign the petition to A.G. Holder calling on him to prosecute Cheney for war crimes. Also below is the Larry King show from 12MAY09 when Jesse Ventura talks about Bush, Cheney, torture (and what he would like to do to Cheney) and Obama. Last is the complete transcript of the ABC interview with Cheney with his confession to war crimes.
On ABC News last weekend, former Vice President Dick Cheney confessed to playing a key role in the commission of war crimes during the Bush administration.
"I was a big supporter of waterboarding," boasted Cheney.
Since he has publicly confessed to ordering torture, the U.S. has no choice but to prosecute Dick Cheney for war crimes.
Waterboarding is torture and a war crime. The UN Convention on Torture, the Geneva Conventions, the Red Cross, and constitutional governments around the globe agree on this point of law. More to the point, Attorney General Eric Holder has stated publicly that waterboarding is torture. Cheney's confession legally obligates Holder to prosecute him.
Cheney apologists will no doubt turn a blind eye to this. But this is the law, plain and simple. The case has been laid out in detail by Andrew Sullivan1, Glenn Greenwald2, and Scott Horton3.
By publicly confessing his role in illegal U.S torture programs, Cheney has created an extraordinary opportunity to hold the Bush administration accountable for its crimes. One that must not — and indeed legally cannot — be ignored. Copy and paste the links below for Cheney's confession.
16 Feb 2010 10:03 am
Cheney: "I Was A Big Supporter Of Waterboarding"
Scott Horton adds to the legal ramifications of Dick Cheney's remarkable confession of committing a war crime on national television:
Section 2340A of the federal criminal code makes it an offense to torture or to conspire to torture. Violators are subject to jail terms or to death in appropriate cases, as where death results from the application of torture techniques. Prosecutors have argued that a criminal investigation into torture undertaken with the direction of the Bush White House would raise complex legal issues, and proof would be difficult. But what about cases in which an instigator openly and notoriously brags about his role in torture?
Cheney told Jonathan Karl that he used his position within the National Security Council to advocate for the use of waterboarding and other torture techniques. Former CIA agent John Kiriakou and others have confirmed that when waterboarding was administered, it was only after receiving NSC clearance. Hence, Cheney was not speaking hypothetically but admitting his involvement in the process that led to decisions to waterboard in at least three cases.
What prosecutor can look away when a perpetrator mocks the law itself and revels in his role in violating it? Such cases cry out for prosecution. Dick Cheney wants to be prosecuted. And prosecutors should give him what he wants.
Jonathan Karl has gotten a similar statement out of Cheney before, if not quite so specifically.
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d83451c45669e2012877a5a266970c
1 Cheney: "I Was A Big Supporter Of Waterboarding", Andrew Sullivan, The Atlantic, February 16, 2010. http://act.credoaction.com/r/?r=5276&id=7828-179986-IHDKWNx&t=7
2 Dick Cheney's taunting, Glenn Greenwald, Salon, February 16, 2010. http://act.credoaction.com/r/?r=5277&id=7828-179986-IHDKWNx&t=8
3 Does Dick Cheney Want to Be Prosecuted?, Scott Horton, Harper's, February 15, 2010. http://act.credoaction.com/r/?r=5278&id=7828-179986-IHDKWNx&t=9
JESSE VENTURA ON BUSH, CHENEY, OBAMA, TORTURE ON LARRY KING 12 MAY 09
Jesse Ventura: You Give Me a Water Board, Dick Cheney and One Hour, and I'll Have Him Confess to the Sharon Tate Murders
By Heather Tuesday May 12, 2009 9:00am
On Larry King Live Jesse Ventura takes on the Bush administration chickenhawks and Rush Limbaugh, and defends Colin Powell. After being waterboarded himself in the SERE program, Ventura makes no bones about it. Waterboarding is torture. I'd like to see Hannity have Ventura on his show to debate the issue.
King's reaction to Ventura's straight talk on how terrible of a President W was is amusing. He's shocked...just shocked I tell you, that anyone would talk so badly about our former President.
KING: Joining us now, Jesse Ventura, former wrestler, former governor of Minnesota, former Navy SEAL, the author of "Don't Start The Revolution Without Me." That book is now out in paper back. Welcome to have you back, Jesse. There you see the cover of the book. How's Obama doing?
JESSE VENTURA, FMR. GOV. OF MINNESOTA: Too early to tell, Larry, really. In my opinion, George Bush is the worst president in my lifetime.
KING: Have an opinion, will you?
VENTURA: I will. I will. And he's the worst president in my lifetime. So Barack Obama, President Obama inherited something I wouldn't wish on my worst enemy. You know? Two wars, an economy that's borderline depression. So it's far too early to judge him 100 days in. I think if you have me back about two years from now, I can give you a much better of how he's doing.
KING: He poked fun at himself at the White House correspondents' dinner Saturday night. Let's watch.
BARACK OBAMA, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: Finally, I believe that my next 100 days will be so successful I'll be able to complete them in 72 days. And on the 73rd day, I will rest.
KING: He's very likable.
VENTURA: Oh, yes.
KING: Right?
VENTURA: Very intelligent, which is a change from our previous president.
KING: All right already with Bush.
VENTURA: No, I live in Mexico now, Larry. So I do a lot of reading. I don't watch much TV. This year's reading, I covered Bush's life. I covered Guantanamo and a few other subjects. And I'm very disturbed about it.
I'm bothered over Guantanamo because it seems we have created our own Hanoi Hilton. We can live with that? I have a problem. I will criticize President Obama on this level; it's a good thing I'm not president because I would prosecute every person that was involved in that torture. I would prosecute the people that did it. I would prosecute the people that ordered it. Because torture is against the law. KING: You were a Navy SEAL.
VENTURA: That's right. I was water boarded, so I know -- at SERE School, Survival Escape Resistance Evasion. It was a required school you had to go to prior to going into the combat zone, which in my era was Vietnam. All of us had to go there. We were all, in essence -- every one of us was water boarded. It is torture.
KING: What was it like?
VENTURA: It's drowning. It gives you the complete sensation that you are drowning. It is no good, because you -- I'll put it to you this way, you give me a water board, Dick Cheney and one hour, and I'll have him confess to the Sharon Tate murders.
KING: Even though you know it's not going to happen -- even though before it, you know you're not going to drown.
VENTURA: You don't know it. If it's -- if it's done wrong, you certainly could drown. You could swallow your tongue. You could do a whole bunch of stuff. If it's it done wrong or -- it's torture, Larry. It's torture.
[.....]
KING: A lot of things to go into, Jesse. What do you make of the Cheney/Limbaugh --
VENTURA: I don't have a lot of respect for Dick Cheney. Here's a guy who got five deferments from the Vietnam War. Clearly, he's a coward. He wouldn't go when it was his time to go. And now he is a chicken hawk. Now he is this big tough guy who wants this hardcore policy. And he's the guy that sanctioned all this torture by calling it enhanced interrogation.
KING: Do you think Rush Limbaugh's a better Republican than Colin Powell?
VENTURA: No, not at all. In fact, if you compare the two, let's look at Colin Powell, who's a war hero, who strapped it on for his country, and didn't run and hide.
KING: Twice.
VENTURA: And then you look at Dick Cheney who ran and hid. I have no respect for Dick Cheney. I have tremendous respect for General Powell.
'This Week' Transcript: Former Vice President Dick Cheney
Transcript: "This Week" with Former Vice President Dick Cheney and George Will, Peter Beinart, Paul Gigot and Jane Mayer.
Feb. 14, 2010 —
KARL: Good morning, and welcome to "This Week."
CHENEY: There is no middle ground.
KARL: This morning, a "This Week" exclusive, former Vice President Dick Cheney, the administration's harshest critic...
CHENEY: The president's been largely silent. Half-measures keep you half-exposed. The White House must stop dithering.
KARL: ... with no apologies of his own.
CHENEY: I was and remain a strong proponent of our enhanced interrogation program.
KARL: National security, Iran, politics, and...
BIDEN: Iraq, I mean, it's going to be one of the great achievements of this administration.
KARL: ... Dick Cheney takes on the current vice president, only on "This Week." Then, a Washington thaw.
OBAMA: I'm going to spend some time listening.
KARL: But can bipartisanship survive the politics of the moment?
PALIN: We need a commander-in-chief, not a professor of law standing at the lectern.
KARL: That and the rest of the week's politics on our roundtable with George Will, Peter Beinart of the Council on Foreign Relations, the New Yorker's Jane Mayer, and Paul Gigot of the Wall Street Journal.
And as always, the Sunday funnies.
LETTERMAN: John McCain knew that it was Sarah Palin's birthday, and he did something very nice for her. He bought her a Toyota.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
ANNOUNCER: From the heart of the nation's capital, "This Week" with ABC's congressional correspondent, Jonathan Karl, live from the Newseum on Pennsylvania Avenue.
KARL: Joining me now, former Vice President Dick Cheney.
Mr. Vice President, welcome to "This Week."
CHENEY: Good morning, John.
KARL: Now, you have been unflinching in your criticism of this administration's handling of terrorism, counterterrorism. Most recently, talking about the Christmas Day bomber, you said, "It is clear once again that President Obama is trying to pretend that we are not at war." Now, this morning, we have heard from the current vice president, Joe Biden, directly in response to that. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
BIDEN: We're pursuing that war with a vigor like it's never been seen before. We've eliminated 12 of their top 20 people. We have taken out 100 of their associates. We are making -- we've sent them underground. They are, in fact, not able to do anything remotely like they were in the past. They are on the run. I don't know where Dick Cheney has been.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
KARL: Your response?
CHENEY: Well, my reference to the notion that the president was trying to avoid treating this as a war was in relation to his initial response when we heard about the Christmas underwear bomber...
KARL: Right.
CHENEY: ... up in Detroit, when he went out and said this was the act of an isolated extremist. No, it wasn't. And we found out over time, obviously -- and he eventually changed his -- his assessment -- but that, in fact, this was an individual who'd been trained by Al Qaida, who'd been part of a larger conspiracy, and it was closer to being an act of war than it was the act of an isolated extremist.
It's the mindset that concerns me, John. I think it's -- it's very important to go back and keep in mind the distinction between handling these events as criminal acts, which was the way we did before 9/11, and then looking at 9/11 and saying, "This is not a criminal act," not when you destroy 16 acres of Manhattan, kill 3,000 Americans, blow a big hole in the Pentagon. That's an act of war.
KARL: Well -- well...
CHENEY: And what the administration was slow to do was to come to that -- that recognition that we are at war, not dealing with criminal acts. And as I say, my response there dealt specifically to the fact the president called it an isolated extremist. It was not.
KARL: Well, I want to get to that notion of treating this as a law enforcement action, but what the administration will say is, look at what they have done, 30,000 additional troops to Afghanistan, doubling, tripling, and maybe even more the drone attacks on the tribal areas in Pakistan on Al Qaida targets. They say that they are actually dedicating more resources to the fight against Al Qaida than you were.
CHENEY: Well, I -- you know, I'm a complete supporter of what they're doing in Afghanistan. I think the president made the right decision to send troops into Afghanistan. I thought it took him a while to get there.
Having Stan McChrystal now in charge in Afghanistan I think is an excellent choice. General McChrystal's one of the most able officers I know. I'm glad they're doing what they're doing in Afghanistan. I'm not a critic of what they're doing, in terms of how they're dealing with that situation.
But I do see repeatedly examples that there are key members in the administration, like Eric Holder, for example, the attorney general, who still insists on thinking of terror attacks against the United States as criminal acts as opposed to acts of war, and that's a -- that's a huge distinction.
KARL: OK, before we get to Eric Holder, a couple more things from the vice president. He's been out responding preemptively to you. One thing he said we heard in the open, that he believes Iraq may ultimately prove to be one of the greatest achievements of the Obama administration.
CHENEY: Well, I -- I guess I shouldn't be surprised by my friend, Joe Biden. I'm glad he now believes Iraq is a success. Of course, Obiden and -- Obama and Biden campaigned from one end of the country to the other for two years criticizing our Iraq policy.
CHENEY: They opposed the surge that was absolutely crucial to our getting to the point we're at now with respect to Iraq. And for them to try to take credit for what's happened in Iraq strikes me as a little strange. I think if -- if they had had their way, if we'd followed the policies they'd pursued from the outset or advocated from the outset, Saddam Hussein would still be in power in Baghdad today.
So if they're going to take credit for it, fair enough, for what they've done while they're there, but it ought to go with a healthy dose of "Thank you, George Bush" up front and a recognition that some of their early recommendations, with respect to prosecuting that war, we're just dead wrong.
KARL: Well, in fact, Vice President Biden says that he believes that the war in Iraq was not worth it. What do you say to that? I mean, given the resources that were drawn away from the -- what you could argue is the central front in Afghanistan, Pakistan, is he right about that?
CHENEY: No. I -- I believe very deeply in the proposition that what we did in Iraq was the right thing to do. It was hard to do. It took a long time. There were significant costs involved.
But we got rid of one of the worst dictators of the 20th century. We took down his government, a man who'd produced and used weapons of mass destruction, a man who'd started two different wars, a man who had a relationship with terror. We're going to have a democracy in Iraq today. We do today. They're going to have another free election this March.
This has been an enormous achievement from the standpoint of peace and stability in the Middle East and ending a threat to the United States. Now, as I say, Joe Biden doesn't believe that. Joe Biden wants to take credit -- I'm not sure for what -- since he opposed that policy pretty much from the outset.
KARL: I think what he wants to take credit for is taking resources out of Iraq, the fact...
CHENEY: That's being done in accordance with a timetable that we initiated, that we -- that we negotiated with -- with the Iraqis. I mean, that was our policy.
KARL: Another thing from the vice president, he also addressed the possibility of another 9/11-style attack.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
BIDEN: The idea of there being a massive attack in the United States like 9/11 is unlikely, in my view. But if you see what's happening, particularly with Al Qaida in the Arabian Peninsula, they have decided to move in a direction of much more small-bore, but devastatingly frightening attacks.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
KARL: Is he right?
CHENEY: I don't think so. And I would point to a study that was released just within the last week or two up at the Kennedy School at Harvard by a gentleman -- Mowatt-Larssen's his name, I believe. He was CIA for 23 years, director of intelligence at the Energy Department for a long time, that looks at this whole question of weapons of mass destruction and Al Qaida and comes to the conclusion that there's a very high threat that Al Qaida is trying very hard to acquire a weapon of mass destruction and, if they're successful in acquiring it, that they will use it.
I think he's right. I think, in fact, the situation with respect to Al Qaida to say that, you know, that was a big attack we had on 9/11, but it's not likely again, I just think that's dead wrong. I think the biggest strategic threat the United States faces today is the possibility of another 9/11 with a nuclear weapon or a biological agent of some kind, and I think Al Qaida is out there even as we meet trying to figure out how to do that.
KARL: And do you think that the Obama administration is taking enough serious steps to prevent that?
CHENEY: I think they need to do everything they can to prevent it. And if the mindset is it's not likely, then it's difficult to mobilize the resources and get people to give it the kind of priority that it deserves.
KARL: OK, let's get to -- you mentioned Eric Holder, the treatment of the Christmas Day underwear bomber. How do you think that case should have been dealt with?
CHENEY: I think the -- the proper way to -- to deal with it would have been to treat him as an enemy combatant. I think that was the right way to go.
The thing I learned from watching that process unfold, though, was that the administration really wasn't equipped to deal with the aftermath of an attempted attack against the United States in the sense that they didn't know what to do with the guy.
There was talk earlier after they'd dismantled the system we'd put in place for prisoner interrogation of high-value detainees. They'd gone out supposedly to create the HIG, high-value interrogation program, but in reality, it was not up and running at Christmastime when it should have been. It started months before that, to put that in place. They need a process, a set of institutions that they can fall back on. Admittedly, this is hard. We had a hard time dealing with this. You've got the Supreme Court on one side that -- that is going to evaluate everything you do, and you've got to be careful with that. The Congress gets involved in it.
CHENEY: So I'm not saying it's an easy task, but by this point, when they've made all the decisions they've had, closed Guantanamo, end (ph) the high-value detainee program and so forth, I think those are all mistakes. Those were the tools we put in place to deal with this kind of situation. They should have had something to put in lieu of those programs, and it would look like they do not have -- have that kind of capability yet.
KARL: If you have somebody in custody like Abdulmutallab, after just trying to blow up an airliner, and you think he has information on another attack, I mean, do you think that those enhanced interrogation techniques should have been -- should have been used? I mean, would you -- do you think that he should have been, for instance, subject to everything, including waterboarding?
CHENEY: Well, I think the -- the professionals need to make that judgment. We've got people in -- we had in our administration -- I'm sure they're still there -- many of them were career personnel -- who are expects in this subject. And they are the ones that you ought to turn somebody like Abdulmutallab over to, let them be the judge of whether or not he's prepared to cooperate and how they can best achieve his cooperation.
KARL: But you believe they should have had the option of everything up to and including waterboarding?
CHENEY: I think you ought to have all of those capabilities on the table. Now, President Obama has taken them off the table. He announced when he came in last year that they would never use anything other than the U.S. Army manual, which doesn't include those techniques. I think that's a mistake.
KARL: OK. So -- so was it a mistake when your administration took on the Richard Reid case? This is very similar. This was somebody that was trying to blow up an airliner with a shoe bomb, and he was within five minutes of getting taken off that plane read his Miranda rights, four times, in fact, in 48 hours, and tried through the civilian system. Was that a mistake?
CHENEY: Well, first of all, I believe he was not tried. He pled guilty. They never did end up having a trial.
Secondly, when this came up, as I recall, it was December of '01, just a couple of months after 9/11. We were not yet operational with the military commissions. We hadn't had all the Supreme Court decisions handed down about what we could and couldn't do with the commissions.
KARL: But you still had an option to put him into military custody.
CHENEY: Well, we could have put him into military custody. I don't -- I don't question that. The point is, in this particular case, all of that was never worked out, primarily because he pled guilty.
KARL: Now, I'd like to read you something that the sentencing judge reading the -- giving him his life sentence read to Richard Reid at the time of that sentencing. Here it is. He said to Reid, "You are not an enemy combatant. You are a terrorist. You are not a soldier in any war. To give you that reference, to call you a soldier gives you far too much stature. We do not negotiate with terrorists. We hunt them down one by one and bring them to justice."
The judge in that case was a Reagan appointee. Doesn't he make a good point?
CHENEY: Well, I don't think so, in a sense that it -- if it -- if you interpret that as taking you to the point where all of these people are going to be treated as though they're guilty of individual criminal acts.
I want to come back again to the basic point I tried to make at the outset, John. And up until 9/11, all terrorist attacks were criminal acts. After 9/11, we made the decision that these were acts of war, these were strategic threats to the United States.
Once you make that judgment, then you can use a much broader range of tools, in terms of going after your adversary. You go after those who provide them safe harbor and sanctuary. You go after those who finance and those who provide weapons for them and those who train them. And you treat them as unlawful enemy combatants.
There's a huge distinction here in terms of the kinds of policies you put in place going forward. And what I'm most concerned about isn't so much argument about all the stuff in the past, about what happened to Abdulmutallab or Richard Reid. I think the relevant point is: What are the policies going to be going forward?
And if you're really serious and you believe this is a war and if you believe the greatest threat is a 9/11 with nukes or a 9/11 with a biological agent of some kind, then you have to consider it as a war, you have to consider it as something we may have to deal with tomorrow. You don't want the vice president of the United States running around saying, "Oh, it's not likely to happen."
KARL: Now, on that question of trying, you know, dealing as enemy combatants or through the criminal justice system, I came across this. This is a document that was put out by the Bush Justice Department under Attorney General Ashcroft...
CHENEY: Right.
KARL: ... covering the years 2001 to 2005. And if you go right to page one, they actually tout the criminal prosecutions...
CHENEY: They did.
KARL: ... of terror suspects, saying, "Altogether, the department has brought charges against 375 individuals in terrorism- related investigations and has convicted 195 to date." That was 2005. Again, seems to make the administration's point that they're not doing it all that differently from how you were doing it.
CHENEY: Well, we didn't all agree with that. We had -- I can remember a meeting in the Roosevelt Room in the West Wing of the White House where we had a major shootout over how this was going to be handled between the Justice Department, that advocated that approach, and many of the rest of us, who wanted to treat it as an intelligence matter, as an act of war with military commissions.
We never clearly or totally resolved those issues. These are tough questions, no doubt about it. You want my opinion, my view of what ought to happen, I think we have to treat it as a -- as a war. This is a strategic threat to the United States. I think that's why we were successful for seven-and-a-half years in avoiding a further major attack against the United States.
And I do get very nervous and very upset when that's the dominant approach, as it was sometimes in the Bush administration or certainly would appear to be at times in the new Obama administration.
KARL: Did you more often win or lose those battles, especially as you got to the second term?
CHENEY: Well, I suppose it depends on which battle you're talking about. I won some; I lost some. I can't...
(CROSSTALK)
KARL: ... waterboarding, clearly, what was your...
CHENEY: I was a big supporter of waterboarding. I was a big supporter of the enhanced interrogation techniques that...
KARL: And you opposed the administration's actions of doing away with waterboarding?
CHENEY: Yes.
KARL: I'd like to ask you about the big terror case now, which is the KSM trial. The administration very much wants to see the mastermind of 9/11 tried in civilian courts here in the United States. New York has obviously objected.
Do you think that's going to happen? Do you think this will be a civilian trial? Or are they not going to be able to do it?
CHENEY: It looks to me like they're going to have great difficulty doing it in New York. I mean, even the mayor's come out against it now. I think trying Khalid Sheikh Mohammed in New York's a big -- big mistake. It gives him a huge platform to promulgate his -- his particular brand of propaganda around the world.
I think he ought to be at Guantanamo. I think he ought to be tried at Guantanamo in front of a military commission. They've got difficulties now, because my guess is they don't want to send him back to Guantanamo, because that would validate, if you will, the value of Guantanamo. They're trying to close it, clearly haven't been able to get it done.
But my guess is, in the end, he'll end up being tried in front of a military commission on a military facility some place.
KARL: So you think Guantanamo will be open when this president leaves office?
CHENEY: I wouldn't be surprised. It's a valuable facility. There's a reason why we set it up. It makes good sense. There's obviously great reluctance on Capitol Hill to appropriate the funds to close it down. I think -- I think Guantanamo is going to be there for quite a while.
KARL: And one other point -- I just want to read also from a previous interview that you gave -- one of your points about Guantanamo is, if you release the hard-core Al Qaida terrorists, you said, that are held at Guantanamo, I think they go back into the business of trying to kill more Americans and mount further mass casualty attacks. If you turn them loose and they go kill more Americans, who's responsible for that?
And it's a real concern. We've heard from the president's homeland security adviser, John Brennan, saying that at minimum 10 percent of the more than 500 that have been released from Guantanamo have gone back into the fight.
But Brennan also wrote this. He said, "I want to underscore the fact that all of these cases relate to detainees released during the previous administration and under the prior detainee review process."
In other words, all of those released from Guantanamo that have gone back into the fight were released by your administration. Can't you make the case that the Obama administration has actually been more responsible about releasing who they release from Guantanamo?
CHENEY: I wouldn't make that -- I wouldn't make that case, John. I think -- as I recall, the percentage that we had of the recidivists was 12 percent. And we released prisoners back basically to their home countries, partly because the State Department was under enormous pressure to do so, and there was an effort to try to return them. The Saudis had a rehabilitation program for returned Saudis, and...
KARL: Did you oppose those releases?
CHENEY: I did. I didn't think that releasing anybody was the right thing to do, unless you had evidence that, you know, there was a mistake of some kind or they'd been -- been before a commission and you'd reviewed their case and found that the case didn't stand up, and that was usually the case. They were put through a thorough scrub before they were released.
Obviously, some of them got through the filter. But I think, out of the ones that remain, those are the real hard core, and I think your recidivist rate would be far higher than it was on those that have already been released.
It's a tough problem; I'll be the first to admit it. But I think you have to have a facility like Guantanamo to hold these individuals who are members of Al Qaida, who've tried to kill Americans, and who -- when they're released, they'll go back out and try to kill Americans again.
KARL: I'd like to move to Iran. Do you trust the Obama administration to do what is necessary to keep Iran from getting nuclear weapons?
CHENEY: I remain to be persuaded.
KARL: Do you think that sanctions can work? I mean, that's the track they've chosen.
CHENEY: Well, I think -- I hope sanctions work.
KARL: It's the same track you chose (ph).
CHENEY: We -- I certainly would hope sanctions would work, but I think they're most likely to work if you keep the military option on the table. I don't think you want to eliminate the military -- the possibility of military action. I think that's essential to give any kind of meaning at all to negotiations over sanctions.
KARL: How close did you come -- how close did the Bush administration come to taking military action against Iran?
CHENEY: Well, I would -- some of that I can't talk about, obviously, still. I'm sure it's still classified. We clearly never made the decision -- we never crossed over that line of saying, "Now we're going to mount a military operation to deal with the problem."
The president was always hopeful -- and I think everybody else was, too -- that we could find a way to deal with it within having to resort to military force. One of the problems that the Obama administration inherited was the Iranian problem, and it's a tough one.
KARL: David Sanger of the New York Times says that the Israelis came to you -- came to the administration in the final months and asked for certain things, bunker-buster bombs, air-to-air refueling capability, overflight rights, and that basically the administration dithered, did not give the Israelis a response. Was that a mistake?
CHENEY: I -- I can't get into it still. I'm sure a lot of those discussions are still very sensitive.
KARL: Let me ask you: Did you advocate a harder line, including in the military area, in those -- in those final months?
CHENEY: Usually.
KARL: And with respect to Iran?
CHENEY: Well, I -- I made public statements to the effect that I felt very strongly that we had to have the military option, that it had to be on the table, that it had to be a meaningful option, and that we might well have to resort to military force in order to deal with the threat that Iran represented. The problem here being that a nuclear-armed Iran is a huge threat to that entire part of the world and, indeed, to the United States.
KARL: Was it -- was it a...
CHENEY: We never got to the point where the president had to make a decision one way or the other.
KARL: Was that a mistake? Was it a mistake to leave that nuclear capability intact?
CHENEY: Well, we -- we did a lot, because we were very concerned about nuclear capability in the hands of rogue states or potentially shared with terrorist organizations, and we were successful in taking down, for example, Saddam Hussein, who had messed with nuclear weapons twice previously, taking down the A.Q. Khan network, a black-market operation that was providing technology to the North Koreans, Iranians, and Libyans. We successfully obtained all the Libyan materials for their nuclear program, so we got a lot done.
We didn't get everything done. We still -- when we finished, there still was the ongoing Iranian problem and the ongoing North Korean problem. Both of them remain to be addressed.
KARL: I'd like to get your response to Sarah Palin's recent comments on Iran.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
PALIN: Say he decided to declare war on Iran or decided really to come out and do whatever he could to support Israel, which I would like him to do, if he decided to toughen up and do all that he can to secure our nation and our allies, I think people would perhaps shift their thinking a little bit and decide, well, maybe he's tougher than we think he -- than he is today.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
KARL: She's, of course, talking about President Obama, seemed to be implying that this would be a good political move for him. What's your take?
CHENEY: I don't think a president can make a judgment like that on the basis of politics. The stakes are too high, the consequences too significant to be treating those as simple political calculations. When you begin to talk about war, talk about crossing international borders, you talk about committing American men and women to combat, that takes place on a plane clear above any political consideration.
KARL: So...
CHENEY: So I'd be -- I'd be very cautious about treating that kind of issue on those kinds of conditions.
KARL: We're almost out of time. We're going to get you very quickly on a few other subjects. First of all, one more on Palin. Is she qualified to be president?
CHENEY: I haven't made a decision yet on who I'm going to support for president the next time around. Whoever it is, is going to have to prove themselves capable of being president of the United States. And those tests will -- will come during the course of campaigns, obviously. I think -- well, I think all the prospective candidates out there have got a lot of work to do if, in fact, they're going to persuade a majority of Americans that they're ready to take on the world's toughest job.
KARL: OK, "don't ask/don't tell" -- you're a former defense secretary -- should this policy be repealed?
CHENEY: Twenty years ago, the military were strong advocates of "don't ask/don't tell," when I was secretary of defense. I think things have changed significantly since then. I see that Don Mullen -- or Mike Mullen, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, has indicated his belief that we ought to support a change in the policy. So I think -- my guess is the policy will be changed.
KARL: And do you think that's a good thing? I mean, is it time to allow gays and lesbians to serve openly in the military?
CHENEY: I think the society has moved on. I think it's partly a generational question. I say, I'm reluctant to second-guess the military in this regard, because they're the ones that have got to make the judgment about how these policies affect the military capability of our -- of our units, and that first requirement that you have to look at all the time is whether or not they're still capable of achieving their mission, and does the policy change, i.e., putting gays in the force, affect their ability to perform their mission?
When the chiefs come forward and say, "We think we can do it," then it strikes me that it's -- it's time to reconsider the policy. And I think Admiral Mullen said that.
KARL: And, finally, I know that you have a reunion coming up later this month with President Bush. This'll be the first time you've seen him since leaving office, face to face?
CHENEY: Pretty much, yes. We talk on the telephone periodically, but the first time I've seen him since January 20th.
KARL: What does he think of you being so outspoken in contrast to him?
CHENEY: Well, I don't think he's opposed to it, by any means. I'd be inclined to let him speak for himself about it. The reason I've been outspoken is because there were some things being said, especially after we left office, about prosecuting CIA personnel that had carried out our counterterrorism policy or disbarring lawyers in the Justice Department who had -- had helped us put those policies together, and I was deeply offended by that, and I thought it was important that some senior person in the administration stand up and defend those people who'd done what we asked them to do.
And that's why I got started on it. I'm the vice president now -- ex-vice president. I have the great freedom and luxury of speaking out, saying what I -- what I want to say, what I believe. And I have not been discouraged from doing so.
KARL: And that includes writing a book?
CHENEY: Writing a book, that's correct.
KARL: Can you give us -- before you go -- a quick nugget that's going to be in the book, give us the title, give us something going?
CHENEY: Have me back about a year from now, and I'll have a copy of the book for you, John.
KARL: OK, it's deal.
CHENEY: All right.
KARL: Mr. Vice President, thanks a lot for joining us on "This Week."
CHENEY: Good to see you. I've enjoyed it.
KARL: The roundtable is next, George Will, Paul Gigot, Jane Mayer, and Peter Beinart. And later, the Sunday funnies.
