-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Special Prosecutor Needed on Torture: Democrats, Mukasey Helping Bush Cover-Up

Via NY Transfer News Collective  *  All the News that Doesn't Fit
 
[See also Robert Parry on Mukasey's stonewalling assistance to the Bush
cover-up, below.-NYTr]



The Hill via Consortium News - Dec 15, 2007
http://www.consortiumnews.com/2007/121507a.html


[Editors Note: The troubling evidence now is that in the months after
the 9/11 attacks George W. Bush authorized the torture of al-Qaeda
suspects and that the administration briefed select Republicans and
Democrats in Congress who raised few, if any, objections.

In this guest essay, former Democratic congressional staffer Brent
Budowsky says this bipartisan support or acquiescence to violations of
U.S. and international law requires an independent investigator.]

Special Prosecutor Needed on Torture

By Brent Budowsky

The reason a special prosecutor is needed in the torture tapes
obstruction of justice case, and the reason there is private panic in
many Democratic and Republican circles, is that it now appears that
some prominent Democrats, along with some prominent Republicans, gave a
private thumbs-up to torture in 2002.

Waterboarding is torture. Torture is a crime.

Looking at the various creative means of torture that have been
publicly reported, the laws that were broken include the Geneva
Convention, European law, the U.S. War Crimes Act, the domestic laws of
probably a dozen countries at least, especially in Europe, and very
possibly the Nuremberg rules.

Flashing back to 2001 and 2002, when torture was instituted and some
Democrats and Republicans were briefed: That was the time when most
senior Democrats joined Republicans in supporting the Iraq war and
voting for the Patriot Act (including the majority in the Congress who
did not read the Patriot Act before voting for it).

It would not be surprising, given the political atmosphere of the times
in 2001 and 2002, if some senior Democrats as well as senior
Republicans joined the torture bandwagon in highly classified
briefings. No doubt some did not, but others did.

It is time for truth. It is time for truth without fear.

It is time to end torture. It is time for those who were wrong, in
either party, to put their wrongness to the side and call for a full
and complete investigation, no matter where the truth may lead, because
it is clear where the cause of right must stand:

End torture now.

My bet is that the president will ultimately issue a mass pardon,
including himself and the vice president, which he can do for crimes
other than impeachment.

My bet is that we will learn that the president and vice president both
knew about the destruction of the torture tapes.

My bet is that at least some senior Democrats, and close to all senior
Republicans who were briefed, gave their approval or assent to torture
in classified briefings.

It is time for truth, and only a fully independent special counsel,
commonly known as special prosecutor, can get the truth, the whole
truth and nothing but the truth.

While a special counsel investigates the destruction of the torture
tapes, specifically whether obstruction was committed and who was
complicit, there are other issues that must now be addressed, honorably
and fully:

1. Is there evidence in the transcripts of the destroyed torture tapes
that torture, in fact, did not provide good information? Is there proof
that torture does not work?

2. Is there evidence in the transcripts of the destroyed torture tapes
that bad evidence that was wrong and extracted through torture was used
in phony terror scares that always came forward before major elections
and major votes in Congress?

3. Now-Attorney General Michael Mukasey dramatically changed his
testimony on torture in his confirmation hearings between his first and
second days of testimony, and specifically changed his testimony on
waterboarding. Was he told between those first and second days, or at
any other time, about either the destruction of the torture tapes or
any other potential crime involving torture?

4. Exactly who is complicit in the cover-up of the Abu Ghraib crimes
that is strongly suggested by the courageous statements of the highly
respected Gen. Antonio Taguba and is this related to similar potential
crimes of obstruction and cover-up in the torture tapes case?

Dont believe a word that is uttered by these former CIA employees now
doing the media rounds, and dont believe a word of the various
excuses, evasions and triangulations by administration officials or
Democrats and Republicans in Congress.

It is time for a special prosecutor, time for the rule of law, time for
the triumph of truth and time to end torture here and now, once and
forever, in an America that has rejected torture from the days of
George Washington and must reject it now, forever.


[Brent Budowsky was an aide to former Sen. Lloyd Bentsen and to Bill
Alexander, then the chief deputy whip of the House. A contributing
editor to Fighting Dems News Service, he can be read on The Hill
Pundits Blog and reached at brentbbi@webtv.net. This article was first
published by The Hill.]

                                      ***

Consortium News - Dec 15, 2007
http://www.consortiumnews.com/2007/121507.html

Surprise! Mukasey Covers Up Torture

By Robert Parry

Last month, Democratic Sens. Charles Schumer of New York and Dianne
Feinstein of California joined Republicans to ensure Michael Mukaseys
confirmation as Attorney General, even though he refused to acknowledge
that the simulated drowning of waterboarding was torture.

Senate Democratic Majority Leader Harry Reid of Nevada helped the Bush
administration, too, by rushing a floor vote on Mukasey before
rank-and-file Democrats could get organized and push for a filibuster.

To show thanks, Mukasey now is slapping the Democratic-controlled
Congress in the face by demanding it back off any oversight
investigations into how and why the CIA in late 2005 destroyed
videotapes of the waterboarding of al-Qaeda suspects.

Mukasey is pressing the House Intelligence Committee to shelve its
investigation into the videotape destruction and is refusing to turn
over information to other congressional committees. He claims that to
do so would interfere with his own investigation of what appears to be
criminality that his Justice Department may have sanctioned.

And, to add insult to the stonewalling, Mukasey justified his refusal
to provide information to Congress by citing his promise during his
confirmation hearing that he would ensure that politics plays no role
in cases brought by the Department of Justice.

In other words, Mukasey is arguing that congressional oversight of
possible criminal wrongdoing by President George W. Bush and other
senior administration officials represents politics " and that the
only legitimate investigation of Bushs Executive Branch is one carried
out by Bushs Executive Branch.

Some senior Democrats objected to Mukaseys actions, though mostly in
muted tones.

Sen. Patrick Leahy of Vermont, chairman of the Senate Judiciary
Committee, expressed disappointment and restated that his panel needs
to fully understand whether the government used cruel interrogation
techniques and torture, contrary to our basic values.

Rep. Silvestre Reyes, D-Texas, chairman of the House Intelligence
Committee, and Rep. Peter Hoekstra of Michigan, the ranking Republican,
issued a joint statement saying they were stunned by Mukaseys
decisions.

There is no basis upon which the Attorney General can stand in the way
of our work, Reyes and Hoekstra said.

What Will Congress Do?

But its less clear what Congress can " or will " do.

Over the past year, since Democrats won control of both houses, Bush
has bested them time and again, with the Democrats often surrendering
their most promising opportunities for pressuring the administration to
make concessions.

In line with that pattern, Schumer and Feinstein broke with other
Democrats on the Senate Judiciary Committee and joined with Republicans
in November 2007 to clear Mukaseys confirmation. They did so despite
Mukaseys adamant refusal to designate the centuries-old tactic of
waterboarding as torture.

Furious rank-and-file Democrats argued that Mukaseys equivocation on
torture should have disqualified him to be the nations chief
law-enforcement officer, since torture violates domestic law,
international law and the U.S. Constitution with its ban on cruel and
unusual punishment.

They also noted that Mukasey embraced the Bush administrations view of
an all-powerful executive and, as a federal judge, had endorsed
indefinite incarceration of hundreds of Muslims on phony material
witness warrants after the 9/11 attacks.

Ironically, the post-9/11 round-up of Arab cab drivers, pizza delivery
men and students came as the Bush administration was granting special
permission for rich Saudis, including members of Osama bin Ladens
family, to flee the United States after only cursory FBI questioning.

The arresting of the usual suspects " while the well-connected who
actually might know something were whisked away " was perhaps the first
signal of how Bushs war on terror would proceed, draconian actions
that create the appearance of a tough crackdown when the reality is
entirely different.

Bush made clear, too, that he was prepared to say anything, no matter
how transparently false, to fend off public oversight.

For instance, he has said repeatedly that his administration doesnt
torture although U.S. intelligence operatives have acknowledged
subjecting terror suspects to waterboarding, which has been considered
torture since the days of the Inquisition.

Waterboarding involves strapping a person to a board tilted so the head
is lower than the feet, covering the face with cellophane and pouring
water over it to create the sensation of drowning.

Bushs semantic defense of his administration " claiming that whatever
he approved was not torture " made Mukaseys word games to the Senate
Judiciary Committee necessary. If Mukasey agreed that waterboarding was
torture, he would have had little choice but to mount criminal
investigations of Bush and other senior officials.

So, it should come as no surprise now that Mukasey is trying to fend
off any independent investigation of Bushs possible criminal exposure,
while twisting words and logic again " this time, by defining outside
inquiries as playing politics and insisting that his internal
investigation will be impartial.

Democratic Failure

Schumer and Feinstein claim they voted for Mukasey in November because
he was an improvement over Alberto Gonzales, who helped establish the
framework for Bushs torture policies both as White House counsel and
Attorney General.

Nevertheless, the failure to force clear answers on torture from
Mukasey represented another moment when the Democrats abandoned a
pressure point that might have won them some concessions " or at least
some straight talk " from the administration.

That has been the Democrats' pattern dating back to the November 2006
elections when they followed up their stunning victories by reverting
to their timid practices of taking Bush at his word and avoiding
aggressive oversight.

The Democrats not only failed to mount a sustained challenge to Bushs
policies, they avoided any systematic hearings that would educate the
American public about why Bushs presidency has represented such an
extraordinary threat to the Republic. [For details, see
Consortiumnews.coms Democrats Year of Living Fecklessly.]

In exchange for their repeated surrenders, the Democrats have gotten
nothing from Bush and the Republicans, other than their contempt.

As the first session under the new Democratic majority nears an end
this month, Bush is riding roughshod over the Democrats on a wide range
of issues. He insists that they sign off on his budget figures; he
demands another blank check for the Iraq War; and his Attorney General
is obstructing congressional oversight of the torture scandal.

Yet, the Democrats are in a far worse position today to stand up to
Bush than they were a year ago. Then, they had a majority of the
American people behind them, hoping that the Democrats would protect
the nation from Bushs executive power grab and would bring Bushs
disastrous Iraq War to an end.

Today, only a tiny fraction of Americans believes that the
congressional Democrats will do much more than run up the white flag,
once again.


[Robert Parry broke many of the Iran-Contra stories in the 1980s for the
Associated Press and Newsweek. His latest book, Neck Deep: The
Disastrous Presidency of George W. Bush, was written with two of his
sons, Sam and Nat, and can be ordered at neckdeepbook.com. ]


                                 *
=================================================================
 NY Transfer News Collective     *    A Service of Blythe Systems
           Since 1985 - Information for the Rest of Us
            Our main website:   http://www.blythe.org
   List Archives:       http://blythe-systems.com/pipermail/nytr/
   Subscribe:     http://blythe-systems.com/mailman/listinfo/nytr
=================================================================

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.7 (FreeBSD)

iD8DBQFHZTQ7iz2i76ou9wQRAlrzAJ9KcafLS/aRgx7eOMCg66cMBqIb0wCgla56
4lRq70gdUMA/HUBhDU0R0x8=
=WsXj
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----