Rumsfeld & the Right Are Wrong: Factcheck.org Fact Checks Revisionist History by Former Sec.Defense Rumsfeld,

Rummy continues his efforts to diminish the effectiveness and improvements of the Obama administration, while apparently trying to re-write the history of the Bush administration to improve a deplorable presidential legacy, of which he was a part.  Seems kind of self-serving to me, and typical of the Right's refusal to give Obama credit in world affairs where credit is due.  This provides an interesting context to evaluating Obama's handling of the upheavals in the middle east, and conservatives efforts to try to sabotage a second Obmama term.

Rumsfeld on the World’s View of America

February 21, 2011
Donald Rumsfeld wrongly denied that the U.S. is viewed more favorably under President Barack Obama than it was under President George W. Bush. In fact, residents of several nations including Britain, Germany, France and China view the U.S. more favorably, according to a survey released last year by the Pew Research Center’s Global Attitudes Project.

Rumsfeld, who served as Defense Secretary under Bush, told CNN’s Candy Crowley that he didn’t think there was any evidence to support claims that residents of other nations have a more favorable opinion of America than they used to:

Crowley, Feb. 20: The president’s supporters say that in two years he has been able to return this country to a status of being liked across the world in a way that America was not liked during the Bush administration, that he has once again made America a beacon. Do you agree with that? Do you think that the U.S. is now looked at much differently than it was, and much more positively than it was during your tenure?

Rumsfeld: No, and I don’t think there’s data that supports that. I think he has made a practice of trying to apologize for America. I personally am proud of America.

Crowley: Well, he seems to be quite popular overseas in a way that President Bush was not. The streets aren’t full of people burning him in effigy. There does seem to be a new — a chance to look at America in a different way than it did during the Bush administration. You don’t think that’s true.

Rumsfeld: I don’t think that’s true, and I don’t think that there’s data that would support that.

But there is support for such claims. Pew reported in June 2010 that President Obama was pretty popular around the world. "In turn, opinions of the U.S., which improved markedly in 2009 in response to Obama’s new presidency, also have remained far more positive than they were for much of George W. Bush’s tenure," the report said.

In fact, in 16 out of 19 nations (not including the United States), those surveyed had a more favorable view of America in 2010 than they did in the last year of Bush’s presidency. Here is the Pew Research Center’s chart:

Lying about WMD - the Curveball Admissions and How it Relates to Current Events in the Middle East

I read, see and hear claims that 'liberals' and 'lefties' like to make use of crises for their agendas all the time.  Realistically, right or left or center, tumultuous public events do provide occasions for more dramatic, less incrementally small changes, for the better or for the worse.  This is a lesson of history, and it is not unique to any segment of the political spectrum.  That it is practiced and endorsed by the Right is evidenced by Iraq and 9/11.

Well, it turns out that with this most recent recanting of claims of WMD, along with admissions by former Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld which contradict his previous public denials that Bush was interested in going after Sadam Hussein even before the events of 9/11, and used the terrorist tragedy to promote that agenda over the protests of the military.

Cold Political Calculation

George Bush recently made the rounds promoting his new book, "Decision Points." In this book he (apparently) talks about his second-thoughts and moral tugs-of-war over things like the invasion of Iraq, water-boarding, and the financial collapse of 2007-2008 (and on into 2009).

On water-boarding, he says he approved the decision, responding "Damn right" to the question of whether he approved it directly. Ironically, it's the same line fictional Colonel Nathan R Jessup used in "A Few Good Men." discussing whether he approved a "code red" to beat a soldier (unintionally causing his death).

On the question of the financial collapse, Mr. Bush replied that he was "totally blindsided." He went on to suggest that if Congress had passed his reforms for Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the problems might have been avoided.

In both cases, I am reminded why this man was so manifestly and absolutely repudiated in 2006 and 2008. I am also reminded why eight years of colossal mismanagement and political deceit isn't easily undone in twenty months. Bush came across as he always has, saccharin, fake and clearly politically calculated in every reply.

McChyrstal and Obama: Sticks and Rolling Stones, and Names Will Never Hurt Me -- Except, Maybe This Time (Part l)

UPDATE: General McChrystal has resigned from the army, not only from his command, and will retire.


It has been front-and-center in the most recent news cycle: "The Runaway General" by Michael Hastings, in The Rolling Stone magazine. It won't be on news stands until Friday, June 25th, 2010; although technically, it is the issue for July 8-22, 2010 issue.

http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/17390/119236

For a story only available online, in advance of print publication, it has had amazing 'legs', resulting in the resignation of one of the highest ranking generals among the many serving in the United States armed forces.

A Salute

Court Order by Judge Clay Land
regarding the $20,000 sanctions against Orly Taitz
footnote 11
page 42 of 43


"The Court wishes to explore the possibility of directing the financial penalty to the National Infantry Foundation at Ft. Benning, Georgia, which has as part of its mission the recognition of our brave soldiers who do their duty regardless of the personal sacrifice required and their own personal political beliefs. The Assistant U. S. Attorney shall file within thirty days of today's Order a short brief outlining the position of the United States as to whether such a monetary sanction can be used for this intended purpose. The Court emphasizes that the Court is ordering the penalty to be paid to the United States as required under Rule 11 and not to a third party, but the Court seeks to determine whether the Court is authorized to subsequently order that the proceeds be paid by the United States to the Foundation."

page 43 of 43

IT IS SO ORDERED, this 13th day of October, 2009

Judge Clay D. Land
United States District Judge


www.scribd.com/doc/20996403/Gov-uscourts-gamd-77605-28-0

I have thoroughly enjoyed reading the legal decisions of Judge Land in response to the various antics of Orly Taitz. Reading this order, in its entirety, was no exception. While I am not an attorney, Land is understandable even to the non-professional reader. He writes with clarity, and with a certain eloquence and even hints of humor. I delight in his use of quotations in his other Orders; we share an appreciation for using the words of others to augment and focus our written thoughts.

Judge Land was appointed to his position by former President George W. Bush, who I have been known to criticize from time to time. Let me in fairness not only applaud him for his choice of Land, but give him an enthusiastic standing ovation for this choice. While I am not familiar with the other (than Taitz) decisions of Judge Land, I can only hope that this is an example of our judiciary.

I hope all of the readers of Penigma will join me in an even more joyous ovation for Judge Land. His words in the above quoted footnote are a better tribute to the mind of the man than anything I can write to laud him. Judge Land, I salute you, your mind and your heart, for your administration of justice, and your thoughtful concern for those members of our armed forces that may benefit from this footnote in your Court Order.

A reading of the various legal actions to further the 'birther' movement filed by Taitz, the resulting Court Orders and Decisions, and the complaints filed against her with the California Bar, all strongly suggest that Taitz has been exploiting gullible, trusting, tragically misled members of the United States armed forces solely to promote her own notoriety and political agenda to the detriment of their military careers. Rather than serve the interests of her clients, Taitz acted primarily to serve her own agenda; her intent to continue to do so was one of the reasons for the size of the sanction. This is what makes the effort outlined in the footnote so poignant.

Well done, your honor. Well done.

Ashcroft to Ashes, Dust to Dust

In the spring and summer of 2002, Abdullah al-Kidd, a native-born American citizen and his then wife were the subject of surveillance by the FBI allegedly aimed at Arab and Muslim men. Although Muslim, al-Kidd is African American and not of Arab descent. No evidence of criminal wrong-doing was ever discovered, and al-Kidd was never charged with any crime.

In 2003, a United States Grand Jury in Idaho handed up an indictment against Sami Omar Al-Hussayen for visa fraud and making false statements to federal officials. On March 14, 2003, the US Attorney's office in Idaho filed an application for a material witness warrant pursuant to 18 USC 3144. 18 USC 3144 states "If it appears from an affidavit filed by a party that the testimony of a person is material in a criminal proceeding, and if it is shown that it may become impracticable to secure the presence of the person by subpoena, a judicial officer may order the arrest of the person and treat the person in accordance with the provisions of section 3142 of this title. No material witness may be detained because of inability to comply with any condition of release if the testimony of such witness can adequately be secured by deposition, and if further detention is not necessary to prevent a failure of justice. Release of a material witness may be delayed for a reasonable period of time until the deposition of the witness can be taken pursuant to the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure." The problem with this is that al-Kidd was not listed as a witness against Al-Hussayen nor was he ever called as a witness at Al-Hussayen's trial.

Al-Kidd was arrested and held for 16 days in maximum security fascilities in Virginia, Oklahoma and Idaho. During this time, he was repeatedly subjected to interrogation by the FBI and unspecified others. Eventually, a court ordered him arrested but confiscated his travel documents and ordered him to not travel more than a few miles from his home in Nevada. This de-facto house arrest lasted for fifteen more months, until the end of Al-Hussayen's trial. Al-Kidd was never on the government's witness list, nor was he ever called as a witness at Al-Hussayen's trial. During this time, Al-Kidd's wife, who was never a suspect nor was she ever arrested, filed for divorce and left him. As a result of the arrest, Al-Kidd, who had once enjoyed a security clearance, was unable to find a job when his security clearance was rescinded.

In 2002, John Ashcroft, as Attorney General of the United States under President George Bush, promulgated a policy which included the aggressive use of Material Witness warrants to arrest and detain men of Muslim and Arab descent. This included Al-Kidd.

Al-Kidd filed a lawsuit in US District Court in the District of Idaho in March, 2005 against former Attorney General Ashcroft. He also named as defendants a number of FBI agents who had allegedly made false allegations against him in the original application for the arrest warrant.

Mr. Ashcroft filed a motion to dismiss the lawsuit claiming absolute immunity from suit and qualified immunity from suit. Mr. Ashcroft's claims were heard by the US District Judge who ruled that Mr. Ashcroft was not immune from suit because his actions were not a prosecutorial function when he approved the use of material witness warrants, but instead, since the warrants were not used for the securing of witnesses to a prosecution, but were instead used to attempt to develop criminal information from and about the arrested party, they were police functions and therefore not subject to immunity. The district court also rejected qualified immunity against the Mr. Ashcroft and the FBI agents because they knew or should have known that their actions were an unconstitutional violation of Al-Kidd's rights. Mr. Ashcroft is an attorney, which means that at a minimum, he has had training in constitutional law. Many FBI Special Agents have advanced degrees, and law is often the advanced degree of choice. Whether or not the FBI special agents in this matter have a law degree is not clear, but the district and appellate courts were not ruling on any appeal from those agents.

Mr. Ashcroft appealed to the US Circuit Court of appeals. On September 4, 2009 a panel of 9th Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the refusal of the district court to dismiss on the grounds of immunity. The full text of the opinion is available here.

The next stage of the proceedings will be to conduct discovery. Discovery in this case could be potentially damaging and embarrassing to the government, and may very well shed more light on an era in which many politicians, of both political persuasions, allowed fear to overtake any sort of judgment they might have had, and allowed a certain hysteria to set in not unlike the "red scare" in the 1950's. Just as the "red scare" of the 1950's was overblown, the hysteria that set in with many politicians, both Democratic and Republican following the 9/11 attacks was and is unworthy of the great country that they serve.

The next months or year will be interesting. The plaintiff has a long row to go, as its clear that the defense will put up every road block that they can to uncovering additional information. However, the preliminary damage is done. The next question will be what information will come out during discovery. During the discovery process, documents can and will be demanded both from the defendants and can be subpoenaed from government sources. I think it likely that these documents will show that Mr. Ashcroft did not act alone, and that the systematic violation of fundamental American civil liberties came with the blessing and forethought of the highest levels of the executive branch. The next suspense will be whether Mr. Ashcroft decides to take the fall alone, or if he decides to take down with him those higher up the food chain. Time will indeed tell.

Facing Off

“His face bespoke his soul”
Voltaire
French Philosopher and Writer
1694-1778

“A man's face is his autobiography. A woman's face
is her work of fiction.” *
Oscar Wilde
Irish Poet, Novelist, Dramatist and Critic
1854-1900

Facebook has become a rallying place for those opposing the career of Alberto Gonzales, who will teach his first class as a visiting professor at Texas Tech on August 31st. Some of the groups originate from Texas Tech, like the 150 member "Alberto Gonzales Doesn't Belong at Texas Tech" started by "TT" alum Jason Rhodes.

Another similar group is the one started by Texas Tech alum David Ring , who is a former student of Professor Walter Schaller, the professor who originated the petition against the hiring of Gonzales. The petition, signed by some 88 professors at Texas Tech, as of last check, is in protest to his visiting professorship, at the salary of $100,000 for one year. The unusually lucrative visiting professorship for Gonzales, who has never taught a college class before in his life and who will be teaching a single class of 15 undergraduate students, could have paid for two far more highly qualified visiting professors with actual teaching experience and academic credentials.

Others who object to Gonzales and are organizing through face book are more generic in their opposition. Groups like the 56 member "Alberto Gonzales should spend the rest of his worthless life in prison".

Groups address not only disapproval of Gonzales himself, but of those individuals who served as his staff, joining him in participating in what many view to be unethical, and possibly illegal conduct, like the groups which seek to have Gonzales right-hand man Ted Ullyot fired from his position on the legal staff of Facebook, "We demand that Facebook fire Alberto Gonzales' right hand man, Ted Ullyot" and the 14 member "Justice Starts Here, Tell Facebook to fire Alberto Gonzales Lap Dog".

As specific as the antipathy is to Ted Ullyot, it is sparklingly clear that the objection is even greater to the actions of Alberto Gonzales. Then there is the 3,425 member group "Demand that Facebook General Counsel Ullyot resign'" and the group "Free Facebook: No Alberto Gonzales, No Ted Ullyot as General Counsel".

There are even more groups on Facebook which object to Gonzales not only individually, or to the unusually cushy teaching position given to him by his close political friend Chancellor Kent Hance. These groups are a bit more broadly based in their opposition to Gonzales, and are even sometimes a bit scurrilous. With titles like (I ask the readers pardon) the 12 member "Alberto Gonzales Can Suck my Dick" and the 3 member "Alberto Gonzales Is A Demented Child Rapist", these myriad groups more generally are in opposition to ALL of the Bush administration alums, and therefore prominently include opposition to Gonzales.

It remains to be seen in the coming weeks, especially beginning with Gonzales' first day of class at TT at the end of the month, how effective these Facebook organized movement will be at influencing Gonzales future career at Texas Tech. Unconfirmed rumors abound that Chancellor Hance has hopes of extending the term of Gonzales term as a professor, after the speculation that there was strong faculty opposition against hiring him to teach within the law school, and possibly a failure as well to see him installed as Dean. The scope of the Facebook groups alone in opposition to him is extensive. If it will also be effective in countering the clout of Chancellor Hance on Gonzales’s behalf remains to be seen - but it should be fun to watch.


* I have always enjoyed this quotation, and couldn't resist using it here, although perhaps less apt than other quotations.

The New Yoo Hoopla

“Suffering is by no means a privilege, a sign of nobility, a reminder of God. Suffering is a fierce, bestial thing, commonplace, uncalled for, natural as air. It is intangible; no one can grasp it or fight against it; it dwells in time / is the same thing as time; if it comes in fits and starts, that is only so as to leave the sufferer more defenseless during the moments that follow, those long moments when one relives the last bout of torture and waits for the next.”
Cesare Pavese
Italian Poet, Critic, Novelist and Translator
1908-1950


“There is only one thing that arouses animals more than pleasure, and that is pain. Under torture you are as if under the dominion of those grasses that produce visions. Everything you have heard told, everything you have read returns to your mind, as if you were being transported, not toward heaven, but toward hell. Under torture you say not only what the inquisitor wants, but also what you imagine might please him, because a bond (this, truly, diabolical) is established between you and him.”
Umberto Eco
Italian Novelist, Semiotician, Medievalist, Philosopher, Critic
1932


On Friday, buried under other news at the end of the week, including the death of Walter Cronkite, was a significant decision regarding the personal accountability of a member of the Bush administration for torture. According to a story by staff writer Warren Richey of the Christian Science Monitor, http://www.csmonitor.com/2009/0617/p02s13-usju.html a decision was rendered by U. S. District Court Judge Jeffery White that allows former Assistant Deputy Attorney General John Yoo to be held personally responsible in a civil lawsuit for the memos he produced that were part of authorizing the harsh interrogation techniques that many consider to be torture, used on alleged enemy combatant Jose Padilla. Judge White, who I understand to have been a Bush appointee, issued a 42 page decision in which he is quoted "Like any other government official, government lawyers are responsible for the foreseeable consequences of their conduct".

The full decision can be read or downloaded at the Scribd :www.scribd.com/.../Padilla-v-Yoo-Order-Granting-in-part-and-Denying-in-Part-Defendents-Motion-to-Dismiss along with a further comment on the ruling, to which I will defer as I am not a lawyer, much less a professor of Constitutional Law at www.lawprofessorblogs.com . In the comment on that blog, it is noted that Judge White finds the legal cover of the memos was an unconstitutional exercise of power, and also denies Yoo's claim of qualified immunity. This is a significant ruling in view of the recent Supreme Court decision that threw out a similar case against former AG Ashcroft, and FBI director Mueller who continues to head the FBI under the Obama administration. These cases have been defended on behalf of Yoo, Ashcroft and Mueller, by the Department of Justice.

It has been the position of President Obama that individuals who were operating in good faith on behalf of the government should not be held accountable, investigated or prosecuted for their actions or their legal opinions. Given the decision in this suit, and the new interest expressed by Attorney General Holder in addressing the issues involving possible illegal actions, including torture and other illegalities, we can only hope that in future the Department of Justice will find itself on the prosecuting rather than the defending side of these individuals. As I have slogged through the 38 page document that is the part of the report by the five Inspector Generals that is not classified, allow me to share for those who don't have the time or inclination that it was significant who refused to be interviewed by the Inspector Generals who were performing the investigation at the direction of Congress: John Yoo; former A.G. John Ashcroft; former head of the CIA George Tenet; and aide to former Vice President Cheney, David Addington. I'm surprised that they have the option to simply refuse to be interviewed, and wonder if subsequently they will be compelled to answer questions by some form of subpoena.

In view of the extremely poor quality of the legal work provided by Yoo, including the criticism for which Yoo was singled out by the five Inspectors General relating to the PSP, the President's Surveillance Program, among other criticism, I can only say I am surprised that Yoo continues to hold a position as a law professor at Berekely. Being a bad government lawyer, even if you are a high profile bad lawyer,would not seem to be a very adequate recommendation for teaching. Former A.G. Gonzales, after a period of time apparently having difficulty finding work, also turned up as a professor, at Texas Tech for the fall schedule, but in political science, not law. I would have thought, given how things worked out, that he wouldn't be considered very good at either, but then perhaps he has been hired to teach what not to do.

ToE, if I might impose on your kindness to answer a very general question here that is in your area of expertise, am I correct in my impression that having defended some or all of these individuals mentioned above, the attorneys at the Department of Justice cannot now handle any future/ subsequent prosecution, because the rules governing legal confidentiality would create a conflict of interest? I realize that those of us who have not studied law often form mistaken notions of how the legal process works, so I am asking to avoid making a similar error. Does this suggest that if there were to be any prosecution going forward, of persons who had been defended by DoJ, it would now require a special prosecutor independent of DoJ to pursue that prosecution? I'm trying to discern if there might be any special method / planning / thought to this madness by the Obama administration.... or if it is instead a great deal more random and messy and accidental in the way it is unfolding.