In many ways, it was the scandal that got away. In March, we learned that Bush Justice Department, more specifically the FBI, was engaged in widespread, illegal misuse of “national security letters” (NSLs).
Using NSLs, the FBI has the power to obtain secret information about Americans — including phone calls, internet visits, even credit ratings — whether they’re suspected of wrongdoing or not. Officials can probe personal information without the consent, or even knowledge, of a judge.
There are, however, some laws and internal Justice Department regulations to regulate how the NSLs are obtained by law enforcement officials. As it turns out, the FBI violated these laws. What’s more, while DoJ officials claimed they didn’t realize the agency was ignoring the NSL safeguards, the truth was that their own lawyers had been warning them about abuse, but officials ignored the concerns.
This week, however, the Washington Post ran a front-page piece explaining that the illegal abuse at the FBI is bigger, more widespread, and more scandalous than anyone outside the DoJ realized — an internal audit found more than 1,000 abuses while reviewing 10% of NSL investigations since 2002. If the statistical sample is representative, weâre looking 10,000 instances of FBI agents obtaining information about Americans that they could not legally receive.
When this controversy first emerged in March, the problem drew bi-partisan criticism, but was quickly forgotten. Even after FBI Director Robert Mueller conceded that the bureau had been breaking the law, there was far more interest in the scandal surrounding purged U.S. Attorneys, and the FBI mess was quickly brushed off the front page (and the political world’s radar).
But in light of a little-noticed court ruling the day after the Post article, we’ll likely learn quite a bit more about this controversy, too. (thanks to reader R.S.)
Just one day after a news that an internal audit found that FBI agents abused a Patriot Act power more than 1,000 times, a federal judge ordered the agency Friday to begin turning over thousands of pages of documents related to the agency’s use of a powerful, but extremely secretive investigative tool that can pry into telephone and internet records.
The order for monthly document releases commencing July 5 came in response to a government sunshine request by [the Electronic Frontier Foundation], which sued in April over the FBI’s foot-dragging on its broad request.
Something to keep an eye on.
In case you missed it, Trent Lott had one of the classic lines of the immigration debate this week.
Comments by Republican senators on Thursday suggested that they were feeling the heat from conservative critics of the bill, who object to provisions offering legal status. The Republican whip, Trent Lott of Mississippi, who supports the bill, said: “Talk radio is running America. We have to deal with that problem.”
I see. A far-right senator believes the “problem” with the policy discourse is far-right radio for a far-right audience.
Keep in mind, this wasn’t a stray comment for Lott, who seems to have been thinking about this. The other day, the Washington Post quoted Lott saying, “I’m sure senators on both sides of the aisle are being pounded by these talk-radio people who don’t even know what’s in the bill.”
You mean right-wing blowhards like Limbaugh can rile up a large audience based on nothing but demagoguery? And that conservative audience will bombard Hill offices with whatever they last heard on the radio?
Welcome to our world, Trent.
The conservative myth that PBS is some kind of hotbed for liberalism isn’t true, but to see the network go out of its way to prove its conservative bona fides is disconcerting.
Two months ago, PBS gave Richard Perle a whole hour to repeat discredited neocon arguments about Iraq and the Middle East, including the notion that Saddam Hussein had a working relationship with al Qaeda, and the bizarre argument that Osama bin Laden’s “network has been destroyed.” As Media Matters noted, Perle’s PBS special “made a series of assertions about the Iraq war that have already been shown to be false.”
It appears that PBS is going down a similar road this month, with a special on religious liberty called “Wall of Separation.”
The “wall of separation” is a metaphor deeply embedded in the American consciousness. Most Americans assume that the First Amendment prevents the mixing of politics and religion. The freedom of religion clauses protect individuals from the entanglement of religion with government and secure the right to freely exercise religious faith. America is a religiously pluralistic culture guided by a secular government.
But what would surprise most Americans is the discovery that this is not what the Founding Fathers intended when they established the nation and wrote the Constitution and Bill of Rights. In fact, they had a radically different interpretation of the role of religion in state and federal governments.
Uh oh. This reads a bit like a pamphlet from Focus on the Family. In fact, “Wall of Separation” is a production of Boulevard Pictures, which explained on its website that this PBS special will explain that the Founding Fathers had “a radically different definition” of religious liberty than what we have today, and that “the modern understanding of the role of religion in the public square is exactly the opposite of what the Founders intended.”
If this is starting to sound to you like religious right rhetoric, we’re on the same page.
As my friends at Americans United for Separation of Church and State found, there’s reason to be skeptical about this new PBS special and those who put it together.
When Corporation for Public Broadcasting Chairman Kenneth Tomlinson, a close Karl Rove ally, took over PBS a few years ago, he told the Association of Public Television Stations along with officials from the CPB and PBS that they should make sure their programming “better reflected the Republican mandate.”
I think we’re seeing the results of Tomlinson’s agenda.
In April, we learned about a disconcerting controversy out of Wisconsin in which U.S. Attorney for Milwaukee Steve Biskupic brought highly dubious charges against Georgia Thompson, the state purchasing supervisor for Gov. Jim Doyle’s (D) administration, accusing Thompson of corruption. By all appearances, it was one of the more shameless politically-motivated prosecutions of the year.
The last time we checked in on the controversy, a federal appeals court swiftly rejected the prosecution and admonished Biskupic for filing the charges in the first place. Thompson was released, but the imprisonment and wrongful prosecution has left quite a scar on her career.
Given the circumstances, it’s not surprising that Thompson expects reimbursement. (thanks to reader V.S.)
A state worker who spent four months in a federal prison before having her conviction reversed on appeal filed a claim with the state Friday for nearly $360,000. […]
“Payment will not undo the emotional trauma of such charges and wrongful incarceration, but it will help her put the pieces back together,” Thompson lawyer Stephen Hurley wrote in the claim.
State Sen. Russ Decker (D), a member of the Claims Board, said he was inclined to support the request payment, but wants to see the U.S. Department of Justice foot the bill.
“I certainly will take a good look at it, but the person who ought to pay the bill is (U.S. Attorney Steven M.) Biskupic,” Decker said. “He’s the guy who screwed it up by going after a political agenda.”
I wish I could say this comes as a surprise, but the Bush administration is pushing hard to once again restrict any judicial flexibility and impose mandatory minimums in sentencing.
The Bush administration is trying to roll back a Supreme Court decision by pushing legislation that would require prison time for nearly all criminals. […]
In a speech June 1 to announce the bill, Attorney General Alberto Gonzales urged Congress to reimpose mandatory minimum prison sentences against federal convicts — and not let judges consider such penalties “merely a suggestion.”
Such an overhaul, in part, “will strengthen our hand in fighting criminals who threaten the safety and security of all Americans,” Gonzales said in the speech, delivered three days before the FBI announced a slight national uptick in violent crime during 2006.
U.S. District Judge Paul G. Cassell, chairman of the Criminal Law committee of the Judicial Conference, the judicial branch’s policy-making body, is not pleased.
“This would require one-size-fits-all justice,” Cassell said. “The vast majority of the public would like the judges to make the individualized decisions needed to make these very difficult sentencing decisions. Judges are the ones who look the defendants in the eyes. They hear from the victims. They hear from the prosecutors.”
The Globe added that congressional Republicans “are seizing the administration’s crackdown … as a campaign issue for 2008.”
Given what we’ve seen and learned over the last several months, one might assume that Attorney General Alberto Gonzales would go out of his way to avoid anything that even came close to politicizing U.S. Attorneys’ offices.
But Gonzales is apparently incapable of restraint. Knowing that there is literally nothing he could do to get fired, our embattled Attorney General is reportedly “tightening the leash” on federal prosecutors. (via TP)
Gonzales described what he delicately calls “a more vigorous and a little bit more formal process” for annually evaluating prosecutors. What that means, as he explained it, is hauling in every U.S. attorney for a meeting to hear, among other things, politicians’ beefs against the prosecutor.
If that should happen, expect the fair-mindedness and independence Americans still count on from their Justice Department to slip.
In testimony to Congress and comments at the National Press Club, Gonzales framed the meetings as a way of improving communications. But it also looks a lot like a way to remind recalcitrant U.S. attorneys what the home team expects.
And what might this “formal process” include? As of Friday, the Justice Department said it is considering one-on-one meetings between Gonzales and every U.S. attorney
As Gonzales describes it, these meetings will offer him an opportunity to let prosecutors know what they’re doing wrong, what lawmakers on the Hill are complaining about, what the DoJ’s expectations are of them, etc.
Except, as the Chicago Tribune’s Andrew Zajac explained, “[T]here’s already an evaluation process run by the Justice Department’s executive office for U.S. attorneys. But that only measures how well a prosecutor runs the office, not how loyal he or she is to the administration’s agenda.”
More New York firefighters emerge to slam Rudy and question his alleged 9/11 heroism. That and other political news of the day in today’s Election Central Sunday Roundup.
In February, the Washington Post’s Dana Priest and Anne Hull stunned the nation with an investigation of the outpatient services at Walter Reed. Americans simply couldn’t believe the treatment veterans of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan were receiving. The ensuing scandal led to three major resignations among top Army officials.
Today, Priest and Hull add to the story with a devastating report on the treatment veterans with post-traumatic stress receive — or in too many cases, don’t receive. Take, for example, Army Spec. Jeans Cruz, who helped capture Saddam Hussein and who received a hero’s welcome upon returning to the Bronx.
In public, the former Army scout stood tall for the cameras and marched in the parades. In private, he slashed his forearms to provoke the pain and adrenaline of combat. He heard voices and smelled stale blood. Soon the offers of help evaporated and he found himself estranged and alone, struggling with financial collapse and a darkening depression.
At a low point, he went to the local Department of Veterans Affairs medical center for help. One VA psychologist diagnosed Cruz with post-traumatic stress disorder. His condition was labeled “severe and chronic.” In a letter supporting his request for PTSD-related disability pay, the psychologist wrote that Cruz was “in need of major help” and that he had provided “more than enough evidence” to back up his PTSD claim. His combat experiences, the letter said, “have been well documented.”
None of that seemed to matter when his case reached VA disability evaluators. They turned him down flat, ruling that he deserved no compensation because his psychological problems existed before he joined the Army. They also said that Cruz had not proved he was ever in combat. “The available evidence is insufficient to confirm that you actually engaged in combat,” his rejection letter stated.
This despite the abundant evidence of his year in combat with the 4th Infantry Division.
Cruz has trouble working, but even more trouble fighting the VA and the Army to correct his medical records and his personal file so that he might qualify for aid. “I’m pushing the mental limits as it is,” Cruz said. “My experience so far is, you ask for something and they deny, deny, deny. After a while you just give up.”
Of course, Cruz’s case is not unique — as many as one-in-four American troops return from Iraq “psychologically wounded.” Unlike the Walter Reed debacle, which was largely a matter of breathtaking neglect, a variety of factors have created the mental-health problems for war veterans, including:
* Bureaucratic delays — Massive backlogs prevent efficient treatment and make it easier for troops in need to fall through the cracks.
* Lack of trained professionals — Licensed psychologists are leaving the military at a fast clip, in part because of the stress associated with treating pained soldiers. Troops who qualify for care end up with inexperienced counselors, who use “therapies better suited for alcoholics or marriage counseling.”
* Stigma of mental-health problems — Only 40 percent of the troops who screened positive for serious emotional problems sought help. Lt. Gen. John Vines, who led the 18th Airborne Corps in Iraq and Afghanistan, said countless officers keep quiet out of fear of being mislabeled, and many believe they will be denied future security clearances if they seek psychological help.
* Disability qualifications — “To qualify for compensation, troops and veterans are required to prove that they witnessed at least one traumatic event, such as the death of a fellow soldier or an attack from a roadside bomb, or IED. That standard has been used to deny thousands of claims.” The VA’s chief of mental health explained, “One of the things I puzzle about is, what if someone hasn’t been exposed to an IED but lives in dread of exposure to one for a month? According to the formal definition, they don’t qualify.”
It’s a painful and sobering piece about veterans who deserve a lot better than what they’re receiving. Take a look.
When it comes to credibility on the Abu Ghraib scandal, we can’t do much better than Maj. Gen. Antonio Taguba, the two-star Army general who led the first investigation into detainee abuse. As for what Taguba found during his investigation, the general believes senior Pentagon officials were, their denials notwithstanding, involved in directing the abusive interrogation policies.
Maj. Gen. Antonio M. Taguba said that he felt mocked and shunned by top Pentagon officials, including then-Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld, after filing an exhaustive report on the now-notorious Abu Ghraib abuse that sparked international outrage and led to an overhaul of the U.S. interrogation and detention policies. Taguba’s report examining the 800th Military Police Brigade put in plain terms what had been documented in shocking photographs.
In interviews with New Yorker reporter Seymour M. Hersh, Taguba said that he was ordered to limit his investigation to low-ranking soldiers who were photographed with the detainees and the soldiers’ unit, but that it was always his sense that the abuse was ordered at higher levels. Taguba was quoted as saying that he thinks top commanders in Iraq had extensive knowledge of the aggressive interrogation techniques that mirrored those used on high-value detainees at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, and that the military police “were literally being exploited by the military interrogators.”
Taguba also said that Rumsfeld misled Congress when he testified in May 2004 about the abuse investigation, minimizing how much he knew about the incidents. Taguba said that he met with Rumsfeld and top aides the day before the testimony.
“I know that my peers in the Army will be mad at me for speaking out, but the fact is that we violated the laws of land warfare in Abu Ghraib,” Taguba said, according to the article. “We violated the tenets of the Geneva Convention. We violated our own principles and we violated the core of our military values. The stress of combat is not an excuse, and I believe, even today, that those civilian and military leaders responsible should be held accountable.”
Hersh’s article is online. There’s quite a bit to digest — ThinkProgress summarized some of the highlights — but like Andrew Sullivan, I think this might be the most important quote in the piece:
“From what I knew, troops just don’t take it upon themselves to initiate what they did without any form of knowledge of the higher-ups,” Taguba told me. His orders were clear, however: he was to investigate only the military police at Abu Ghraib, and not those above them in the chain of command. “These M.P. troops were not that creative,” he said. “Somebody was giving them guidance, but I was legally prevented from further investigation into higher authority. I was limited to a box.”
Anyone who’s been following the news this week is surely aware of the violence this week between the two Palestinian territories — Fatah in the West Bank and Hamas in Gaza. The two are increasingly isolated from one another, and the phrase “civil war” is increasingly used to describe the dynamic.
But how, exactly, are the two divided? What is the nature of the division? For those of us who occasionally need a primer on the history, the New York Times’ Craig Smith and Greg Myre have a very helpful background piece today, which fleshes out the details.
It’s worth checking out.