Showing posts with label Congress. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Congress. Show all posts
Sunday, November 8, 2009
House passes historic health bill - Politico
I fell asleep listening to the final vote. I fell asleep with a quiet feeling of elation in my soul...they listened...amazing!
Monday, April 20, 2009
5 Tips for Calling Congress on Marijuana Policy Reform
Watch as MPP's Aaron Houston walks through the things you should know before calling Congress to express your opinions and support for marijuana policy reform. Help end the war on drugs and get active by following these easy steps.
read more digg story
read more digg story
Saturday, April 11, 2009
Hemp for Victory
Bring back industrial hemp
Eighty years ago, using a dizzying barrage of propaganda dirty tricks, the chemical company DuPont with the help of newspaper mogul William Randolph Hearst succeeded in having the cultivation and possession of hemp criminalized.
The reality is that industrial grade hemp cannot be used to get high and it's one of the most useful plants in human history.
Two US Congressmen, Barney Frank and Ron Paul, have introduced the Industrial Hemp Farming Act to change this sorry state of affairs. Eight other Congressmen from both parties have co-sponsored it.
Currently, about 99% of marijuana that is being eradicated by the "heroic" efforts of the DEA and other publicly funded layabouts is "ditchweed," completely unsmokable biological material descended from hemp plants that used to provide America and the world with cloth, fiber, paper, industrial lubricants, and even food (the seeds are as nutritious as milk.)
Perhaps sanity will prevail.
Technorati Tags: hemp,congress,Barney Frank,Ron Paul,Industrial Hemp Farming Act,video,BrasscheckTV,DEA,government
Wednesday, March 25, 2009
Rage Is Good
Demonstrations April 4 calling Wall Street to account could help progressive populism come alive in America. Obama and Congress need the pressure.
By Tom Hayden - Hopefully, the demonstrations planned on Wall Street April 4 by United for Peace and Justice and other groups will contribute to the global uprising. Our president and Congress need the pressure.
The world has turned against American hegemony before: against the Vietnam war, against the World Trade Organization and against the invasion of Iraq. On all three occasions, the world was right and Washington was wrong.
On this occasion, the global economy is being devastated by the Wall Street crash. Hundreds of millions are are hurtling into extreme poverty, export industries are collapsing, currencies being destabilized.
As the conservative French president Nicolas Sarkozy says, "Laissez-faire, c'est fini." (Laissez-faire is finished.)
As nations blame Wall Street and move to protect their people, the protests need not be anti-American nor anti-Obama. Sarkozy cannot be accused of being anti-US. Neither are Iceland nor Ukraine. The global opposition might just may be what we need, an organized populist counterforce to the business and banking lobbies entrenched in Washington.
Obama's stimulus package and proposed budget are not the problem. They represent the most progressive government initiatives in a half-century. But as Franch Rich noted in the New York Times March 1, Obama "was fuzzy when it came to what he wanted to do about" more bailouts.
The Obama administration is in trouble on the question of what to do about the financial system and the credit crisis. But Rich is wrong, for once, in suggesting that it's "bad news" for Obama that "the genuine populist rage in the country...cannot be ignored or finessed."
The "bad news" is really an opportunity for progressives, unions and Democrats to build a bottom-up populist alternative to the "greed is good" politics of Wall Street, which has infested both parties. Obama should privately welcome "populist rage" as a stimulus to reform. If he does not, he may see right-wing populism making a comeback as soon as 2010.
Some progressives, including even Warren Beatty, think it's time to introduce a discussion of socialism, if only to point out that our present course is one of socialism for the banks and corporations. Obama himself says good things about Sweden's nationalization of banks, but quickly demurs that Americans are not "culturally" ready for such an option. At the Washington Post, Harold Meyerson, a democratic socialist in the tradition of Michael Harrington, prefers re-regulation to either nationalization or socialism at this point: "To avoid socialism (to whatever extent throwing public money at banks is socialism) you need liberalism (that is, the willingness to restrain capitalism from its periodic self-destruction.)
My sense is that we are moving too rapidly towards economic hell for a socialist ideology to catch up. While efforts to dust off and legitimize the term will go on, Meyerson is right that the battlefield just ahead is over reregulation, which may evolve into a contentious, awkward, bureaucratic nationalization out of necessity. That is why the sturdier and heavily regulated Canadian and Swedish banking systems already are being closely examined.
read more digg story
By Tom Hayden - Hopefully, the demonstrations planned on Wall Street April 4 by United for Peace and Justice and other groups will contribute to the global uprising. Our president and Congress need the pressure.
The world has turned against American hegemony before: against the Vietnam war, against the World Trade Organization and against the invasion of Iraq. On all three occasions, the world was right and Washington was wrong.
On this occasion, the global economy is being devastated by the Wall Street crash. Hundreds of millions are are hurtling into extreme poverty, export industries are collapsing, currencies being destabilized.
As the conservative French president Nicolas Sarkozy says, "Laissez-faire, c'est fini." (Laissez-faire is finished.)
As nations blame Wall Street and move to protect their people, the protests need not be anti-American nor anti-Obama. Sarkozy cannot be accused of being anti-US. Neither are Iceland nor Ukraine. The global opposition might just may be what we need, an organized populist counterforce to the business and banking lobbies entrenched in Washington.
Obama's stimulus package and proposed budget are not the problem. They represent the most progressive government initiatives in a half-century. But as Franch Rich noted in the New York Times March 1, Obama "was fuzzy when it came to what he wanted to do about" more bailouts.
The Obama administration is in trouble on the question of what to do about the financial system and the credit crisis. But Rich is wrong, for once, in suggesting that it's "bad news" for Obama that "the genuine populist rage in the country...cannot be ignored or finessed."
The "bad news" is really an opportunity for progressives, unions and Democrats to build a bottom-up populist alternative to the "greed is good" politics of Wall Street, which has infested both parties. Obama should privately welcome "populist rage" as a stimulus to reform. If he does not, he may see right-wing populism making a comeback as soon as 2010.
Some progressives, including even Warren Beatty, think it's time to introduce a discussion of socialism, if only to point out that our present course is one of socialism for the banks and corporations. Obama himself says good things about Sweden's nationalization of banks, but quickly demurs that Americans are not "culturally" ready for such an option. At the Washington Post, Harold Meyerson, a democratic socialist in the tradition of Michael Harrington, prefers re-regulation to either nationalization or socialism at this point: "To avoid socialism (to whatever extent throwing public money at banks is socialism) you need liberalism (that is, the willingness to restrain capitalism from its periodic self-destruction.)
My sense is that we are moving too rapidly towards economic hell for a socialist ideology to catch up. While efforts to dust off and legitimize the term will go on, Meyerson is right that the battlefield just ahead is over reregulation, which may evolve into a contentious, awkward, bureaucratic nationalization out of necessity. That is why the sturdier and heavily regulated Canadian and Swedish banking systems already are being closely examined.
read more digg story
Tuesday, March 24, 2009
Making Congress READ the Laws They Pass
Everyone is wrong about the AIG bonuses.
By counterspinyc- Democratic Senator Chris Dodd of Connecticut inserted language into the scam-stimulus bill permitting the AIG bonuses that everyone is now bloviating about. He did so at the request of the Treasury Department. A Congressional majority then voted for the Dodd proposal, and President Obama signed it into law. Those upset about the AIG bonuses should focus on the fact that Congress authorized them.
All the Congressional grand-standing about how bad the bonuses are is rank hypocrisy. One of two things is true . . . Either those who voted for the scam-stimulus bill knew about the bonus provision, in which case they ought to be "falling on their own swords," instead of castigating the government-appointed CEO of AIG, or . . .
They didn't know about the bonus provision, in which case they ought to introduce DownsizeDC.org's "Read the Bills Act," so they'll know what they're passing before they cast their votes.
But, the politicians aren't the only guilty parties in this stupid controversy. The American people are also at fault. Here's why:
read more digg story
By counterspinyc- Democratic Senator Chris Dodd of Connecticut inserted language into the scam-stimulus bill permitting the AIG bonuses that everyone is now bloviating about. He did so at the request of the Treasury Department. A Congressional majority then voted for the Dodd proposal, and President Obama signed it into law. Those upset about the AIG bonuses should focus on the fact that Congress authorized them.
All the Congressional grand-standing about how bad the bonuses are is rank hypocrisy. One of two things is true . . . Either those who voted for the scam-stimulus bill knew about the bonus provision, in which case they ought to be "falling on their own swords," instead of castigating the government-appointed CEO of AIG, or . . .
They didn't know about the bonus provision, in which case they ought to introduce DownsizeDC.org's "Read the Bills Act," so they'll know what they're passing before they cast their votes.
But, the politicians aren't the only guilty parties in this stupid controversy. The American people are also at fault. Here's why:
We're constantly told that Congress doesn't respond to public pressure and that,
therefore, what DownsizeDC.org is trying to do won't work. And yet, we see
Congress respond to public pressure repeatedly. The only problem is that it's
always pressure about the wrong things! The way to prevent problems like the
bonus-authorization provision is to pass the "Read the Bills Act" (RTBA).
read more digg story
Tuesday, March 3, 2009
92 Torture Tapes Illegallly Destroyed by Bush Team
New Bush Crimes Revealed: 92 Torture Tapes Destroyed
As Tens of Thousands Write Congress, NY Times asks "A Truth Commission for the Bush Era?"
Last week, we put out a call for IndictBush members to tell their Congressperson to pursue the indictment of Bush for its illegal torture campaigns. Over 30,000 letters were sent within 24 hours.
Just yesterday, we received stunning confirmation of the timeliness of our efforts. It was revealed that under Bush the CIA destroyed 92 tapes of illegal interrogation tactics -- in other words, tapes showing the Bush administration's record of torture. The CIA destroyed the tapes in response to, and in direct violation of, a Congressional investigation.
Destroying tapes is not small potatoes. For many months, former President Richard Nixon refused to turn over tapes that Congress believed showed criminal wrongdoing. When the Supreme Court finally forced Nixon to reveal the tapes, they included the "smoking gun" tape that showed Nixon's role in illegal break-ins, espionage and wiretapping. The Bush administration simply destroyed its evidence, knowing it could meet a similar fate. We can't let him get away with this.
A special Senate investigative committee is what led to Nixon's undoing, and there's already evidence that a similar truth commission could be in the works for Bush. The New York Times yesterday featured a widely-read forum entitled, "A Truth Commission for the Bush Era?" The article goes on to report the poll that 62 percent of Americans favor criminal investigation of Bush. The mass media's growing coverage of this story is proof of the nationwide clamor for accountability and justice.
Now we have to keep the pressure on. We've made great progress in just a few weeks since we launched the IndictBushNow campaign. You can help take us to the next level.
Send a letter to Congress demanding accountability for Bush's illegal torture campaigns and subsequent cover-up.
Sunday, January 25, 2009
Obama and Congress Must Act to Restore the Constitution
by Dave Lindorff
The calls for a reckoning for the criminals of the Bush/Cheney administration are growing by the day, as the final few days of the Bush presidency wound down, and as new evidence of their crimes keep pouring out of the deflating gas bag that was the Bush White House.
For years, the Democrats in Congress, with a few notable exceptions, have sat on their hands, allowing the ongoing destruction of the Constitution, of the US military, of the nation's reputation, and of the rule of law, as well as of the institution of Congress itself, by a cabal of Republicans in the White House, led by Vice President Dick Cheney, who have sought to establish an executive-led government that answered only to itself.
Obama, running for the White House, initially talked of restoring the constitutional order, and of prosecuting crimes where they had occurred, much as he talked of ending the war in Iraq. But now, as he increasingly assumes the role of President, he is backing away from that kind of talk, with plans instead to extend the war and occupation in Iraq for years, while actually expanding the war in Afghanistan, and to give the outgoing administration of criminals and Constitution-wreckers a free pass, in the name of "letting bygones be bygones." Ironically, he is doing this even as some in Congress, including House Judiciary Chair John Conyers, who ducked the issue of impeachment and sat on proposed impeachment articles against Bush and Cheney filed by Rep. Dennis Kucinich (D-OH) for two critical years when he could have ordered a formal hearing by his committee, are now calling for a special prosecutor.
But broken promises about the war aside, Obama cannot have it both ways. If, as he is still declaring, "no one is above the law" in America, then it is essential that those who have committed grave crimes must be indicted and tried for those crimes. As he takes the oath of office on Jan. 20, Obama will swear to uphold and defend the Constitution. That means not only defending the integrity of the document itself, but enforcing all the laws that have been passed in accordance with that document.
As President, Obama has no more right than did his predecessor to pick and choose which laws to enforce. At a time when the nation's jails are crammed to overflowing with hundreds of thousands of people whose crimes are as minimal as stealing CDs from a convenience store, if President Obama and his Justice Department fail to order an investigation into profound White House crimes like the destruction of evidence in the Valerie Plame spy-outing case, or the investigation into the politicalization of the appointment and firing of US Attorneys, or of the deliberate campaign of lies to justify an unnecessary invasion of Iraq, if they fail to investigate fully what the president's illegal National Security Agency wiretapping program was really all about, if they fail to investigate the rampant fraud and profiteering by White House-connected private contractors in the Iraq War zone, if they fail to investigate the clear evidence of White House efforts to undermine fair elections in 2002, 2004, 2006 and 2008, if they fail to prosecute the White House, right up to the offices of Vice President and President, for authorizing, directing and then covering up evidence of systematic torture of captives in the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and in the so-called "war" on terror, if they don't investigate what the administration really knew and what it covered up in the days and weeks before the 9-11 attacks in 2001, it will no longer be possible to say, with a straight face, that in America everyone is equal under the law.
But that is only part of it.
read more digg story
The calls for a reckoning for the criminals of the Bush/Cheney administration are growing by the day, as the final few days of the Bush presidency wound down, and as new evidence of their crimes keep pouring out of the deflating gas bag that was the Bush White House.
For years, the Democrats in Congress, with a few notable exceptions, have sat on their hands, allowing the ongoing destruction of the Constitution, of the US military, of the nation's reputation, and of the rule of law, as well as of the institution of Congress itself, by a cabal of Republicans in the White House, led by Vice President Dick Cheney, who have sought to establish an executive-led government that answered only to itself.
Obama, running for the White House, initially talked of restoring the constitutional order, and of prosecuting crimes where they had occurred, much as he talked of ending the war in Iraq. But now, as he increasingly assumes the role of President, he is backing away from that kind of talk, with plans instead to extend the war and occupation in Iraq for years, while actually expanding the war in Afghanistan, and to give the outgoing administration of criminals and Constitution-wreckers a free pass, in the name of "letting bygones be bygones." Ironically, he is doing this even as some in Congress, including House Judiciary Chair John Conyers, who ducked the issue of impeachment and sat on proposed impeachment articles against Bush and Cheney filed by Rep. Dennis Kucinich (D-OH) for two critical years when he could have ordered a formal hearing by his committee, are now calling for a special prosecutor.
But broken promises about the war aside, Obama cannot have it both ways. If, as he is still declaring, "no one is above the law" in America, then it is essential that those who have committed grave crimes must be indicted and tried for those crimes. As he takes the oath of office on Jan. 20, Obama will swear to uphold and defend the Constitution. That means not only defending the integrity of the document itself, but enforcing all the laws that have been passed in accordance with that document.
As President, Obama has no more right than did his predecessor to pick and choose which laws to enforce. At a time when the nation's jails are crammed to overflowing with hundreds of thousands of people whose crimes are as minimal as stealing CDs from a convenience store, if President Obama and his Justice Department fail to order an investigation into profound White House crimes like the destruction of evidence in the Valerie Plame spy-outing case, or the investigation into the politicalization of the appointment and firing of US Attorneys, or of the deliberate campaign of lies to justify an unnecessary invasion of Iraq, if they fail to investigate fully what the president's illegal National Security Agency wiretapping program was really all about, if they fail to investigate the rampant fraud and profiteering by White House-connected private contractors in the Iraq War zone, if they fail to investigate the clear evidence of White House efforts to undermine fair elections in 2002, 2004, 2006 and 2008, if they fail to prosecute the White House, right up to the offices of Vice President and President, for authorizing, directing and then covering up evidence of systematic torture of captives in the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and in the so-called "war" on terror, if they don't investigate what the administration really knew and what it covered up in the days and weeks before the 9-11 attacks in 2001, it will no longer be possible to say, with a straight face, that in America everyone is equal under the law.
But that is only part of it.
read more digg story
Tuesday, January 13, 2009
Judge: Copy of disputed documents goes to Obama
A federal judge says the incoming administration of Barack Obama must be given copies of documents the Bush White House has been withholding from Congress on the firings of nine U.S. attorneys.
read more digg story
read more digg story
Thursday, December 11, 2008
ALERT: Write to Congress to Help Needy Families in Economic Stimulus Package
Join us in asking Congress to suspend time limits in the Temporary Assistance to Needy Families (TANF) program as part of the economic stimulus legislation currently under consideration. Cutting families off TANF, the national assistance program for impoverished families with children, at a time of high and rising unemployment violates fundamental social justice and human rights principles and will further strain other safety net resources already taxed to the breaking point (including homeless shelters and soup kitchens).
Congress rightly recognizes that jobless workers need the safeguard of extended unemployment insurance benefits. So too, do TANF recipients at risk of losing their benefits at this tenuous economic moment, need to continue to receive these benefits.
In difficult economic times, the poor are often hit the hardest, and this will be especially true without increased funding for education and job training. In fact, according to the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, food stamp caseloads have increased dramatically in recent months. The Center also projects that the number of poor children could increase by between 2.6 and 3.3 million as a result of the recession.
Write to your senators and representative urging them to remember the most impoverished families in the economic stimulus package by suspending the time limit on eligibility for TANF benefits for at least two years or until the economy has fully recovered.
Time is of the essence. Congress will be acting very shortly on the economic stimulus package. Act now by submitting an e-mail to your legislators.
CLICK HERE TO WRITE TO CONGRESS
Thank you for your support.
Sincerely,
Irasema Garza
President
Founded in 1970 as the NOW Legal Defense and Education Fund, Legal Momentum is the nation's oldest legal advocacy organization dedicated to advancing the rights of women and girls.
New York: 395 Hudson Street, New York, NY 10014
Washington D.C.: 1101 14th Street, NW, Ste 300, Washington, DC 20005
www.legalmomentum.org/
Technorati Tags: legal momentum,congress,petitions,economic stimulus package,families,poverty,activism,actions
Tuesday, December 9, 2008
Activism: Co-Sponsor H. Res. 1531 Against The Bush Blanket Pardons
Because of the tens of thousands of our action page submissions in the last couple weeks, the mainstream media is actually talking about the prospect of blanket pardons, including the despicable act of Bush planning to pardon himself.
The White House has even been forced to issue a non-denial denial, saying that Bush is "disinclined" to issue such pardons.
ACTION PAGE:
Tell Your Member Of Congress To Oppose The Pardons Before Bush Absolves Himself
5,587 Submissions so far
And because of your voices we are actually seeing movement in Congress as well. Representative Nadler has put forward H. Res. 1531, which has some really terrific text in it about the intent of the founders and how this all relates to impeachment, so there is a definite suggestion there that a self pardon in particular would be compelling grounds for impeachment. Please submit this action page as well to ask your House member to co-sponsor this.
In an article in the New York Times the other day, current attorney general Mukasey is quoted as asserting it would not be "necessary" to grant blanket pardons. But please take careful note he did not say it wouldn't happen, because unless we speak out now it WILL.
Please click on the link below to send a message to your government representatives. You can also have your personal comments sent as a message to the editor of your local daily newspaper.
Friday, December 5, 2008
Bush, Hill leaders: Job losses argue for auto help
WASHINGTON - President George W. Bush and congressional leaders seized on the latest grim unemployment data Friday to try to fire up lukewarm support on Capitol Hill for bailing out U.S. automakers. But they clashed anew over terms of the rescue plan and the source of any aid.
As the Big Three auto chiefs pressed their case for $34 billion in a second day of hearings, Bush said in the Rose Garden that the loss of 533,000 jobs in November was even more reason to help the companies.
read more digg story
As the Big Three auto chiefs pressed their case for $34 billion in a second day of hearings, Bush said in the Rose Garden that the loss of 533,000 jobs in November was even more reason to help the companies.
read more digg story
Wednesday, December 3, 2008
The Bailout Isn't Being Policed Properly
Lawmakers want the Treasury to do a better job of insisting that banking institutions sharing in the $700 billion bailout comply with limits Congress imposed on executive salaries and use the money for its intended purposes.
read more | digg story
read more | digg story
Thursday, November 20, 2008
Auto bailout is for the workers, not the corporate fatcats
Congressional Democrats just announced that they want auto-industry leaders to present them with a plan before they proceed with any vote on an auto-industry bailout bill.
read more digg story
read more digg story
Wednesday, November 19, 2008
Obama, Reid and the first compromise
The Joe Lieberman soap opera is finally over — replaced on Tuesday by a new two-man show starring Barack Obama and Harry Reid.
In the first episode — “What to Do About Joe” — a Senate majority leader who’s worked hard to win over the left-wing blogosphere and a president-elect who’s become everything to everyone are forced to make the pivot from campaign rhetoric to something close to governing.
The climax: Reid swallows his tough talk to keep Lieberman — and his vote — in the Democrats’ camp.
The epilogue: Daily Kos’ disgusted Markos Moulitsas declares, “I’m done with Reid as Senate leader.”
Senate Democrats’ decision to punish Lieberman for his campaign-trail transgressions with a slap on the wrist — he loses his spot on the Environment and Public Works Committee but keeps his chairmanship of Homeland Security and Government Affairs — may represent a productive start to the relationship between Reid and Obama.
But it underscores the challenges Reid and Obama face as they move from “If I were in charge” to “I am in charge.” They can’t please everyone who helped put them in power.
read more digg story
In the first episode — “What to Do About Joe” — a Senate majority leader who’s worked hard to win over the left-wing blogosphere and a president-elect who’s become everything to everyone are forced to make the pivot from campaign rhetoric to something close to governing.
The climax: Reid swallows his tough talk to keep Lieberman — and his vote — in the Democrats’ camp.
The epilogue: Daily Kos’ disgusted Markos Moulitsas declares, “I’m done with Reid as Senate leader.”
Senate Democrats’ decision to punish Lieberman for his campaign-trail transgressions with a slap on the wrist — he loses his spot on the Environment and Public Works Committee but keeps his chairmanship of Homeland Security and Government Affairs — may represent a productive start to the relationship between Reid and Obama.
But it underscores the challenges Reid and Obama face as they move from “If I were in charge” to “I am in charge.” They can’t please everyone who helped put them in power.
read more digg story
Saturday, November 15, 2008
Obama Urges Congress To Move On Economic Plan (VIDEO)
President-elect Barack Obama on Saturday urged Congress to get moving next week on an economic rescue plan that would extend jobless benefits among other actions.
read more digg story
read more digg story
The Quote Kashkari Will Never Live Down!
Kucinich Shreds Kashkari today on C-SPAN 11-14-08 The last 20 seconds of this verbal beat down is the quote Dennis Kucinich says Neel Kashkari will be hearing about for the rest of his life. Let's make it happen.
read more digg story
read more digg story
Wednesday, November 12, 2008
Obama and Congress Pressed on Government Openness Issues
WASHINGTON, Nov. 12, 2008—Today, more than 240 individuals and organizations called on President-elect Barack Obama and the 111th Congress to act on a series of government openness recommendations. The recommendations are included in a report from the 21st Century Right to Know Project, titled Moving Toward a 21st Century Right-to-Know Agenda: Recommendations to President-elect Obama and Congress.
read more | digg story
read more | digg story
Tuesday, October 28, 2008
American Torturer Runs for Congress as a Republican
Colonel Allen West oversaw the torture of an innocent Iraqi. Now he is running for Congress and Republicans are saying his biggest asset is his experience as a war criminal.
read more digg story
read more digg story
Saturday, August 9, 2008
Pelosi Admits Not Reading Articles of Impeachment;
Video with Audio only portion of Nancy Pelosi at book-signing. Says she hasn't read articles of impeachment. Submitted to Congress a while back by Dennis Kucinich. Doing her powerful job or just signing books? You decide.
read more | digg story
read more | digg story
Thursday, January 3, 2008
Report May Have Motivated Destruction of Torture Tapes
By Jason Leopold
t r u t h o u t Report
When Congress returns from its winter break in mid-January and continues its probe into the destruction of CIA interrogation videotapes, the lawmakers may be interested in speaking to Mary O. McCarthy.
McCarthy spent most of her career at the spy agency, most recently as deputy inspector general. In 2004, she was tapped by the CIA's Inspector General John Helgerson to assist him with several internal investigations.
One of those investigations included a closer look at the CIA's interrogation methods. The report on this probe was completed in spring 2004. It concluded that some of the agency's approved interrogation methods "appeared to constitute cruel, inhumane and degrading treatment, as defined by the International Convention Against Torture," according to a New York Times story published in November 2005. That was the same month the CIA destroyed the videotapes.
Helgerson personally viewed the videotapes that showed two detainees being subjected to waterboarding by CIA officers, which formed the foundation for his still classified report on the CIA's interrogations methods. McCarthy was also personally briefed on the existence and content of the videotapes, according to several CIA officials who worked closely with her, however it's unknown whether she viewed the material. McCarthy assisted Helgerson in drafting the classified report on the CIA's use of specific interrogation methods against high-level detainees.
"The officials who described the report said it discussed particular techniques used by the CIA against particular prisoners, including about three dozen terror suspects being held by the agency in secret locations around the world," the New York Times story says. "They said it referred in particular to the treatment of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, who is said to have organized the Sept. 11 attacks and who has been detained in a secret location by the CIA since he was captured in March 2003. Mr. Mohammed is among those believed to have been subjected to waterboarding, in which a prisoner is strapped to a board and made to believe that he is drowning.
"In his report, Mr. Helgerson also raised concern about whether the use of the techniques could expose agency officers to legal liability," the officials said, according to the New York Times account. "They said the report expressed skepticism about the Bush administration view that any ban on cruel, inhumane and degrading treatment under the treaty does not apply to CIA interrogations because they take place overseas on people who are not citizens of the United States."
According to a May 2006 Washington Post story, a friend said McCarthy "worried that neither Helgerson nor the agency's congressional overseers would fully examine what happened or why." Another friend said, "She had the impression that this stuff has been pretty well buried." The Post story reported, "In McCarthy's view and that of many colleagues, friends say, torture was not only wrong but also misguided, because it rarely produced useful results."
McCarthy also oversaw the Inspector General's investigation into the treatment of prisoners in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Her "findings are secret," The Washington Post reported in May 2006. "According to a brief CIA statement about the probe in a federal lawsuit filed by the American Civil Liberties Union, investigators set out to examine "the conduct of CIA components and personnel, including DO personnel" during interrogations. Tens of thousands of pages of material were collected, including White House and Justice Department documents, and multiple reports were issued. Some described cases of abuse, involving fewer than a dozen individuals, and were forwarded to the Justice Department, according to government officials."
The reports are seen by only a handful of people.
"When IG inquiries involve covert actions such as foreign interrogations, for example, the agency briefs only the chairmen and ranking members of the House and Senate intelligence committees, instead of the full panels," the Washington Post reported. "So only a handful of people in Washington knew what McCarthy knew."
But the timing of the November 2005 New York Times story regarding the contents of the inspector general's report on interrogation methods, and the publication of a separate, more explosive story in The Washington Post the same month exposing the CIA's covert interrogation activities, suggests that the CIA may have decided to destroy the videotaped interrogations because it feared the tapes would become part of the public record and could expose its agents to a federal criminal investigation.
The New York Times has reported that Jose Rodriguez, head of the CIA's clandestine division, destroyed the videotapes after receiving written authorization from attorneys in the clandestine division. The reasons for purging the tapes, according to one of the The New York Times' unnamed sources, is that in the event of a leak "there was concern for the careers of officers shown on the tapes. We didn't want them to become political scapegoats."
If that's true, then the publication of Priest's CIA secret prison story, and the Times story on the IG investigation into the agency's interrogation methods in November 2005 - the same month and year the videotapes were destroyed - would amount to a very strange coincidence.
Neither McCarthy, now an attorney, nor an attorney who had represented her, Ty Cobb, returned emails or messages left at their offices for comment.
Helgerson's report into the CIA's interrogation techniques rankled some officials at the agency, The New York Times reported, and his critique of agency operations is said to have played a role in the decision by CIA Director Michael V. Hayden to turn the tables on the watchdog and launch an internal probe into Helgerson's work. Hayden alleged that Helgerson's investigations into the agency's detention and interrogation policies were not objective. Helgerson's office is just one of various federal agencies investigating circumstances that led to the destruction of the videotapes and whether any federal laws were broken as a result.
McCarthy was among a group of former intelligence officials who late last year signed a letter opposing the nomination of Attorney General Michael Mukasey on grounds he would not denounce waterboarding. She alleged that - two years or so after she and Helgerson completed their report into the agency's interrogation practices - CIA officials lied to members of Congress during an intelligence briefing when they said the agency did not violate treaties that bar, cruel, inhumane, or degrading treatment of detainees during interrogations, according to a May 14, 2006, front-page story in The Washington Post.
"A CIA employee of two decades, McCarthy became convinced that 'CIA people had lied' in that briefing, as one of her friends said later, not only because the agency had conducted abusive interrogations but also because its policies authorized treatment that she considered cruel, inhumane or degrading," The Washington Post reported.
In his book, "At the Center of the Storm", former CIA Director George Tenet wrote that McCarthy was present at a meeting with Condoleezza Rice in May 2001 where Tenet discussed Abu Zubaydah's alleged plans to attack the US and Israel. Abu Zubaydah was captured in Pakistan less than a year later and was whisked to a secret CIA prison site in Thailand, where he was interrogated and subjected to waterboarding. At the time, McCarthy had been working as senior director at the National Security Council, according to Tenet.
"For my regularly scheduled meeting with Condi Rice on May 30, [2001], I brought along [deputy CIA director] John McLaughlin, [then director of the CIA's counterterrorist center] Cofer Black, one of Cofer's top assistants, Rich B. (Rich can't be further identified here). Joining Condi were [former White House counterterrorism czar Richard] Clarke and Mary McCarthy," Tenet wrote. "Rich ran through the mounting warning signs of a coming attack. They were truly frightening. Among other things, we told Condi that a notorious al-Qa'ida operative named Abu Zubaydah was working on attack plans."
Truthout previously reported that Homeland Security Director Michael Chertoff advised the CIA between 2002 and 2003 that its agents had the legal authority to use interrogation tactics on Abu Zubaydah that included waterboarding.
Chertoff was head of the Justice Department's Criminal Division when CIA officials inquired whether its agents could be charged with violating the federal anti-torture statute for employing interrogation methods such as waterboarding. The tactic causes detainees to slowly drown, and is generally terminated before the detainees die.
"The CIA was seeking to determine the legal limits of interrogation practices for use in cases like that of Abu Zubaydah, the Qaeda lieutenant who was captured in March 2002," says a January 29, 2005, New York Times story. That story said unnamed sources told the newspaper that "Chertoff was directly involved in these discussions, in effect evaluating the legality of techniques proposed by the CIA by advising the agency whether its employees could go ahead with proposed interrogation methods without fear of prosecution."
During his Senate confirmation hearing in February 2005, Chertoff maintained that he provided the CIA broad guidance in response to its questions about interrogation methods and never specifically addressed legality regarding waterboarding or other techniques.
Chertoff, according to intelligence sources who spoke to Truthout, was briefed about the videotaped interrogations. Chertoff told former CIA General Counsel Scott Muller and his deputy, John Rizzo, that an August 1, 2002, memo widely referred to as the "Torture Memo" put the CIA on solid legal ground and that its agents could waterboard a prisoner without fear of prosecution. The memo was written by former Justice Department attorney John Yoo.
Yoo's memo said that Congress "may no more regulate the President's ability to detain and interrogate enemy combatants than it may regulate his ability to direct troop movements on the battlefield."
At his confirmation hearing in 2005, Chertoff claims he did not advise Rizzo or Muller on the legality of specific methods agents used during their interrogation of Abu Zubaydah. Rather, he said, he answered general questions the CIA had posed about interrogations.
"You are dealing in an area where there is potential criminality," Chertoff said he told the agency. "You better be very careful to make sure that whatever you decide to do falls well within what is required by law."
In his book, "The One Percent Doctrine," author Ron Suskind said Zubaydah was not the "high value detainee" the CIA had claimed. Rather, Zubaydah was a minor player in the al-Qaeda organization, handling travel for associates and their families, Suskind says.
Abu Zubaydah's captors soon discovered that their prisoner was mentally ill and knew nothing about terrorist operations or impending plots. That realization was "echoed at the top of CIA and was, of course, briefed to the President and Vice President," Suskind writes. Tenet, though, says claims that Abu Zubaydah was not a valuable prisoner are "hogwash."
McCarthy began working at the Inspector General's office in 2004, according to The New York Times. She had taken a leave of absence from the CIA after 9/11 and spent some time at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, a Washington think tank. She testified before the 9/11 Commission in late 2003 about methods that could enhance intelligence-gathering activities, in the hope of avoiding another terrorist attack on US soil.
In 1998, she wrote an article in the Defense Intelligence Journal under the headline "The Mission to Warn: Disaster Looms" about shortfalls in intelligence gathering and how they could lead to catastrophic events.
McCarthy also spent some time with the Markle Foundation group, "the Task Force on National Security in the Information Age, working with academics as well as current and former government officials on recommendations for sharing classified information more widely within the government, according to a report issued by the group. The report identifies Ms. McCarthy as a 'nongovernment' expert," The New York Times reported.
In April 2006, ten days before she was due to retire; McCarthy was fired from the CIA for allegedly leaking classified information to the media, a CIA spokeswoman told reporters at the time.
The CIA said McCarthy had spoken with numerous journalists, including The Washington Post's Dana Priest, who in November 2005 exposed the CIA's secret prison sites, where in 2002 the CIA videotaped its agents interrogating a so-called high-level detainee, Abu Zubaydah. The videotaped interrogation of Zubaydah, which is said to have shown the prisoner being subjected to waterboarding, was destroyed after Priest's story was published, and is now at the center of a wide-ranging Congressional and Justice Department investigation. Priest won a Pulitzer Prize for her expose. The CIA did not say whether McCarthy was a source for Priest's story.
Following news reports of her dismissal from the CIA, McCarthy, through her attorney Ty Cobb, vehemently denied leaking classified information to the media. However, the CIA said she failed a polygraph test after the agency launched an internal investigation in late 2005. The agency said the investigation was an attempt to find out who provided The Washington Post and The New York Times with information about its covert activities, including domestic surveillance, and it promptly fired her.
The Washington Post reported, "McCarthy was not an ideologue, her friends say, but at some point fell into a camp of CIA officers who felt that the Bush administration's venture into Iraq had dangerously diverted US counterterrorism policy. After seeing - in e-mails, cable traffic, interview transcripts and field reports - some of the secret fruits of the Iraq intervention, McCarthy became disenchanted, three of her friends say."
"In addition to CIA misrepresentations at the session last summer, McCarthy told the friends, a senior agency official failed to provide a full account of the CIA's detainee-treatment policy at a closed hearing of the House intelligence committee in February 2005, under questioning by Rep. Jane Harman (Calif.), the senior Democrat," The Washington Post says. "McCarthy also told others she was offended that the CIA's general counsel had worked to secure a secret Justice Department opinion in 2004 authorizing the agency's creation of "ghost detainees" - prisoners removed from Iraq for secret interrogations without notice to the International Committee of the Red Cross - because the Geneva Conventions prohibit such practices."
Jason Leopold is senior editor and reporter for Truthout. He received a Project Censored award in 2007 for his story on Halliburton's work in Iran.
read more digg story
t r u t h o u t Report
When Congress returns from its winter break in mid-January and continues its probe into the destruction of CIA interrogation videotapes, the lawmakers may be interested in speaking to Mary O. McCarthy.
McCarthy spent most of her career at the spy agency, most recently as deputy inspector general. In 2004, she was tapped by the CIA's Inspector General John Helgerson to assist him with several internal investigations.
One of those investigations included a closer look at the CIA's interrogation methods. The report on this probe was completed in spring 2004. It concluded that some of the agency's approved interrogation methods "appeared to constitute cruel, inhumane and degrading treatment, as defined by the International Convention Against Torture," according to a New York Times story published in November 2005. That was the same month the CIA destroyed the videotapes.
Helgerson personally viewed the videotapes that showed two detainees being subjected to waterboarding by CIA officers, which formed the foundation for his still classified report on the CIA's interrogations methods. McCarthy was also personally briefed on the existence and content of the videotapes, according to several CIA officials who worked closely with her, however it's unknown whether she viewed the material. McCarthy assisted Helgerson in drafting the classified report on the CIA's use of specific interrogation methods against high-level detainees.
"The officials who described the report said it discussed particular techniques used by the CIA against particular prisoners, including about three dozen terror suspects being held by the agency in secret locations around the world," the New York Times story says. "They said it referred in particular to the treatment of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, who is said to have organized the Sept. 11 attacks and who has been detained in a secret location by the CIA since he was captured in March 2003. Mr. Mohammed is among those believed to have been subjected to waterboarding, in which a prisoner is strapped to a board and made to believe that he is drowning.
"In his report, Mr. Helgerson also raised concern about whether the use of the techniques could expose agency officers to legal liability," the officials said, according to the New York Times account. "They said the report expressed skepticism about the Bush administration view that any ban on cruel, inhumane and degrading treatment under the treaty does not apply to CIA interrogations because they take place overseas on people who are not citizens of the United States."
According to a May 2006 Washington Post story, a friend said McCarthy "worried that neither Helgerson nor the agency's congressional overseers would fully examine what happened or why." Another friend said, "She had the impression that this stuff has been pretty well buried." The Post story reported, "In McCarthy's view and that of many colleagues, friends say, torture was not only wrong but also misguided, because it rarely produced useful results."
McCarthy also oversaw the Inspector General's investigation into the treatment of prisoners in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Her "findings are secret," The Washington Post reported in May 2006. "According to a brief CIA statement about the probe in a federal lawsuit filed by the American Civil Liberties Union, investigators set out to examine "the conduct of CIA components and personnel, including DO personnel" during interrogations. Tens of thousands of pages of material were collected, including White House and Justice Department documents, and multiple reports were issued. Some described cases of abuse, involving fewer than a dozen individuals, and were forwarded to the Justice Department, according to government officials."
The reports are seen by only a handful of people.
"When IG inquiries involve covert actions such as foreign interrogations, for example, the agency briefs only the chairmen and ranking members of the House and Senate intelligence committees, instead of the full panels," the Washington Post reported. "So only a handful of people in Washington knew what McCarthy knew."
But the timing of the November 2005 New York Times story regarding the contents of the inspector general's report on interrogation methods, and the publication of a separate, more explosive story in The Washington Post the same month exposing the CIA's covert interrogation activities, suggests that the CIA may have decided to destroy the videotaped interrogations because it feared the tapes would become part of the public record and could expose its agents to a federal criminal investigation.
The New York Times has reported that Jose Rodriguez, head of the CIA's clandestine division, destroyed the videotapes after receiving written authorization from attorneys in the clandestine division. The reasons for purging the tapes, according to one of the The New York Times' unnamed sources, is that in the event of a leak "there was concern for the careers of officers shown on the tapes. We didn't want them to become political scapegoats."
If that's true, then the publication of Priest's CIA secret prison story, and the Times story on the IG investigation into the agency's interrogation methods in November 2005 - the same month and year the videotapes were destroyed - would amount to a very strange coincidence.
Neither McCarthy, now an attorney, nor an attorney who had represented her, Ty Cobb, returned emails or messages left at their offices for comment.
Helgerson's report into the CIA's interrogation techniques rankled some officials at the agency, The New York Times reported, and his critique of agency operations is said to have played a role in the decision by CIA Director Michael V. Hayden to turn the tables on the watchdog and launch an internal probe into Helgerson's work. Hayden alleged that Helgerson's investigations into the agency's detention and interrogation policies were not objective. Helgerson's office is just one of various federal agencies investigating circumstances that led to the destruction of the videotapes and whether any federal laws were broken as a result.
McCarthy was among a group of former intelligence officials who late last year signed a letter opposing the nomination of Attorney General Michael Mukasey on grounds he would not denounce waterboarding. She alleged that - two years or so after she and Helgerson completed their report into the agency's interrogation practices - CIA officials lied to members of Congress during an intelligence briefing when they said the agency did not violate treaties that bar, cruel, inhumane, or degrading treatment of detainees during interrogations, according to a May 14, 2006, front-page story in The Washington Post.
"A CIA employee of two decades, McCarthy became convinced that 'CIA people had lied' in that briefing, as one of her friends said later, not only because the agency had conducted abusive interrogations but also because its policies authorized treatment that she considered cruel, inhumane or degrading," The Washington Post reported.
In his book, "At the Center of the Storm", former CIA Director George Tenet wrote that McCarthy was present at a meeting with Condoleezza Rice in May 2001 where Tenet discussed Abu Zubaydah's alleged plans to attack the US and Israel. Abu Zubaydah was captured in Pakistan less than a year later and was whisked to a secret CIA prison site in Thailand, where he was interrogated and subjected to waterboarding. At the time, McCarthy had been working as senior director at the National Security Council, according to Tenet.
"For my regularly scheduled meeting with Condi Rice on May 30, [2001], I brought along [deputy CIA director] John McLaughlin, [then director of the CIA's counterterrorist center] Cofer Black, one of Cofer's top assistants, Rich B. (Rich can't be further identified here). Joining Condi were [former White House counterterrorism czar Richard] Clarke and Mary McCarthy," Tenet wrote. "Rich ran through the mounting warning signs of a coming attack. They were truly frightening. Among other things, we told Condi that a notorious al-Qa'ida operative named Abu Zubaydah was working on attack plans."
Truthout previously reported that Homeland Security Director Michael Chertoff advised the CIA between 2002 and 2003 that its agents had the legal authority to use interrogation tactics on Abu Zubaydah that included waterboarding.
Chertoff was head of the Justice Department's Criminal Division when CIA officials inquired whether its agents could be charged with violating the federal anti-torture statute for employing interrogation methods such as waterboarding. The tactic causes detainees to slowly drown, and is generally terminated before the detainees die.
"The CIA was seeking to determine the legal limits of interrogation practices for use in cases like that of Abu Zubaydah, the Qaeda lieutenant who was captured in March 2002," says a January 29, 2005, New York Times story. That story said unnamed sources told the newspaper that "Chertoff was directly involved in these discussions, in effect evaluating the legality of techniques proposed by the CIA by advising the agency whether its employees could go ahead with proposed interrogation methods without fear of prosecution."
During his Senate confirmation hearing in February 2005, Chertoff maintained that he provided the CIA broad guidance in response to its questions about interrogation methods and never specifically addressed legality regarding waterboarding or other techniques.
Chertoff, according to intelligence sources who spoke to Truthout, was briefed about the videotaped interrogations. Chertoff told former CIA General Counsel Scott Muller and his deputy, John Rizzo, that an August 1, 2002, memo widely referred to as the "Torture Memo" put the CIA on solid legal ground and that its agents could waterboard a prisoner without fear of prosecution. The memo was written by former Justice Department attorney John Yoo.
Yoo's memo said that Congress "may no more regulate the President's ability to detain and interrogate enemy combatants than it may regulate his ability to direct troop movements on the battlefield."
At his confirmation hearing in 2005, Chertoff claims he did not advise Rizzo or Muller on the legality of specific methods agents used during their interrogation of Abu Zubaydah. Rather, he said, he answered general questions the CIA had posed about interrogations.
"You are dealing in an area where there is potential criminality," Chertoff said he told the agency. "You better be very careful to make sure that whatever you decide to do falls well within what is required by law."
In his book, "The One Percent Doctrine," author Ron Suskind said Zubaydah was not the "high value detainee" the CIA had claimed. Rather, Zubaydah was a minor player in the al-Qaeda organization, handling travel for associates and their families, Suskind says.
Abu Zubaydah's captors soon discovered that their prisoner was mentally ill and knew nothing about terrorist operations or impending plots. That realization was "echoed at the top of CIA and was, of course, briefed to the President and Vice President," Suskind writes. Tenet, though, says claims that Abu Zubaydah was not a valuable prisoner are "hogwash."
McCarthy began working at the Inspector General's office in 2004, according to The New York Times. She had taken a leave of absence from the CIA after 9/11 and spent some time at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, a Washington think tank. She testified before the 9/11 Commission in late 2003 about methods that could enhance intelligence-gathering activities, in the hope of avoiding another terrorist attack on US soil.
In 1998, she wrote an article in the Defense Intelligence Journal under the headline "The Mission to Warn: Disaster Looms" about shortfalls in intelligence gathering and how they could lead to catastrophic events.
McCarthy also spent some time with the Markle Foundation group, "the Task Force on National Security in the Information Age, working with academics as well as current and former government officials on recommendations for sharing classified information more widely within the government, according to a report issued by the group. The report identifies Ms. McCarthy as a 'nongovernment' expert," The New York Times reported.
In April 2006, ten days before she was due to retire; McCarthy was fired from the CIA for allegedly leaking classified information to the media, a CIA spokeswoman told reporters at the time.
The CIA said McCarthy had spoken with numerous journalists, including The Washington Post's Dana Priest, who in November 2005 exposed the CIA's secret prison sites, where in 2002 the CIA videotaped its agents interrogating a so-called high-level detainee, Abu Zubaydah. The videotaped interrogation of Zubaydah, which is said to have shown the prisoner being subjected to waterboarding, was destroyed after Priest's story was published, and is now at the center of a wide-ranging Congressional and Justice Department investigation. Priest won a Pulitzer Prize for her expose. The CIA did not say whether McCarthy was a source for Priest's story.
Following news reports of her dismissal from the CIA, McCarthy, through her attorney Ty Cobb, vehemently denied leaking classified information to the media. However, the CIA said she failed a polygraph test after the agency launched an internal investigation in late 2005. The agency said the investigation was an attempt to find out who provided The Washington Post and The New York Times with information about its covert activities, including domestic surveillance, and it promptly fired her.
The Washington Post reported, "McCarthy was not an ideologue, her friends say, but at some point fell into a camp of CIA officers who felt that the Bush administration's venture into Iraq had dangerously diverted US counterterrorism policy. After seeing - in e-mails, cable traffic, interview transcripts and field reports - some of the secret fruits of the Iraq intervention, McCarthy became disenchanted, three of her friends say."
"In addition to CIA misrepresentations at the session last summer, McCarthy told the friends, a senior agency official failed to provide a full account of the CIA's detainee-treatment policy at a closed hearing of the House intelligence committee in February 2005, under questioning by Rep. Jane Harman (Calif.), the senior Democrat," The Washington Post says. "McCarthy also told others she was offended that the CIA's general counsel had worked to secure a secret Justice Department opinion in 2004 authorizing the agency's creation of "ghost detainees" - prisoners removed from Iraq for secret interrogations without notice to the International Committee of the Red Cross - because the Geneva Conventions prohibit such practices."
Jason Leopold is senior editor and reporter for Truthout. He received a Project Censored award in 2007 for his story on Halliburton's work in Iran.
read more digg story
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)