You can view this video right here by getting the latest version of Flash Player!

DOWNLOADS: (25)

PLAYS: (72)

Lawrence O'Donnell reports on the expected right wing freak-out over Eric Holder’s announcement that Khalid Sheikh Mohammed among others will be tried in New York rather than military tribunals. Jonathan Turley weighs in and notes that this is a return to the rule of law after the disgrace that was the Bush administration.

Turley has more at his blog-- 9-11 Defendants to be Given Real Trials as Holder Stands on Principle — Sort Of:

Attorney General Eric Holder has ordered actual trials for five 9/11 suspects rather than military tribunals. The decision places the United States squarely back on the road of the rule of law in giving due process even to our most hated defendants. The five defendants include 9/11 mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammed. The other four are Waleed bin Attash, Ramzi Binalshibh, Mustafa Ahmad al-Hawsawi and Ali Abd al-Aziz Ali. However, this courageous act was diminished by an inexplicable decision of Holder to order five other defendants — including USS Cole suspect Abd al-Rahim al-Nashiri — be tried in a military tribunal. I will be discussing this decision tonight on MSNBC Countdown.

Texas GOP Sen. John Cornyn condemned the move as putting “political ideology ahead of the safety of the American people just to fulfill an ill-conceived campaign promise.” I am not sure what ideology means but I assume it is a reference to the Constitution. What makes us safer is to offer the world an alternative to these men; to show that we are not the hypocrites that we appeared during the Bush Administration.

The decision to send some detainees to military tribunals, however, is a baffling contradiction. Holder has denied the Administration the high ground in the debate by trying to appease both sides and deny due process to some of these accused individuals. It is a case of snatching hypocrisy out of the jaws of principle.

The right is going crazy over this of course since they don't want the Bush administration exposed for the treatment of these terrorism suspects. Limbaugh admits as much in the rant they play in the beginning of the segment whether he meant to or not.

You can view this video right here by getting the latest version of Flash Player!

DOWNLOADS: (110)

PLAYS: (273)

From Countdown:

Professor Jonathan Turley discusses the legal implications for former President George Bush if he tried to force his attorney general, John Ashcroft to authorize domestic spying.

Jonathan has more at his blog. Reports Shows Additional Undisclosed Surveillance Programs — And Likely Unlawful Conduct by Bush Administration:

A new government report has disclosed that President Bush authorized secret surveillance activities that went beyond the previously disclosed NSA program – raising the prospect of additional unlawful conduct by the Bush Administration. At the same time, a House member has revealed that CIA Director Leon Panetta has shutdown a program that was never revealed to Congress in direct violation of federal law. I will be discussing these stories tonight on MSNBC Countdown.

In a notable change, the report now describes the entire program as the “President’s Surveillance Program,” going beyond the domestic surveillance program. It also highlights the individual who is most accountable for criminal violations as well as the failure of the Obama Administration to allow investigations into unlawful surveillance or torture. As the evidence of such unlawful conduct mounts, the blocking of a criminal investigation by Attorney General Holder grows more serious as an abdication of his oath to uphold our laws.

Notably, the “usual suspects” refused to be interviewed: former CIA Director George Tenet, former Attorney General John Ashcroft, former White House Chief of Staff Andrew Card; former top Cheney aide David Addington; and John Yoo, who served as a deputy assistant attorney general. Given the potential incrimination prospects, they have at least acted in deference to the criminal code even as Holder appears to ignore it.

Marcy Wheeler's been all over this story as well and has more on the latest revelations to come out of the IG's report. George Bush PERSONALLY Sent Card and Gonzales to Thug Up Ashcroft:

Today's IG Report on illegal wiretapping answers another previously unanswered question: who called Mrs. Ashcroft to tell her Andy Card and Alberto Gonzales were coming to the ICU ward to rough of John Ashcroft.

George Bush did so himself.

From the report:

According to notes from Ashcroft's FBI security detail, at 6:20 PM that evening Card called the hospital and spoke with an agent in Ashcroft's security detail, advising him that President Bush would be calling shortly to speak with Ashcroft. Ashcroft's wife told the agent that Ashcroft would not accept the call. Ten minutes later, the agent called Ashcroft's Chief of Staff David Ayres at DOJ to request that Ayres speak with Card about the President's intention to call Ashcroft. The agent conveyed to Ayres Mrs. Ashcroft's desire that no calls be made to Ashcroft for another day or two. However, at 6:5 PM, Card and the President called the hospital and, according to the agent's notes, "insisted on speaking [with Attorney General Ashcroft]." According to the agent's notes, Mrs. Ashcroft took the call from Card and the President and was informed that Gonzales and Card were coming to the hospital to see Ashcroft regarding a matter involving national security. (24) [my emphasis]

As Jonathan noted the only thing standing in the way of anything being done to bring the Bush administration to justice over these matters is the Obama administration's unwillingness to go after them. I would imagine that unwillingness is a result of being too worried about how Republicans will react with trying to get any legislation passed if they do it. That and the right wing screechers on talk radio and the rest of our "main stream media" saying they are criminalizing policy, rather than taking an honest look at the illegalities that have been done in the name of keeping us safe from terrorism.

You can view this video right here by getting the latest version of Flash Player!

DOWNLOADS: (104)

PLAYS: (228)

Rachel Maddow talks to Jonathan Turley about why Judge Bybee is lobbying the Nevada congressional delegation to, as Think Progress notes, tell his side of the story. As Turley points out this is more likely a matter for a world court than it is for a state to become involved with since it deals with international agreements on war crimes which is something a state has no authority to act upon.

They also discuss Nancy Pelosi's double speak on what she knew about our "enhanced interrogation program"...a.k.a. torture and why she never allowed the Bush administration to be investigated for that and why she said that impeachment was "off the table".

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi is trying to fend off criticism over her knowledge of the Bush Administration’s plan to torture detainees. Pelosi has adopted a highly lawyered exclamation that she was briefed on the plan but never told that they were implementing the plan. It is a distinction lost on civil libertarians. She was still briefed on a war crime and did not act to stop it.

So, here is the analogy. Someone briefs you on their conclusion that they are allowed to burn down buildings, but you are not responsible unless you personally see the smoke or you are told about the arsons. I was not aware that asserting the right to commit war crimes was not a concern for congressional oversight. So, the Bush Administration went to all the trouble of securing formal opinions to allow it to torture people and to brief high ranking democrats, but Pelosi did not consider it a matter of sufficient concern to call for action from the Committees. This occurred at the same time that Bush and others were calling for rough treatment of detainees and publicly questioning the application of things like the Geneva Conventions.

Notably, lawyers are required to act when a client tells them that they are considering an action that could result in physical injury or death in other individuals. Yet, when Pelosi is told about the Administration belief that it can commit war crimes, she feels no compulsion to act until after the war crimes are committed.

You can read the rest of his post here.

You can view this video right here by getting the latest version of Flash Player!

DOWNLOADS: (1736)

PLAYS: (2082)

From the AP:

Bush administration lawyers who approved harsh interrogation techniques of terror suspects should not face criminal charges, Justice Department investigators say in a draft report that recommends two of the three attorneys face possible professional sanctions.

The recommendations come after an Obama administration decision last month to make public legal memos authorizing the use of harsh interrogation methods but not to prosecute CIA interrogators who followed advice outlined in the memos.

And if that weren't bad enough Jonathan Turley reports:

The Washington Post reports that Bush officials are working the halls and telephones of the Justice Department with the formal end of the internal investigation into former Justice officials involved in the Bush torture program, including Ninth Circuit Judge Jay S. Bybee, Berkeley professor John C. Yoo and Steven G. Bradbury. They are reportedly working over former colleagues to soften the language and recommendations of the department. I will be discussing this and other related stories on tonight’s Countdown.

An earlier draft report recommended disciplinary action by state bar associations against two former Justice officials — pretty light punishment for participation in a war crime. However, even that recommendation was too much for former Attorney General Michael Mukasey who delayed the report and ordered further examination. Mukasey and then-Deputy Attorney General Mark Filip wrote a 14-page letter rebutting the report of its own investigators before leaving office.

The investigation could, however, disclose new information given the five years of work by the department into the matter. The deadline for the investigation ended on Monday of this week.

Assistant Attorney General Ronald Weich has informed members of Congress that Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr. and Deputy Attorney General David W. Ogden “will have access to whatever information they need to evaluate the final report and make determinations about appropriate next steps.”

The Justice Department continues to insist on total control over the investigation of its own attorneys and department in a clear conflict of interest. Not just political appointees but career attorneys were involved in the program. The department is now reviewing whether the department itself facilitated in the commission of a war crime — a finding that would be an embarrassment to the department as a whole. This is like having a hospital review its own doctors to determine if those doctors and the hospital as a whole committed criminal malpractice.

The fact that there is lobbying going on between current and former Justice Department officials shows the highly inbred aspect of this inquiry. These same former officials would not think of trying to influence a special prosecutor, who is supposed to be appointed in such conflicted circumstances. Not surprisingly, a report from the New York Times indicates that the Justice Department will use this report to conclude that its lawyers should not face criminal charges when facilitating such programs.

In this context, discussion of bar charges appears rather laughable. It is not that such action is not warranted, but rather it is treating participating in a possible war crime as something less than a misdemeanor offense.

You can view this video right here by getting the latest version of Flash Player!

DOWNLOADS: (1868)

PLAYS: (4720)

You would think that Chris Matthews would know something about Jonathan Turley, since he's been on MSNBC for years and has openly spoken about the Bush administration and torture, and has consistently said that waterboarding is a war crime and should be prosecuted.

The key exchange:

TURLEY: You know, Chris, the thing that disturbs me most, the thing that I think is most grotesque, is not the thought of prosecuting high-ranking officials, it's that high-ranking officials ordered war crimes. And if we need to prosecute it to show the world that we are not hypocrites...

MATTHEWS: When did you first say that?

TURLEY: When did I first say that we should prosecute?

MATTHEWS: Yes.

TURLEY: Back in the Bush administration.

MATTHEWS: And why—I remember that. Why did the—why do you think there was no call within the legal community to do what you‘re saying right now? Why was this country so relatively silent? You were out there alone. Why was this country so silent on the possibility that war crimes were being committed in this country for eight years?

TURLEY: Well, unfortunately, that was part of the distortive effect after 9/11. And quite frankly, we lost our bearings. And this really shows how dangerous torture can be. When you hate someone enough or you‘re afraid enough...

MATTHEWS: OK, so what you think is possible here...

TURLEY: ... that you can violate the law.

Transcript below the fold:

Continue reading »

You can view this video right here by getting the latest version of Flash Player!

DOWNLOADS: (1925)

PLAYS: (4052)

From Countdown April 27, 2009. Keith talks to Jonathan Turley about lastest revelations that the torture that occurred may not have stayed within the legal guidelines as defined by Bush OLC and therefore be subject to prosecution. Jonathan Turley makes this observation on the Democrats being informed about the torture:

Turley: We now know that the Bush administration did what frankly a lot of criminal enterprises do. They bring in people to expose them to what they know to be an illegal program or illegal act. It's a lesson that frankly I know some of my past clients used in their organization and so they even brought in Democratic Senators to get them to buy into the program.

But there's this notion that if you had so many people that knew about it, it's less of a crime. Of course that's ridiculous. It's a worse crime. If you're a rogue operator and nobody knew that you tortured it would be treated as a simple crime. A war crime is, the concern there is that is was coordinated and premeditated and many people participated in it. And that's exactly what we have here.

You can view this video right here by getting the latest version of Flash Player!

DOWNLOADS: (152)

PLAYS: (424)

After Chris Matthews shows a clip of his buddy St. McCain saying he doesn't want the United States to become a Banana Republic, Jonathan Turley attempts to inject some sanity into the conversation with Chris Matthews and Pat Buchanan. Turley explains why McCain's statements about being a Banana Republic are wrong and why we should not be condoning torture. I'm sure he would have done a better job if given more of a chance to speak. Is it possible for either Chris Matthews or Pat Buchanan to ever allow someone complete a sentence without interrupting them?

You can view this video right here by getting the latest version of Flash Player!

DOWNLOADS: (955)

PLAYS: (2130)

David Shuster talks to former military investigator Matthew Alexander about why the techniques the Bush administration used do not work. Alexander noted that all torture did was prove to be a recruiting tool for al Qaeda and harden prisoners' resolve not to cooperate with interrogators. As I said if Joe Scarborough wants to have an honest debate on this subject he should be talking to people like Matthew Alexander or Jonathan Turley.

DOWNLOAD (76)

PLAY (101)

Keith talks to Jonathan Turley about the Obama administrations decision to make the claim of state secrets to block a lawsuit brought by the Electronic Frontier Foundation. From Turley's post Obama Administration Invokes State Secrets To Kill Lawsuit Over Unlawful Surveillance Program:

In yet another break with its campaign promise to fight to restore civil liberties and privacy, the Obama Administration has made a breathtaking claim of state secrets to block a public interest organization from suing the government for illegal surveillance. There is not a scintilla of difference in the legal position of President Obama and the position of President Bush in trying to quash any effort to challenge unlawful surveillance by the government. It appears the “yes we can” means “yes we can do most anything that we want” when it comes to unlawful programs. I will be discussing this story (and the new disclosures on torture) tonight on MSNBC Countdown.

The Administration is moving to kill a lawsuit brought by the Electronic Frontier Foundation on behalf of AT&T customers who were unlawfully intercepted by the government. Not only is the Administration making an extreme argument under the military and state secrets doctrine but it is claimed that citizens cannot sue, even if the government engages in unlawful surveillance, under the Patriot Act. Due to changes put through with Democratic support, the statute is being used to block any lawsuit unless the citizens can show that there was “willful disclosure’” of the communications by the government.

As Jonathan noted in his interview with Keith, there are plenty of reasons to be supportive of the Obama administration but this is not one of them. Politics should not come before following the law, whether it is a Democratic or Republican administration in charge.

DOWNLOAD (33)

PLAY (76)

From Countdown Jonathan Turley weighs in on the outrage over the AIG bonuses. Turley believes that it would be much easier to get the money back from AIG rather than the individuals who received the bonuses. He also notes where some the anger over this should be directed:

Turley: And I think part of the anger here really shouldn't be directed at AIG. We all knew what AIG was. The anger, and legitimately can be directed at Congress and both parties. I mean you have these members going around expressing complete shock. But you know when you give billions and billions of dollars to the Pirates of Penzance you can hardly be surprised if they, you know, spend it on women and grog.

DOWNLOAD (40)

PLAY (89)

Apparently Nancy Pelosi has told Rolling Stone that she is open to the idea of prosecuting Bush officials. Jonathan Turley is pessimistic as am I.

As Turley notes, Pelosi blocked impeachment hearings and can't be trusted to be an honest broker for any accountability of the Bush administration after having done that. I'll believe that Pelosi will actually hold the Bush administration to account for anything they've done when I see it. Until then, it's all hot air.

It's tragic that Bush officials managed to make the leadership in the Democratic party complicit with them after 9-11 when they had them scared to death about losing elections if they didn't go along with them on the torture of prisoners, and they've likely been black mailing them more or less for their silence on this and the other criminal activities as well that the Dems are aware of ever since.

Brad Friedman weighed in on this and I agree with his slant. Pelosi Tells Rolling Stone She 'Thinks' She Can Foresee Prosecution of Senior Bush Admin Officials

In today's Tim Dickinson interview with House Speaker Nancy Pelosi in Rolling Stone, it sure seems like she's leaning towards accountability for the criminals in the Bush Administration. Many of her words sound like the correct ones, even if she's a bit too enamored of Leahy's "Truth and Reconciliation Committee" proposal, which, among other "shameful" things, would likely results in a whole bunch of immunity, to a whole bunch of folks who deserve no such thing.

But she says she supports what Conyers is doing in the Judiciary Committee, in continuing to pursue Rove, Bolten and Miers. She says she can foresee a scenario in which senior members of the Administration are actually prosecuted. She says "The American people do not want wrongdoing to go unaddressed." She even said similar words to Fox "News" two days before the Inauguration.

So why does it always feel like she's still sitting on a fence? And, if she really believes these words she says, as House Speaker, can't she do more to make them happen?

She's sitting on that fence because she's likely been told that if you take the Bush administration down, you're going down with them. And torture is not the only issue they're at risk for. The reason for invading Iraq and the spying on American citizens are the other big two that the Democrats went along with, and don't want to be held accountable for either. Our "Gang of Eight" is the biggest obstruction we've got to ever holding the Bush crowd accountable for what they've done and until all of these people are voted out of office or retire I don't see that changing.

DOWNLOAD (32)

PLAY (72)

Keith talks to Jonathan Turley about the statements made by Leon Panetta during and after his confirmation hearing regarding prosecutions for torture.

DOWNLOAD (36)

PLAY (64)

David Shuster filling in for Keith talks to Jonathan Turley about the latest twists and turns with Rove refusing to appear before Congress. Turley feels that Rove can no longer continue to maintain the untenable position that they're going to invoke executive privilege to protect the executive branch against information from the executive branch and that Rove might be finally be looking at a real chance of indictment and contempt chareges.

We can only hope. If anyone finally gets to the bottom of the Don Siegelman case I think Karl Rove is in big trouble. This latest news is a good step in the right direction.

Rachel Maddow with her second to last edition of Lame Duck Watch and a follow up to Keith's Special Comment with Jonathan Turley who again weighs in on the need for the Obama administration to allow the Bush administration to be prosecuted for war crimes. I say Turley for Special Prosecutor! Now that would be a change I could believe in.

January 15, 2009 MSNBC Rachel Maddow Show