Will There be a Probe into Cheney-Bush Abuse of Power?

Laura

Administrator
Administrator
Moderator
FOTCM Member
_http://www.nashuatelegraph.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20090726/NEWS03/907269995

Call is made for Bush 'abuses' probe

WASHINGTON (AP) – The chairman of the House Judiciary Committee on Friday urged Attorney General Eric Holder to appoint a special counsel to examine potential abuses by former President George W. Bush's administration. Rep. John Conyers, D-Mich., said in a speech to the National Press Club that Holder "must appoint a special counsel to review the Bush administration abuses of power and misconduct. A criminal probe – he's got to do that." Conyers' committee has sought an investigation of Bush administration moves criticized by Democrats, including its methods of interrogating foreign detainees, use of warrantless wiretaps, alleged retribution against critics, and allegations that officials intentionally misused intelligence.


_http://www.dailykos.com/story/2009/7/26/212248/630?new=true
There is No Choice But to Probe Cheney-Bush Abuses

We have learned that Vice President Dick Cheney, in 2002, recommended sending troops into the Buffalo area to apprehend the "Lackawanna Six." These people were accused of involvement in terrorism, which Cheney thought was enough of an excuse to bypass legal barriers to the use of soldiers to seize property or carry out police functions.

One wonders if he was interested in creating a precedent for the use of troops in American cities on a more regular basis. We know that he and his friend Donald Rumsfeld have been involved in continuation of government planning since the Reagan presidency and we suspect that all these contingency plans involved a greatly expanded role for the military. We also know that under the Bush-Cheney administration, a Northern Command was established and that special units from it are now functioning in the US to protect military property and that of defense contractors.

Rather than obsessing over why Dr. Louis Henry Gates dissed a Cambridge policeman, the mainstream media and we citizens should be showing more interest in health care reform, and far more importantly, the actions taken by Dick Cheney and George Bush that endanger the very health of this democratic republic.

So far, the Obama administration has not taken these matters very seriously. When Barack Obama took power, he refused to support calls for a truth commission to look into violations of the law connected with detention, torture, and domestic surveillance. He promised to close the Guantanamo detention center but retained others and continued rendition. His Justice Department defended the Bush Administration’s use of the state secret privilege and it did nothing to protect whistle blowers, firing one employee who outed Bush Administration abuses. Now Obama is threatening to veto any legislation that would curb the state secret privilege. In Congress, Speaker Nancy Pelosi said the CIA had repeatedly lied to Congress, but some evidence developed showing she knew about torture before she claimed she had but concluded only a change of administration would that. It was also clear that the agency was not telling the Congressional leaders everything. Leon Panetta, the new Director of the CIA, defended his agency against her charges. Then, in July, he told Congressional intelligence committees that after 9/11, the Bush administration opened a new covert operation that Congress had not been told about. Democrats expressed shock, but Republicans said it was an on and off operation of little consequence. However, Peter Berger, a security analyst at the American Enterprise Institute thinks that, judging from Congressional reaction, the program must have involved much more than killing some Al Qaeda people.

Panetta terminated the program and told the Congressmen that the agency had been misled about what was going on in the program. Apparently, the CIA was more interested training people in Afghanistan to carry out these tasks. CIA people are telling the prese that few were involved in the executive assassinations operation with the possible exceptions of general counsel John Rizzo and deputy director Stephen Kappes. The only part of the CIA involved in the military-directed assassinations program was the Special Activities Unit, which had a number of former Delta Force people. Some CIA people are delighted to see Cheney in hot water and hope he pays a heavy price for his death squads. They see Cheney as abetting a long-term Pentagon plan to swallow up the CIA. This dispute continues in the Obama in disputes between Admiral Dennis C. Blair, Director of National Intelligence, and Director Panetta. Don’t expect Cheney to face too much heat. A serious investigation would be politically damaging for Obama, and Cheney has left a number of "stay-behinds" who are embedded deep in the national security and cabinet departments who can obstruct any investigation.

It was soon learned that Vice President Dick Cheney had ordered the CIA not to brief the Congress about it and that it involved finding and killing terrorists abroad. Some thought it was the same "executive assassination teams" that Seymour Hersh had uncovered in March. Some believed it also involved domestic spying and the killing of several foreign leaders , an Iranian nuclear scientist, and a Hezbollah military leader. After 9/11, teams sought to find and kill Al Qaeda and Taliban leaders in Afghanistan and Iraq. The precedent for this was the Phoenix Program during the Vietnam war. The assassination program was expanded into George Tenet’s Worldwide Attack Matrix . It targeted enemies in numerous countries, including, possibly, the United States. Some have attributed the murder to Abu Seger, Saddam’s money man, to the executive assassination plan. He knew where Saddam had huge stashes of cash. He was beaten to death by interrogators, even though those who arrested him had already found $40 million in plastic bags in his bedroom. But that was chickenfeed. Some attribute a 2002 Iranian plane crash to the operation because the downed craft carried Ukranian and Russian scientists. At least five other Iranian plane crashes have been attributed to this operation. The bungled assassination of a politician in Kenya created embarrassment and the apparent shelving of the program. One cannot help wondering if British scientist Dr. David Kelly was offed by these people. Kelly told a former British ambassador that if Iraq were invaded," I will probably be found dead in the woods."

Due to problems with the CIA, Cheney came to rely upon people from the Joint Special Operations Command. Most of the personnel came from Delta Force. The JSOC was created in the Reagan administration and could have been used on occasion for sabotage and assassinations. The present commander in Afghanistan, General Stanley McCrystal, commanded JSOC beginning in September, 2003.

It , in turn, works with the Mossad’s "Kidon" Department, which does assassinations and kidnappings. Indeed, the Cheney program was based upon the successful Israeli program of preemptive assassinations. As the rift between the Rumsfeld Pentagon and the CIA widened, the agency began to back away from joint operations, seeing them as potential threats to its normal operations. Hersh maintains that the CIA withdrew early and all the wet work was done by the Pentagon’s people. On the other hand, Colonel Lawrence Wilkerson, once a top aide to Colin Powell, told Rachel Maddow the CIA did get involved in the assassinations, though it noted that much of the work was probably done by people from Delta Force. He added that it was laughable to claim the CIA never lied to Congress. Some knowledgeable Pakistanis believe that the assassination of former Prime Minister Benazir Butto on December 27, 2007 was carried out by elements within Al Qaeda and the Taliban that were indirectly controlled , probably through the Pakistan ISI, by Cheney’s assassination apparatus unclear. She was shot in the neck and chest before the bomb went off. Perhaps the assassination was an effort to keep General Perez Musharraf in power, suggesting a professional hit.

Investigations of Bush era crimes, will damage Democratic political prospects because the MSM lacks the integrity to separate these investigations from mere political witch hunts. In previous eras, there would have been some Republicans in national life who would have been very concerned about assassinations, the state secret privilege abuses, domestic spying, and more. Alas, that is not the case today. Almost all will simply parrot the McConnell-Boehner line that probing the Cheney-Bush abuses is nothing but politics. These matters go to the very fabric of our republic, and steps must be taken make certain these actions are not precedents for future abuses.

Both of the above articles accept comments, so ya'll might want to add your voices. If you have blogs, cross post or link to the above. There is also the Conyer's Report we carried on SOTT. If ya'll haven't read it, DO. Yeah, it's long, but it's jam packed with stuff!

So far, all we see is exposure after exposure of what those gangsters were doing that was/is illegal. Problem is, Obama is following in their footsteps. My guess is the idea is for Obama to take the fall for it all and, because he's African-American, to utilize that factor to ramp up the White Supremacists. If Obama doesn't wake up to this, he may very well be the trigger for a racial war in the U.S.

It's not likely that there will be a criminal probe unless a lot of people start talking about this, blogging about it, demanding it, and getting in their faces. I still like my idea of everybody printing out a copy of the Conyers report, sending it to their congressperson with a cover letter saying "Do what this report recommends!"
 
Laura said:
So far, all we see is exposure after exposure of what those gangsters were doing that was/is illegal. Problem is, Obama is following in their footsteps. My guess is the idea is for Obama to take the fall for it all and, because he's African-American, to utilize that factor to ramp up the White Supremacists. If Obama doesn't wake up to this, he may very well be the trigger for a racial war in the U.S.

I've been thinking along the same lines. Not only that, but as he comes across on the surface as 'human' (caring, intelligent etc) that there may also be a back lash against those traits in the next 'choice' of leader (and perhaps even society in general).
Not knowing my pre-WWII history that well, where the people in power at the time of Hitlers rise to power also 'human' but ineffectual (and inheriting/continuing a mess)? Do you think its looking like a replay of that?
 
Laura said:
Both of the above articles accept comments, so ya'll might want to add your voices.

I've added my voice where I was allowed, but at this site:

_http://www.dailykos.com/story/2009/7/26/212248/630?new=true

I couldn't find any create comment option.
I am thrilled to see this information being posted by bloggers and will support the exposure any way I can.
 
Buddy, try creating a new account on Daily Kos. You should then have the ability to comment.
 
Thanks, Pinkerton. Since I have to wait 24 hrs. before posting my comment (after signing up), I may as well prepare a diary myself.
 
Also a good general reminder is to go and comment on other issues as well as the one you are "targeting" when first signing up at different forums/blogs/etc. Otherwise the quick-witted will out you as a "troll" - meaning you sign up and only comment on the one article you are interested in.
 
Laura said:
So far, all we see is exposure after exposure of what those gangsters were doing that was/is illegal. Problem is, Obama is following in their footsteps. My guess is the idea is for Obama to take the fall for it all and, because he's African-American, to utilize that factor to ramp up the White Supremacists. If Obama doesn't wake up to this, he may very well be the trigger for a racial war in the U.S.

While walking my dog at a local recreational area, I encountered a Latino father and son who were hiking and looking for a place to get a drink of water. There appeared to be a pump along the road and I was headed there as well. The guys got there first only to find that the pump was inoperable. The man was very disgusted as his son was quite thirsty and the recreational area had hiking trails and picnic areas, but no access to drinking water. He annoyingly said, "That's Westerville for you!" I let the remark go at first, but remembered that the area was actually under the jurisdiction of Columbus. I caught up with him and let him know that was the case and added that, considering Columbus' budget crunch, it was unlikely that any changes would be made even if complaints were made. I also mentioned that I had read that many states were closing their Rest Area facilities along interstates and how crazy that was. His response was the wrong person was in the White House! I said something about that it didn't seem to matter who was elected, nothing really changes. I forget exactly what he said in response, other that it was clear he felt the present administration was no good. I can only assume he thought Bush was A-OK. I was just really surprised that a Latino would think this way!
 
RedFox

I've been thinking along the same lines. Not only that, but as he comes across on the surface as 'human' (caring, intelligent etc) that there may also be a back lash against those traits in the next 'choice' of leader (and perhaps even society in general). Not knowing my pre-WWII history that well, where the people in power at the time of Hitlers rise to power also 'human' but ineffectual (and inheriting/continuing a mess)? Do you think its looking like a replay of that?

The pre WWII period in Germany is called the Weimar Republic.

from wikipedia:

The Weimar Republic is the name given by historians to the parliamentary republic established in 1919 in Germany to replace the imperial form of government, named after Weimar, the place where the constitutional assembly took place. Its official name was still Deutsches Reich (German Empire), however. Following World War I, the republic emerged from the German Revolution in November 1918. In 1919, a national assembly convened in the city of Weimar, where a new constitution for the German Reich was written, to be adopted on 11 August. This liberal democracy eventually lapsed in the early 1930, leading to the ascent of the NSDAP and Adolf Hitler in 1933. Although the constitution of 1919 was never officially repealed, the legal measures taken by the Nazi government in February and March 1933, commonly known as Gleichschaltung ("coordination") meant that the government could legislate contrary to the constitution. The constitution became irrelevant, therefore 1933 is usually seen as the end of the Weimar Republic and the beginning of Hitler's "Third Reich".

In its 14 years the Weimar Republic was faced with numerous problems, including hyperinflation, political extremists and their paramilitaries, and hostility from the victors of the First World War. However, it overcame many discriminatory regulations of the Treaty of Versailles, reformed the currency, unified tax politics and the railway system. Its constitution was seen as one of the most modern in the world and the Republic represented a period of cultural innovation in Germany. However, because it preceded the NSDAP period, the republic is widely seen as a cautionary example of a failed democracy.

This period seems to have different aspects then the one we experience now. The weimar republic was a result of
- the loss of a devastating war
- a revolution because of the loss of that war.
- the creation of a new constitution.

It seemed to be temporary flair up of humanity, due to the horrors of WW1, in a society that was too far in the ponerization process to be changed and avoid that what was yet to come.

The US prior to the current period did not go through similar events. It might have more similarities to the european society pre WW1 with a high hysterization.
 
Jeremy F Kreuz said:
It seemed to be temporary flair up of humanity, due to the horrors of WW1, in a society that was too far in the ponerization process to be changed and avoid that what was yet to come.

I think what's happening is what usually happens, you have "normal" people who have an incredibly difficult time seeing the insidious actions of psychopaths for what they truly are because they would never conceive of doing the same thing themselves and you have the psychopaths who will basically take the truth to their graves.
 
Although the constitution of 1919 was never officially repealed, the legal measures taken by the Nazi government in February and March 1933, commonly known as Gleichschaltung ("coordination") meant that the government could legislate contrary to the constitution. The constitution became irrelevant...

Hmm, can you say Patriot Act?!! :evil:
 
Back
Top Bottom