Iraq tribunal hears defense closing in Anfal genocide trial

Sunday, May 06, 2007

[JURIST] The Iraqi High Tribunal [official website] heard closing arguments Sunday from defense lawyers in the genocide trial [JURIST news archive; BBC trial timeline] of Ali Hassan al-Majid [JURIST news archive] and other former officials in the Saddam Hussein [JURIST news archive] regime. Al-Majid - Hussein's cousin known in the Western media as "Chemical Ali" - and his co-defendants are being tried for their alleged involvement in the slaughter of tens of thousands of Kurds by using nerve agents and mustard gas during the so-called "Anfal campaign" [HRW backgrounder]. Earlier Sunday co-defendant Sultan Hashim Ahmad al-Tai, a former Hussein defense minister who was an Iraqi Army corps commander at the time of Anfal, testified that he had had no access to chemical weapons and had received no orders to use them, echoing testimony from previous defense witnesses [JURIST report]. Prosecutors have sought the death penalty [JURIST report] for Al-Majid and three other defendants and have asked that charges be dropped against one of the six total defendants due to lack of evidence. Al-Majid became the leading defendant [JURIST report] in the trial following Hussein's execution [JURIST report] last year.

According to defense lawyer Giovanni Di Stefano [firm website], previously one of Hussein's lawyers, the defendants are waiting for the court to rule on several motions, including a motion challenging the legality of the indictments [DOC text] and a motion calling for exhumations [DOC text] of the deceased killed during Anfal to allow for forensic testing. In a statement to JURIST, Di Stefano said:

I have filed a submission in order that the Defence is able to obtain its own independent forensic pathologist and toxicologist. The indictments claim that the victims were murdered using chemical weapons. No post mortum or autopsy reports have been furnished to the defence (and Court) proving that anyone died from chemical attacks. It was and remains unconceded that any such deaths occurred without proper admissible evidence. I have requested the court to permit the Defence to exhume victims and to be examined by a forensic pathologist. No response has been forthcoming from the Court.

I have filed a submission to be permitted for the defence to examine documents held by the Iraqi Survey Group and the FBI in its storage facilities in Qatar. No response has been forthcoming from the Court.

I have provided the Court with two documents [DOC text] from many of an exculpatory basis for Saddam Hussein which clearly show that Saddam Hussein ordered no chemical attacks or weapons to be used. He further ordered that villages be 'relocated' not destroyed as the documents show. It was for this reason that there was a rush to execution of Saddam Hussein as I would have introduced these and more documents in my possession to the court.

Finally, we have filed submissions regarding the vagueness of the indictments. How can anyone defend what I term a 'carte blanche indictment'? Iraq was accused of cheating at football but in this case the Iraqi High tribunal with the current form of the indictments have created a 'perpetual moving goalpost' to ensure the Defence is always hindered. I am well aware that in the Anfal case three defendants will be sentenced to death, one to imprisonment and one set free. It has been made crystal clear. Yet despite such all involved regardless of the sever handicaps and unfairness will simply proceed to do our best. Both Dujail and Anfal are being held in grossly unfair and unsafe conditions. It is for these reasons that I am prosecuting Judge Rahman in the UK and will do the same to any Judge in any jurisdiction if unfair conditions are imposed on the defence.

AP has more.

Jeannie Shawl at 11:13 PM ET

URL

The U.S. National Campaign to Impeach President George W. Bush

Video Lecture: The U.S. National Campaign to Impeach President George W. Bush Jr: By International Legal Expert Francis A. Boyle at the the Center for Peace Studies, McMaster University

Military Trumping of the Padilla Jury

Related

Presidential Candidate: U.S. In Danger of Dictatorship

---
Thursday, April 12, 2007

Jacob Hornberger’s Commentary

The Jose Padilla trial begins on Monday. As most everyone knows, this is a jury trial, which means that 12 ordinary people in the Miami area will be deciding whether Padilla is guilty or not of the terrorism charges that he has been indicted for.

What is important for everyone to recognize is the magnitude of the legal revolution that has taken place in the United States, post 9/11, with respect to what happens if the jury returns a verdict of not guilty.

Ever since the founding of the United States and prior to 9/11, if a person was acquitted in a federal criminal case, he would be immediately released from the government’s custody as soon as the jury returned a verdict of not guilty. The jury’s verdict had always been considered final. The judge had no choice but to immediately order the release of the defendant, who would walk out of the courtroom a free man immediately after the jury foreman announced two words: “Not Guilty.”

After 9/11, the law changed by virtue of orders issued by the president and the Pentagon. Announcing a “war on terrorism,” the president and the Pentagon declared that all people accused of terrorism, including Americans, would henceforth be considered “enemy combatants” and thereby be subjected to what amounted to perpetual military incarceration without trial. That declaration was ultimately ratified by the congressionally enacted Military Commissions Act.

As a result of those actions, if Padilla is acquitted by a jury of his peers, that still doesn’t mean that he will be released from government custody. At that point, despite a jury verdict of “Not Guilty,” the Pentagon has the option of taking Padilla back into custody as an “enemy combatant” and continue imprisoning him for the rest of his life.

The significance of this post-9/11 legal revolution is threefold:

(1) For centuries, the finality of a jury’s verdict has been considered an essential part of the freedom of the American people. That’s in fact why our American ancestors included the right to trial by jury in the Bill of Rights. It’s one of the things that have distinguished Americans from most of the rest of the world;

(2) The loss of finality to the jury’s verdict is part of the bundle of rights and freedoms that Americans traded away in return for “safety” from “the terrorists” after 9/11; and

(3) Everything federal officials, including those in the Pentagon, are doing to Padilla, they also have the authority to do all Americans.

Mr. Hornberger is founder and president of The Future of Freedom Foundation.

Fired blogger wins claim against former employer

Sacked "petite anglaise" blogger wins compensation claim

Fri Mar 30, 4:52 PM ET

A British secretary sacked for blogging on the job under the pseudonym of "La Petite Anglaise" has won a compensation claim case against the Paris office of British accounting firm Dixon Wilson.

A Paris labour tribunal, or "prud'hommes", ruled on Thursday that the firm pay Catherine Sanderson, 34, 44,000 euros (58,800 US dollars), tantamount to a year's salary, following her dismissal last April for alleged misconduct.

Sanderson's blog about daily life built up a sizeable international following, with many people reading her diary-style accounts about work, relationships and the travails of single-motherhood.

"I'm so relieved that good sense has prevailed," Sanderson told AFP on Friday.

The reasons behind the tribunal's decision in the case, one of the first of its kind in France, will be released in two weeks.

Sanderson said managers had discovered from reading the blog that on two occasions she had lied about having nanny problems to take the afternoon off. They also objected to her using the computer in office hours to write the blog.

"I always felt that my dismissal was an unnecessarily harsh sanction and clearly the prud'hommes shared my view,"she said.

Dixon Wilson, which offers tax and financial advice to private clients in Britain and France, refused to comment on Friday. The company has a month to appeal.

2 Judges, Attorney Convicted of Bribery

Saturday March 31, 2007 11:01 AM

By HOLBROOK MOHR

Associated Press Writer

JACKSON, Miss. (AP) - A prominent attorney and two former judges he was accused of lavishing gifts and money on in exchange for favorable rulings were convicted of bribery.

Paul Minor, who amassed a fortune from asbestos, tobacco, medical malpractice and car safety litigation, was found guilty of all 11 counts against him, which ranged from racketeering to bribery. He faces up to 95 years in prison.

The jury found former Circuit Judge John Whitfield and former Chancellor Wes Teel guilty of bribery and mail fraud. Whitfield could get a 50-year jail term and Teel could get 25 years.

All three had pleaded not guilty, and their attorneys vowed to appeal Friday's ruling.

Assistant U.S. Attorney Dave Fulcher said during closing arguments that Minor guaranteed $140,000 in loans to Whitfield in 1998, then used cash, a third party and a backdated promissory note to try to conceal the fact that Minor paid off the loan. Whitfield awarded Minor $3.6 million in a lawsuit, Fulcher said. The Mississippi Supreme Court later reduced the award to $1.6 million.

Fulcher said Minor guaranteed a loan to Teel for $24,500 the same year. Teel ``forced through'' a $1.5 million settlement in one of Minor's cases before his court, he said.

Minor acknowledged guaranteeing loans for the judges but claimed he was only helping friends who had fallen on hard times and expected nothing in return.

Besides Fulcher and Teel, Minor was also accused of bribing Mississippi Supreme Court Justice Oliver Diaz Jr.

The four were tried in U.S. District Court in Jackson last year. A jury cleared Diaz of all charges and deadlocked on some charges against the other three.

Whitfield and Teel are free on bond pending an appeal. Minor has been jailed since September for violating the terms of his bond for alleged excessive drinking and not adhering to the rules of his house arrest. He was ordered to remain in jail.

Department of Education Committee Members Asked to Drop ABA as Law School Accreditor

SHERWOOD ROSS ASSOCIATES
March 29, 2007
From: Sherwood Ross
sherwoodr1@yahoo.com

Background:

On June 27, 1995, the Justice Department filed a complaint charging the American Bar Association with fixing law professors’ salaries and other Sherman Anti-Trust violations. Justice found ABA had furthered “the self-interest of professors instead of improving education” and ABA signed a consent degree pledging to stop the violations but has not lived up to that pledge.
Now, Dean Lawrence Velvel of the Massachusetts School of Law, Andover, is asking two leading members of the Department of Education’s National Advisory Committee to get ABA to reform or to lose DOE recognition.

Dean Velvel is a leader in the effort to make a legal education accessible to Americans of all races and income groups. “National Jurist” magazine describes him as “a modern day crusader” and “one of the most influential people in legal education over the last 15 years.”

News release follows. Dean Velvel may be reached at (978) 681-0800.
Ross Associates, Media Consultants to Massachusetts School of Law
102 S.W. 6th Avenue, Suite 403, Miami, FL 33130 (305) 205-8281

Law School Dean Calls For ABA To Lose DOE Recognition
As An Accreditor, And Says DOE Staff Is Incompetent

Two influential academic experts have been called upon to require the American Bar Association to either change its law school accreditation system or lose federal recognition from the Department of Education (DOE). The call came from Lawrence Velvel, the Dean of the Massachusetts School of Law. It was addressed to Lawrence DeNardis, the former President of the University of New Haven , and George Pruitt, the President of Edison State College in Trenton, New Jersey .

DeNardis and Pruitt are leading members of the DOE’s powerful National Advisory Committee (NAC). That Committee makes recommendations to the Secretary of Education on whether an accrediting body should retain or lose federal recognition.

At an NAC hearing on December 3, 2006, DeNardis and Pruitt both made extensive comments criticizing the ABA for long failing to follow the law. DeNardis, who led the NAC’s discussion of the ABA, said he could not understand why a body “that prepares practitioners of the law, has such a difficult time complying with government regulations and policies.”

Pruitt, who has been criticizing the ABA without result at NAC hearings since 1996, said “I want to echo the comments that Larry DeNardis made about the frustration that we have on this committee” regarding the ABA’s longstanding failure to follow legal rules “that the rest of us have to live with.” This failure to follow the rules is by a group that has a “powerful monopoly to totally control within [the legal] profession.” (An exercise of this monopoly power led, eleven years ago, to the ABA being found in violation of the federal antitrust laws.)

The unhappiness of the NAC with the American Bar Association’s longstanding failure to follow the law caused the Committee to recommend to the Secretary only an 18 month, interim renewal of recognition of the ABA, rather than the usual five year recognition.

Making plain that he considers the DOE’s permanent staff to be incompetent, Velvel said that for years the staff has ineptly failed to question the ABA’s high cost “input” rules -- rules no longer followed by any other accrediting body than the ABA. (Numerous other accreditors of professional schools, which do not use the “input” rules used by the ABA , are listed below.) The ABA’s input rules have been a major factor in law school tuitions jumping by 267 percent since 1990, so that half of the nation’s 190 ABA schools now charge more than $25,000 per year in tuition, with almost one quarter, or 46, charging over $30,000 per year. High tuitions have priced working class whites and minorities out of law school and the legal profession.

The use of costly input rules that have this exclusionary effect is directly contrary to Congress’ desire that accrediting bodies instead use “output” rules that measure student learning, and that higher education be made available to African Americans, Hispanic Americans and other minorities, says Velvel.

The ABA’s input rules, Velvel told DeNardis and Pruitt, demand very large, extremely expensive full time faculties, minimize the allowable number of far less expensive adjunct faculty members who are expert lawyers and judges, require very low teaching loads for full professors, require plush physical facilities, demand large, very expensive hard copy libraries though most needed materials are available on-line, and require high scores on the Law School Admissions Test (the LSAT). Curiously, the ABA also has a rule saying that law schools need not provide students with courses that will teach them the practical skills they will need to practice law. Velvel said that not only does no other professional school accrediting body use the expensive input rules used by the ABA, but some of them, again unlike the ABA, do quite properly require that students be taught the practical skills they will need to practice their profession.

Velvel also assailed the DOE staff for incompetently failing to uncover that the ABA uses secret rules that make its written rules even worse. This failure has existed for years even though DOE was warned of unlawful secret rules as long ago as 1996. Recently, by pure accident, the staff uncovered a secret policy about bar passage rates. But there also are secret policies about student/faculty ratios, plush buildings, low hours of teaching, and high LSAT scores.

The ABA’s high cost rules, and the excessive tuitions they cause, have contributed to a declining number of minority persons in law school, as has the secret requirement of high LSAT scores. The latest available figures show that, due to declines, only 6.6% of law school students are African Americans and only 5.7% are Hispanic Americans. As well the latest figures show that only 3.9% of the legal profession as a whole is African American, and only 3.3% is Hispanic American.

Velvel told DeNardis and Pruitt that the ABA is able to monopolize law school accreditation because it has persuaded most state supreme courts to allow only graduates of ABA schools to take bar examinations. The courts do this even though the ABA’s rules are keeping African Americans and Hispanic Americans out of law school and even though an increasing number of state Justices are themselves of African American or Hispanic American. The state Justices, almost all of whom know little or nothing about the ABA’s accreditation rules, rely heavily on the fact that DOE recognizes the ABA as the accreditor for law schools.

Velvel said that, in view of the ABA’s long failure to follow the law, and the enormous social harm being done by accreditation rules that keep all but the upper middle class and the wealthy out of law schools, the DOE should withdraw its recognition of the ABA, which it would have to do if the staff inquired thoroughly into the facts of ABA accreditation. Velvel urged DeNardis and Pruitt to insist on competent, thorough staff work instead of the miscreant negligence that for at least 15 years has marked the staff’s efforts toward the ABA .

Listed below are some of the professional school accrediting bodies that do not use the type of input rules used by the ABA. Also, if you would like a copy of Dean Velvel’s letter to Messrs. DeNardis and Pruitt, please contact Lawrence Velvel at (978) 681-0800 or Velvel@mslaw.edu.

Professional School Accrediting Bodies

The American Association of Colleges of Nursing/Commission on Collegiate Nursing Education; The Council on Chiropractic Education; The Accreditation Council for Pharmacy Education; The American Psychological Association - Committee on Accreditation for Doctoral, Internship & Post-Doctoral Residencies; The Commission on Dental Accreditation of the American Dental Association; The National Council for Accreditation of Teacher Education - Standards for Professional Development Schools; The Council on Education/American Veterinary Medical Association; The Accrediting Council for Independent Colleges and Schools - Business Schools; The Joint Commission on Accreditation of Healthcare Organizations; The American Association of Colleges of Nursing/Commission on Collegiate Nursing Education; The Council on Chiropractic Education; The Accreditation Council for Pharmacy Education; The Council on Education/American Veterinary Medical Association; The Accrediting Council for Independent Colleges and Schools - Business Schools; and The American Psychological Association – Committee on Accreditation for Doctoral, Internship & Post-Doctoral Residencies.

Must read UN Committee message to Israel

ADALAH'S NEWSLETTER
Volume 34, March 2007

UN Committee Urges Israel to Revoke the Citizenship Law, Dismantle the Wall, Bind
the Jewish National Fund to Anti-Discrimination Principles, and
Recognize the Unrecognized Villages

Adalah: “The UN Committee, which is composed of legal experts, reached these concluding observations based on the principles of anti-discrimination. Therefore the concluding observations constitute an official statement that institutionalized discrimination exists in Israel.”

On 9 March 2007, the UN Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination (“the Committee”) issued its Concluding Observations, following its review last month of Israel’s implementation of the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (“ICERD” or “the Convention”). In its Concluding Observations, the Committee emphasized 25 areas of concern and recommendations regarding Israel’s compliance with the Convention concerning the rights of Palestinian Arab citizens of Israel and Palestinians living in the Occupied Palestinian Territory (OPT). Representatives of Adalah, Attorney Sawsan Zaher and Rina Rosenberg, Esq., and other Palestinian, Israeli and international human rights organizations participated in the UN sessions held on 22-23 February 2007 in Geneva.

The Concluding Observations reflected numerous issues highlighted by Adalah in its reports to the Committee noting Israel’s violations of the ICERD.

A high-level delegation of 13 state representatives, headed by Israeli Ambassador to the UN, Yitzhak Levanon, also participated in the Committee’s sessions. Nevertheless, many of the questions sent in advance to Israel remained unanswered, as the Committee noted at the outset.

The main concerns and recommendations adopted by the Committee, which is composed of eighteen independent experts including law professors, lawyers and former judges, included:

1) The right to equality and a prohibition on racial discrimination should be explicitly included in the Basic Law: Human Dignity and Liberty.

2) Israel should ensure that the definition of the state as a Jewish state does not result in any systemic distinction, exclusion, restriction or preference based on race, colour, descent, or national or ethnic origin in the enjoyment of human rights.

3) Israel should ensure “equality in the right to return to one’s country and in the possession of property”.

4) Israel should ensure that the World Zionist Organization, the Jewish Agency and the Jewish National Fund, which manage land, housing and services exclusively for the Jewish population, are “bound by the principle of non-discrimination in the exercise of their functions.”

5) Israel should revoke the Citizenship and Entry into Israel Law (Temporary Order) – 2003, and “ensure that restrictions on family reunification are strictly necessary and limited in scope, and are not applied on the basis of nationality, residency or membership of a particular community.”

6) Israel’s policy of affording highly advantageous benefits, particularly for housing and education, to those who perform military service is incompatible with the Convention, bearing in mind that most Arab citizens do not perform national service.

7) Israel should assess the significance and impact of Israel Land Administration’s “social suitability” admission criterion to small communities, as it may allow in practice for the exclusion of Arab citizens from some State-controlled land. The Committee recommended that Israel take all measures to ensure that State land is allocated without discrimination, direct or indirect, based on race, colour, descent, or national or ethnic origin.

8) Israel should assess the extent to which discriminatory attitudes by employers against Arabs, scarcity of jobs near Arab communities, and lack of daycare centers in Arab villages are a cause of high unemployment rates, particularly for Arab women.

9) Israel should enquire into possible alternatives to the relocation of inhabitants of unrecognized Bedouin villages in the Negev/Naqab to planned towns, in particular through the recognition of these villages and the recognition of the rights of the Bedouin to own, develop, control and use their communal lands, territories and resources traditionally owned or otherwise inhabited or used by them.

10) Israel should address concerns that the psychometric examinations used to test aptitudes, ability and personality indirectly discriminates against Arab citizens in accessing higher education.

11) Israel should ensure that laws and programmes be equally devoted to the promotion of cultural institutions and the protection of holy sites of both Jewish and other religious communities.

12) Israel should increase its efforts to prevent racially motivated offences and hate speech, and ensure that relevant criminal law provisions are effectively implemented by prosecuting politicians, government officials and other public figures for hate speech against the Arab minority.

13) “A high number of complaints filed by Arab citizens against law enforcement officers are not properly and effectively investigated and that the Ministry of Justice’s Police Investigations Unit (Mahash) lacks independence.” The Committee regretted that Israel provided no comments in this regard as requested or information as to whether the persons responsible for the October 2000 killings have been prosecuted and sentenced.

14) Israel’s position that the ICERD does not apply in the OPT “cannot be sustained under the letter and spirit of the Convention, or under international law as also affirmed by the International Court of Justice.” Moreover “the Israeli settlements are illegal under international law.”

15) Israel should cease the construction of the Wall in the OPT, including in and around East Jerusalem, dismantle the structure, and make reparation for all damage. Israel should also “give full effect” to the 2004 Advisory Opinion of the International Court of Justice.

16) Severe restrictions on the freedom of movement in the OPT targeting a particular national or ethnic group, especially through the wall, checkpoints, restricted roads and permit system, have created hardship and have had a highly detrimental impact on the enjoyment of human rights by Palestinians, in particular their rights to freedom of movement, family life, work, education and health.

17) Different laws and practices apply to Palestinians and to Israelis in the OPT, in particular the unequal distribution of water resources to the detriment of Palestinians, the disproportionate targeting of Palestinians in house demolitions, and different criminal laws leading to prolonged detention and harsher punishments for Palestinians for the same offences.

18) While stressing that the Al-Aqsa Mosque is an important cultural and religious site for people living in the OPT, the Committee urged Israel to ensure that the excavations in no way endanger the Mosque and impede access to it.

19) Israel should increase its efforts to protect Palestinians against violence perpetuated by Jewish settlers, particularly in Hebron, and ensure that such incidents are investigated in a prompt, transparent and independent manner, are prosecuted and sentenced, and that avenues for redress are offered to the victims.

The Committee also recommended that Israel make its reports and the Committee’s concluding observations readily available to the public in both Hebrew and Arabic.

Israel should submit answers to questions not provided in its submission and representations within one year, together with information on any first steps taken towards implementing the Committee’s recommendations. Israel should submit its next periodic reports and address all points raised in the concluding observations in February 2010.

For more information, see Adalah’s Special Report on UN CERD available at: http://www.adalah.org/eng/cerd.php

URL

CIA AGENT ON THE RUN

SPIEGEL ONLINE - March 19, 2007, 08:34 PM

'I've Got Nothing to Lose'

By Georg Mascolo in Washington

Robert Lady, the former CIA chief in Milan, has gone into hiding. He is the subject of an extradition order from Italian authorities for the role he played in the kidnapping of radical Muslim cleric Abu Omar in Milan. Washington is seeking to derail the trial -- perhaps because Condoleezza Rice may have given the operation the green light.

Robert Seldon Lady has reason for hope again. Maybe he will see farm again -- nestled as it is in the soft hills of Penango, a small town in northern Italy. He's had to leave everything there: his antique furniture, his books, the wine and the family photos. To this day, he continues to pay his $4,000 mortgage.

Lady is CIA's former Milan bureau chief. After 24 years with the agency, he had planned to retire in Penango. But now he's become a bit of a vagabond instead. He was in Florida last, but he reportedly moved on already. The only place the former agent can feel truly safe is the United States, now that an Italian court has issued an arrest warrant for him -- just as it has done for 25 of his colleagues, who are said to have been involved in the Feb. 17, 2003 abduction of radical Muslim cleric Abu Omar along Via Guerzoni in downtown Milan.

The suspects are expected to be tried, in absentia, in June at Milan's Palace of Justice in what will amount to the world's first-ever trial against CIA agents accused of kidnapping. Until very recently, it seemed certain that the case would move ahead. But last week the Italian government asked the country's highest justices at the constitutional court to determine whether the trial could proceed. This has fueled hope for Seldon and, indeed, the entire US administration, that a legal drama might still be prevented.

THE ABU OMAR KIDNAPPING CASE

Abu Omar's Abduction in Milan: "The Only Thing They Cared About Was That I Didn't Die"

"It was a sunny midday on Feb. 17, 2003. I was on the way from my apartment to the mosque, which was only about a kilometer (0.6 miles) away. There was nothing unusual to be seen. I walked through Via Guerzoni as usual, past small stores. The only thing that attracted my attention was a white delivery van by the side of the road, which I had never seen there before. My wife and I had already suspected for some time that we were under surveillance. Cars kept following us, or at least we thought so. Also, the phone often rang at home and in the mosque, and no one could be heard on the other line when we replied. We assumed the Italian intelligence agency was observing us because I often ranted against the Americans and the imminent war against Iraq." mehr...

Abu Omar's Arrival in Cairo: "Work For Us as a Spy -- or Rot in Jail"

"When the jet plane landed, I was still dazed. The flight took seven hours -- but that's just an estimate. My body felt completely stiff. The circulation in my arms and legs had been cut off by the plastic cuffs, but I was still in severe pain. Someone cut through the cuffs around my legs and led me down a set of stairs. I heard a voice from below. A man called out to me in Arabic to come down. I knew from the accent that I was in Egypt." mehr...

The Torture in Egypt: "In the End I Would Have Confessed to Anything"

"After I rejected their offer to work as an informer for them, I was treated like dirt in the prison in Egypt. In the first few months I was locked in a solitary cell and had no contact with lawyers or my family. I was totally shut off from the outside world. Every couple of days I got taken to be interrogated. Egypt's government did what it always does: carry out Washington's orders. The dirty work to get me to talk was to be done here. That's why they tortured me, hooked up electric wires to my genitals, hung me on the wall in a solitary cell for days, subjected me to unbearably loud music through headphones." mehr...

Before the Trial: "Germany is Partly to Blame"

"Germany is also partly to blame. After all, the Germans simply allowed the plane to land in Ramstein and then fly on. I've read that the Germans claim not to have known about the US renditions. I don't believe it. After Sept. 11, everyone knew the United States was doing everything it could, and it has abducted people before. Two people also disappeared from Germany. This practice was known about. I'm sticking to my view: All those who didn't take action against the CIA's secret flights abetted the CIA's activities." mehr...

CIA Activities in Italy: Nothing to Lose

Robert Seldon Lady is the former bureau chief of the CIA in Milan. He wanted to retire to Penango, after 24 years with the agency. But now he's roaming about instead. He was in Florida last, but he's said to already have moved on. His wife has left him. The only place where the former agent can feel truly safe is the United States, now that an Italian court has issued an arrest warrant for him - as it has done for 25 of his colleagues. mehr...

The lawyer representing Marco Mancini, an important behind-the-scenes figure in Italy's SISMI military intelligence agency, argues that state secrets need to be protected. Prior to the operation, the CIA apparently informed SISMI leaders of its plans to kidnap Omar. The lawyer's reference to state secrets implies that the green light for the operation was given not only by Italy's intelligence agencies, but also by members of former Italian Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi's government.

When the persistent public prosecutor's office began investigating, the entire government in Rome claimed to have known nothing whatsoever about the operation. In the meantime, it has become known that the CIA asked Gianfranco Battelli, then SISMI's director, what he thought of abductions of radical Muslims in Italy just a few days after the Sept. 11, 2001 terrorist attacks. Battelli, whose retirement was imminent, didn't even register any form of protest. He simply recommended having a word with his successor.

Threats from Washington

Lady's Italian lawyer already suggested declaring the case a matter of national security, thereby burying it for good. And such a decision would suit the Bush administration perfectly. The White House has used all available diplomatic channels to pressure Rome into preventing a public trial. State Department legal advisor John Bellinger, known for his engaging manner, even admonished the Italians that such legal investigations threatened to seriously damage cooperation between US and European intelligence agencies. Besides, Bellinger added, the accused CIA agents would never be extradited.

But according to recent findings brought to light by American journalist Matthew Cole, writing in the March issue of GQ, it's not just the agents involved in the abduction who need to be protected. Those truly responsible are to be found in the higher echelons of the US administration, according to Cole, who claims that current US Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice personally approved the operation when she served as President George W. Bush's National Security Advisor. She apparently OKed Abu Omar's abduction and then, according to Cole's report, "fretted" during her meeting with the CIA over how she would inform Bush about the operation.

No official denial has been issued over Cole's allegations -- perhaps in part because there is much to suggest they are true: All truly sensitive CIA operations conducted in the context of the "war on terror" had to be approved by the White House.

Cole is a persevering investigative reporter, who even succeeded in tracking Lady down and talking to him. They've met outside Miami half a dozen times. But even though he would probably have much to reveal, the former CIA agent is reluctant to come forward with the full story -- despite the fact that Italian prosecutors have apparently offered him a deal in return for reporting the details of the CIA operation.

High-tech from Langley

But Lady has said this much: He didn't beleive in the operation from the outset, because it was simply superfluous. Lady knew how doggedly the Italian authorities were already pursuing Abu Omar, having helped them in their investigations himself. He even arranged for the high-tech microphones used during Abu Omar's surveillance to be shipped from Langley. The Italians were at the same time impressed and grateful.

Both the Italians and the CIA considered Abu Omar to be one of the key figures in the Muslim fundamentalist milieu of northern Italy. The CIA thought of him as a kind of recruiting officer for the battlefields of jihad, agitating people to fight first in Kashmir, then in Chechnya and Afghanistan and later in Iraq.

Lady seems to have bet on the Italians getting a grip on Omar by themselves. The generous technological support from Langley was intended to assure the Italian investigations would progress rapidly. The CIA's Rome bureau chief, Jeff Castelli, is reported to have insisted that Omar should be abducted. In the end, his position won out.

So if Lady really thought the operation was a mistake, then why didn't he protest? "The CIA is the vanguard of democracy," he explained in the GQ interview. "It was the greatest job I ever had." Indeed, he wasn't about to disobey his orders -- especially one that might be his last, coming as it did just one year before his planned retirement.

When the kidnappers seized Abu Omar on his way to noontime prayers in Via Guerzoni, Lady met the director of Italy's anti-terrorism police for coffee. In contrast to the Italian intelligence agency, the police director knew nothing about the operation. Lady's job was that of keeping a watchful eye on him while his colleagues seized Abu Omar -- just to make sure nothing went wrong. Five days after Abu Omar had been flown to Egypt via the US Air Base at Ramstein, Germany, Lady arrived in Cairo, too.

Lady has a lot at stake in this case. If the Italian constitutional court doesn't put a halt on the trial, the state prosecutor could confiscate Lady's beloved farm. "I'll probably be convicted. But I won't go to trial, and I'll never see Italy again," he lamented to journalist Cole. But other plausible scenarios remain, too: Perhaps the former CIA agent will testify after all. He is said to be bitter about the lack of support he has received from the CIA. The only ones protected by Washington these days are the ones who give orders, and not people like him, who do the dirty work, he is said to have complained.

Indeed, Robert Lady's comments to Cole seem as threatening as they do disillusioned, and they were likely meant to sound that way. "No one's called me for support," he said. "No one has helped. I keep thinking, Fuck it, I've got nothing to lose."

---

© SPIEGEL ONLINE 2007
All Rights Reserved
Reproduction only allowed with the permission of SPIEGELnet GmbH

---

States Tried to Stop Subprime Bubble- but Bush Shut them Down

Rewarding Work

by J. Mijin Cha

The Predatory Lending Bubble and How the Feds Made it Worse

The trouble in the subprime lending market is sending ripples through Wall Street. One of the biggest subprime lenders, New Century, has been de-listed from the New York Stock Exchange.

As this Dispatch will detail, the current mortgage and foreclosure crisis is the result of years of irresponsible lending and federal policies that shut down efforts by state and local governments to restrain the predatory lending practices that set the country up for this crisis. Despite these roadblocks by the federal government, many states are still finding solutions to help prevent these abusive lending practices.

More Resources

Rewarding Work

The Crisis in Subprime Lending

At the end of last year, late mortgage payments reached the highest level in over three years and new foreclosures reached record levels. The cause? Subprime loans, that is loans for people with bad or limited credit which carry a higher interest rate, and often unfavorable terms. A report released in December 2006 shows that as many as 2.2 million subprime borrowers face foreclosure on their home loans.

Abusive Mortgage Lending: The subprime lending market is aimed at families who have bad credit or trouble getting credit. While on the surface, it seems like these loans help families with bad credit purchase homes, deceptive marketing practices and lack of information for customers create an environment of abusive lending. The Center for Responsible Lending lists seven signs of predatory lending. Among some of the more striking:

• Excessive Fees- costs that are not directly reflected in interest rates that can reach over 5 percent of the loan amount.
• Abusive Prepayment Penalties- Up to 80 percent of subprime loans carry a prepayment penalty in order to discourage refinancing at less abusive terms-- penalties that can cost more than six months' interest.
• Kickback to Brokers- when brokers deliver a loan with an inflated interest rate, the mortgage broker gets a cash bonus.

What made the problem most acute for these subprime borrowers is that when the Federal reserveBusiness Week wrote just a week ago, "About $265 billion worth of subprime loans are scheduled to have their rates adjusted upward in 2007...Many stretched homeowners may soon be paying 11% or 12% on their mortgages, while everyone else can get 30-year fixed-rate loans at a little over 6%...In effect, monetary policy is turning into a regressive tax." hiked interest rates, most borrowers could refinance to long-term loans whose rates have barely moved in the past three years. People with poor credit, however, absorbed the brunt of the shift, since their contracts usually hiked their mortgage rates in tandem with the Federal Reserve rate hikes-- and either their contracts or their bad credit prevented them from escaping these mortgages as their monthly payments skyrocketed. As

Other Predatory Practices: Subprime mortgage lending is one example of the larger problem of predatory lending imposing unfair and abusive loan terms on vulnerable buyers. One additional disturbing form of predatory lending is payday lending -where a postdated check is exchanged for a smaller amount of cash. If the check bounces for any reason, such as a health emergency or an unforeseen layoff, the borrower gets stuck in a near-impossible debt trap as the interest rate for payday lending can be as high as 911 percent for one week, 456 percent for a two week loan and 212 percent for a one-month loan. This form of lending has been particularly detrimental for military servicepeople. 20 percent of service men and women use payday loans. Predatory payday lending costs military families over $80 million a year in abusive fees.

More Resources

Rewarding Work

How the Feds Pre-Empted State Law

With millions of families facing these exploitive lending practices, the question is why the government didn't act to stop it? The answer is that the states did act-- but the federal government, backed by campaign contributions from predatory lenders, shut them down and helped create this mortgage crisis.

Back in 1994, Congress did pass the Home Ownership and Equity Protection Act to protect homeowners. The law was meant to be the floor for protection: states could go above and beyond the protections offered in the Act and since then, over 30 states have passed laws offering more protection than the federal Act.

Bush Administration Preempts State Laws: However, state and local efforts have been pre-empted by the Office of Thrift Supervision (OTS) and the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC). The OCC, in particular, has promoted a theory of "field preemption" that would preempt all state laws and insulate national banks and their operating subsidiaries from virtually all state regulation. This effectively destroys any state's ability to regulate the business activities of all banks. The OCC preempted Georgia's Fair Lending Act, which had offered protection against predatory lending, including outlawing extreme prepayment fees or penalties, unreasonable monthly payments, and increased interest rates after default. This was followed by the OCC preempting the New Jersey Home Ownership Security Act, which prohibited abusive lending practices and challenges to other state laws have followed. Adding to the attack on state authority, some in Congress proposed laws to further preempt state authority over mortgage lending. One of the chief sponsors of the preemption bill was Congressman Bob Ney, who was convicted of bribery for his role in the Abramoff scandal.

Courts and Preemption: The courts have largely backed this federal preemption of state authority, with federal courts striking down predatory lending laws in a number of states. After the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals struck down state banking laws in Michigan, the Supreme Court agreed to hear the case and will be making a ruling soon on whether some parts of state regulation will survive preemption.

Yet whatever the courts decide now, the damage has been done. During the critical period of the recent housing bubble, as speculation and predatory lending ran riot, state regulators were so involved in defending their laws in court that their effectiveness was undermined and the costs are being borne by some of the most vulnerable borrowers in the market.

More Resources

Rewarding Work

States Rally to Increase Protection

In examining the predatory lending crisis, the Carsey Institute at the University of New Hampshire released a report that included several simple steps government can take to protect their citizens against predatory lending:

• Reduce excessive points and fees that strip equity from borrowers
• Provide consumers with additional protection for high cost loans, such as prohibiting pre-payment penalties or prohibiting financing of fees
• Require interest rates to reflect the risk of the loan rather than upfront points and fees that strip equity from borrowers
• Protect consumers in disputes with lenders, such as prohibiting mandatory arbitration, which tends to favor lenders
• Require a net tangible benefit to the borrower in any refinance loan

The bottom-line is that we need common-sense rules that prevent consumers from ending up with loans costing far higher than they thought they were signing up for initially.

State Mortgage Laws: While state laws are under challenge, there is hope that the Supreme Court will restore more authority to state regulators. Some laws and administrative actions worth highlighting:

• The Center for Responsible Lending and ACORN each track past and present predatory lending laws from around the states. As one example, Wisconsin passed a bill that prohibits balloon payments, a payment that is more than twice as large as the average of all earlier scheduled payments, limits the amount of interest that a lender can receive on a loan, and other protections for borrowers, including a full disclosure of loan terms to borrowers. There was a clarification issued by the Wisconsin Director of Legal Affairs, but the Act was not preempted.
• Connecticut introduced a bill to regulate predatory lending. SB 1039 would cap the interest charged at 12 percent per annum for loans that are less than $15,000. The text of the bill also specifically states that the provisions of the bill are to be applied to payday loans. Unfortunately, the bill died in committee.

• The Illinois House introduced HB 1478, the Predatory Lending Protection Act. The Act prohibits the imposition of prepayment penalties, flipping of loans and lend financing of credit insurance. The Act also imposes limitations on high-cost loans and prohibits lending unless the lender reasonably believes that the borrower is able to make the payments to repay the loan.

• Minnesota HF 387 requires lenders to ensure that borrowers are able to make the principal and interest payments on the loans before the loan is granted and prohibits the flipping of loans.

• The recent slew of subprime lenders going bankrupt has spurred state action to protect their constituents. New Hampshire's state Banking Department ordered New Century Financial Corp. to stop accepting new loan applications on Wednesday and six weeks ago charged Mortgage Lenders Network USA, INC.. with failing to fund mortgages on which it had closed. Massachusetts Secretary of State William F. Galvin has demanded documents from two Wall Street firms over their recommendations on subprime lenders.
• States are also taking action against the related abuse of payday loans: Eleven states have interest rate limits on payday lenders and proposals are being debated in ten other states. Virginia has just capped payday loan interest rates at 72 percent, still high but a vast improvement over the 400 percent payday lenders had been charging. Going even further, New Hampshire is debating a bill that would close the doors on payday loan shops. The New Hampshire bill would prevent any person from making a loan with an interest rate higher than 30 percent.

More Resources

Rewarding Work

Conclusion

The new Congress seems more willing to grapple with the predatory lending problem, with Congressman Barney Frank from Massachusetts saying he would introduce legislation to restrict subprime lending. But while the Federal government may be trying to help the situation now, the debacle of recent years is a lesson in why federal preemption of state laws is often a recipe for disaster. While minimum federal standards are often needed, states are usually aware more quickly of problems appearing locally that need additional regulation, such as the explosion of predatory lending. We should remember in coming years that by tying the hands of state governments, federal regulators made a bad problem far, far worse.

More Resources

Resources

General Resources

Center for Responsible Lending

ACORN's Campaign Against Predatory Lending

Losing Ground: Foreclosures in the Subprime Market and their Costs to Homeowners

Carsey Institute, Subprime and Predatory Lending in Rural America

Premption of State Banking Regulations

Center for Responsible Lending, Federal Preemption Favors Predatory Lending

State PIRGs, OCC Watch

New Rules Project, Preemption of State Banking Rules

ScotusBlog, Argument Preview: Watters v. Wachovia Bank

State Legislation

ACORN, Anti-Predatory Lending Laws Around the Country

Missouri HB 989

Illinois HB 1478

Minnesota HF 387

New Hampshire HB 620

Texas SB 858

Georgia Fair Lending Act

New Jersey Home Ownership Security Act

Fair Housing and Equal Opportunity: Subprime Lending

---
URL

Iraq experts say draft oil industry law fraught with problems

by Kamal Taha Sun Mar 18, 12:15 AM ET

Some Iraqi oil experts and politicians are aghast over their government's approval of a bill that many fear will deliver the country's oil wealth to international firms on a platter.

In February, capping months of bitter wrangling, the Baghdad government approved a draft law that aims to distribute revenue from crude oil exports equitably across Iraq's 18 provinces and open the sector to foreign investors.

The multi-party government of Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki sees the legislation as a key plank in moves to reunite a country torn apart by sectarian violence, and hopes that parliament will ratify the bill in May.

But former Iraqi oil industry officials, experts and lawmakers gathered in Jordan to debate the bill have warned that the timing is wrong, and expressed strong concerns that Iraq would lose control of its own "black gold."

"There are many question marks hanging over this draft law," said Dhia al-Bakaa, former president of the Iraqi State Oil Marketing Organisation (SOMO).

"Why the timing? Why the hurry when we still lack political, economic and security stability," Bakaa asked a recent conference organised by the non-governmental Iraqi Centre for Strategic Studies.

"The Iraqi National Oil Company should have been restructured before the government endorsed the draft law, to allow INOC to develop the giant oil fields so that they would not face pressure and extortion in the future."

Issam Chalabi, an oil minister under executed Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein, said the bill did not take "into account our greater national interests."

It was adopted "to satisfy US President George W. Bush," who called on the newly installed Maliki government last June to restore electricity in Iraq, adopt a new investment law and restructure the oil industry, he said.

Chalabi also charged that Iraqi oil exports over the past four years have gone "unchecked and unaccounted for."

Iraq's proven oil reserves, estimated at 115 billion barrels, are thought to be the third largest in the world, behind Saudi Arabia and Iran.

Since the US-led invasion in 2003, Iraqi production has tumbled from 3.5 million barrels per day to around two million. Chalabi said Iraq has been exporting around 1.5 million bpd.

Faleh al-Khayat, a former head of planning at the oil ministry, warned that "major foreign oil firms are greedy and will covet Iraq's oil wealth" if the bill is adopted.

"If Iraq's giant oilfields are developed they would yield 80 percent of Iraq's proven reserves estimated at 115 billion barrels," he said.

MP Saleh Mutlak of Iraq's National Dialogue Front echoed him: "We have no need for foreign companies. We are experienced enough to reap the fruit of our wealth."

Mutlak also said he feared the bill may not live up to government hopes that it will unify Iraq.

"We don't want a new law that will further divide us. We need a law that will unite the Iraqi people," he said.

Most oil production is in the Shiite south, with the best prospects for new finds centred on the Kurdish north. The northern oil hub of Kirkuk is disputed between Kurdish and Arab leaders.

Motlak said parliament in Baghdad should not ratify the bill "until we reach the appropriate climate for investments in Iraq."

MP Ali Mashhadani agreed.

"Our oil wealth is black gold that must be kept underground until security conditions are appropriate to take advantage of it. It has been entrusted to our safekeeping by the people we represent," he said.

According to Mashhadani "Iraq has sold 125 billion dollars worth of oil since the start of the US-led occupation."

The Iraqi people have not benefited from this revenue and "are eating garbage," Mashhadani said, suggesting that income from oil sales be given to the people in the form of state-subsidised "monthly rations cards."

Iraqi leader tells aides U.S. benchmark deadline is June 30 or his ouster possible

Editor's note: I am moving to the other blog to post(also see new articles below).
---
14.03.2007

Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki fears the Americans will torpedo his government if parliament does not pass a law to fairly divvy up the country's oil wealth among Iraqis by the end of June, close associates of the leader told The Associated Press on Tuesday.

The legislature has not even taken up the draft measure, which is only one of several U.S. benchmarks that are seen by al-Maliki as key to continued American support, a crucial need for the survival of his troubled administration.

U.S. State Department spokesman Tom Casey denied the administration would withdraw support. "The notion that we have in any way shape or form threatened to bring down his government over this law is simply untrue," he said in Washington.

Aside from the oil law, the associates said, American officials have told the hardline Shiite Muslim prime minister that they want an Iraqi government in place by year's end acceptable to the country's Sunni Arab neighbors, particularly Saudi Arabia, Jordan and Egypt.

"They have said it must be secular and inclusive," one al-Maliki associate said.

To that end, al-Maliki made an unannounced visit Tuesday to Ramadi, the Sunni Arab insurgent stronghold, to meet with tribal leaders, the provincial governor and security chiefs in a bid to signal his willingness for reconciliation to end the bitter sectarian war that has riven Iraq for more than a year.

Compounding al-Maliki's fears about a withdrawal of American support were visits to Saudi Arabia by two key political figures in an admitted bid to win support for a major Iraqi political realignment. Saudi Arabia is a major U.S. ally and oil supplier.

Former Prime Minister Ayad Allawi, a Shiite Muslim, flew to the Saudi capital Tuesday, a day after the arrival there of Masoud Barzani, leader of Iraq's largely autonomous Kurdish region. Most Kurds are Sunni Muslims.

"Allawi is there to enlist support for a new political front that rises above sectarian structures now in place," the former prime minister's spokesman, Izzat al-Shahbandar, told the AP.

Barzani spokesman Abdul-Khaleq Zanganah said the two Iraqis met in Kurdistan before the trip for talks on forming a "national front to take over for the political bloc now supporting al-Maliki."

It appears certain the United States was informed about the Allawi and Barzani opening to the Saudis, who are deeply concerned that al-Maliki could become a puppet of Iran, the Shiite theocracy on Iraq's eastern border they view as a threat to the region's stability.

Washington has been reported working more closely with Sunni Arab governments to encourage them to take a greater role in Iraq, particularly in reining in the Sunni insurgency that has killed thousands of U.S. soldiers and tens of thousands of Iraqi Shiites.

The Bush administration is believed to be trying to win support for its operations in Iraq among Arab neighbors by assuring a greater future role for the Sunni minority that ran the country until the U.S. invasion ousted Saddam Hussein four years ago.

One al-Maliki confidant said the Americans had voiced displeasure with the prime minister's government even though he has managed so far to blunt major resistance from the Mahdi Army militia to the joint U.S.-Iraqi security operation in Baghdad. The Shiite militia is loyal to anti-U.S. cleric Muqtada al-Sadr, whose political backing secured the premiership for al-Maliki.

"They have said they are frustrated that he has done nothing to oust the Sadrists, that the oil law has not moved forward, that there is no genuine effort on reconciliation and no movement on new regional elections," said the official, who like the other associates agreed to discuss the situation only if not quoted by name because of the political sensitivities.

Passage of the oil law, which seeks a fair distribution of revenues among all Iraq's sectarian and ethnic groups, has become a major issue for the United States, which had initially counted on financing Iraq's post-invasion reconstruction with oil revenues.

But the decrepit oil infrastructure and violence have left the country producing oil at about the same levels as before the war, at best, and those figures are well below production before the 1991 Gulf War that resulted in U.N. sanctions against the Iraqi oil industry.

The major Sunni bloc in parliament, along with Allawi loyalists in the Shiite bloc, openly oppose the draft measure. Al-Maliki also has lost the backing of the Shiite Fadila Party, and independent Shiite members are split on the bill. Those willing to speak about their opposition voice fears about what they see as too much possible foreign involvement and profit sharing.

The al-Maliki associates said U.S. officials, who they would not name, told the prime minister that U.S. President George W. Bush was committed to the current government but continued White House support depended on positive action on all the benchmarks especially the oil law and sectarian reconciliation by the close of this parliamentary session June 30.

"Al-Maliki is committed to meeting the deadline because he is convinced he would not survive in power without U.S. support," one of the associates said.

Casey, the U.S. spokesman, noted that the oil law is a goal laid out in the Iraqi constitution and repeatedly endorsed by al-Maliki. "However, the terms of that law, the specifics of that law are up to the Iraqis," he said, reports AP.

Standing in the way of forward movement is a recalcitrant Cabinet, which al-Maliki has promised to reshuffle by the end of this week. So far, however, he is at loggerheads with the political groupings in parliament that are threatening to withdraw support for the prime minister if he does not allow the blocs to name replacements for Cabinet positions.

Citizens Who Lack Papers Lose Medicaid

March 12, 2007

WASHINGTON, March 11 — A new federal rule intended to keep illegal immigrants from receiving Medicaid has instead shut out tens of thousands of United States citizens who have had difficulty complying with requirements to show birth certificates and other documents proving their citizenship, state officials say.

Florida, Iowa, Kansas, Louisiana, New Mexico, Ohio and Virginia have all reported declines in enrollment and traced them to the new federal requirement, which comes just as state officials around the country are striving to expand coverage through Medicaid and other means.

Under a 2006 federal law, the Deficit Reduction Act, most people who say they are United States citizens and want Medicaid must provide “satisfactory documentary evidence of citizenship,” which could include a passport or the combination of a birth certificate and a driver’s license.

Some state officials say the Bush administration went beyond the law in some ways, for example, by requiring people to submit original documents or copies certified by the issuing agency.

“The largest adverse effect of this policy has been on people who are American citizens,” said Kevin W. Concannon, director of the Department of Human Services in Iowa, where the number of Medicaid recipients dropped by 5,700 in the second half of 2006, to 92,880, after rising for five years. “We have not turned up many undocumented immigrants receiving Medicaid in Waterloo, Dubuque or anywhere else in Iowa,” Mr. Concannon said.

By ROBERT PEAR

--MORE--

White House Aides: Cheney's Office "Out Of Control"

An 'Out of Control' Veep's Office

Conservatives are clamoring for a Libby pardon. But don't count on Bush to go along—at least not yet.

By Michael Isikoff and Richard Wolffe

Newsweek

March 19, 2007 issue - For nearly two months, while his trial unfolded in a federal courtroom, I. Lewis (Scooter) Libby seemed breezily confident. Even as prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald presented compelling evidence that he had lied under oath to investigators probing who leaked the name of an undercover CIA agent, Libby sat smiling at the defense table, whispering amusing asides to his lawyers. But when he filed in to hear the jury's verdict last week, Libby was a changed man. He looked ashen and stared into the distance while the jury read its decision: guilty on four of five counts of perjury and obstruction. His wife, Harriet, broke down in tears.

The verdict may be in, but the saga is far from over. On June 5, Libby will return to court for sentencing by Judge Reggie Walton, a no-nonsense jurist who metes out tough prison sentences and cuts no slack for white-collar defendants. Libby could get two years. His lawyers will ask that Libby be allowed to remain free while his appeals work their way through the courts. As he has in past prosecutions, Fitzgerald is likely to press for Libby to go straight to prison. "Fitz is so by-the- book he would send his own mother to jail," joked a veteran federal prosecutor who asked not to be identified talking about his colleague.

The prospect of Libby's serving time is fueling an intense debate in Washington: should President Bush pardon him? Conservatives immediately began agitating for clemency, arguing that Fitzgerald, unable to convict anyone for leaking, had made Libby a scapegoat. Vice President Dick Cheney may also weigh in. Former and current colleagues, who asked not to be named talking about private conversations, say Cheney has been shaken by the prosecution of his former chief of staff. Out of obligation and duty, Cheney is almost certain to press Bush to pardon his close friend and protégé.

But don't count on Bush to go along—at least not yet. Bush is not big on pardons. In his first six years as president, he has granted just 113, fewer than any president in the last 100 years, says Margaret Love, a former Justice Department pardon attorney. At his first press conference as president in February 2001, Bush set himself apart from Bill Clinton, who had caused a stir with several controversial pardons in his final days. When it came to granting pardons, Bush said, "I'll have the highest of high standards."

The president can pardon anyone at any time. But Bush has abided by long-standing Justice guidelines that spell out who should be eligible. Those rules say a person shouldn't even be considered for a pardon until five years after he's completed his sentence. "I know the way he's approached pardons," says Bush's former press secretary Scott McClellan. "If you boil it down, it's two things. One, that they serve their time. And two, that they express remorse for the crime." By those standards, Libby doesn't make the cut, especially if he pursues an appeal and continues to insist he did nothing wrong.

That doesn't mean Libby will be denied a pardon. Former White House aides, who didn't want to be named discussing Bush's strategizing, say they believe the president will ultimately grant him one. Libby may just have to wait, probably until after the '08 election. "The president has absolute authority, and we've seen in the final days of a presidency all bets are off," McClellan says. "But I'd be surprised if he did anything before the legal process has run its course, and there's been a request through formal channels."

That reluctance to bend the rules may stem from a feeling inside the White House that Libby, though loyal and well liked, went too far. Even if Bush is "sad" about Libby's conviction, Libby did lie to the FBI and made the administration look bad. "What you saw was a vice president's office that was out of control," says a former White House staffer who asked not to be named talking about internal discussions. According to trial testimony, White House aides Karl Rove and Ari Fleischer both disclosed the identity of Wilson's wife to reporters. But the way the White House sees it, Rove and Fleischer "went up to the line," the staffer says, "but they didn't cross it. The vice president's office crossed it." Now Bush has to decide how long he'll make Libby wait on the other side.

Republican Senator on Justice Dept: They Lied to Me

Mar. 08, 2007
Copyright © Las Vegas Review-Journal

JUSTICE DEPARTMENT: Ensign voices ire at agency

Explanations for dismissal of U.S. attorney differ

By STEVE TETREAULT
STEPHENS WASHINGTON BUREAU

WASHINGTON -- Sen. John Ensign on Wednesday charged that the Justice Department botched the dismissals of U.S. attorneys and suggested he was misled as to why the Nevada chief federal prosecutor, Daniel Bogden, was removed from office.

Meanwhile, Sen. Harry Reid said he understood the department planned to take advantage of a loophole and fill its new vacancy in Nevada without submitting its choice for customary Senate review and confirmation.

"That's what they told Bogden," said Reid, D-Nev.

A day after Democrat-led committees in the House and Senate held investigative hearings, the Nevada senators' comments reflected the continuing controversy swirling around the dismissal of at least eight chief prosecutors, the circumstances of the firings and what course might lie ahead to fill the posts.

Ensign, R-Nev., said the removal of the U.S. attorneys "has been completely mishandled."

"It is not unusual to let U.S. attorneys go, but you need to have good reasons especially if you are going to do seven at the same time," he said.

Seven including Bogden were fired Dec. 7. Another had been fired previously.

Ensign was particularly irate over the firing of Bogden, an independent who Ensign picked in 2001 to oversee federal crime prosecutions in Nevada. Bogden, a prosecutor in the Northern Nevada office of the U.S. attorney, was nominated by President Bush and confirmed by the Senate in October 2001.

In December, the Justice Department fired Bogden over Ensign's objections. Ensign said last month he was told the dismissal was for "performance reasons."

Justice officials initially told Congress that was the reason. But Tuesday, Deputy Attorney General William Moschella told a House subcommittee "no particular deficiencies" in Bogden's performance existed.

Moschella said the department wanted someone with "renewed energy" to take the Las Vegas-based office "to the next level."

Ensign said Wednesday he was decidedly unhappy.

"What the Justice Department testified yesterday is inconsistent with what they told me," Ensign said. "I can't even tell you how upset I am at the Justice Department."

Asked whether he believed he was misled, Ensign said, "I was not told the same thing that I was at the hearing, let me put it that way."

Ensign said he pressed the topic at a meeting with White House officials Wednesday morning. He added he would be "making further inquiries."

"I am not pleased with the Justice Department at this point," he said. "I told the White House this morning if I could renominate (Bogden) I would."

What action Ensign could take beyond complaining to Bush administration officials over the handling of Bogden's firing is unclear.

The removal of the U.S. attorneys has been "a big mess" for the Bush administration, including antagonizing Ensign, a Republican ally, said Carl Tobias, a law professor at the University of Richmond.

"What is troubling is that they don't even consult Ensign, who is their person," Tobias said.

Reid renewed a call for the Senate to repeal a section of the Patriot Act that was added last year. It allows the president to appoint new U.S. attorneys without seeking Senate approval.

The reasoning was to allow a president to fill posts quickly in terrorist emergencies. But Democrats have said the Bush administration was purging U.S. attorneys to name new ones under the provision.

"We need to change the law," Reid said. "What they have done to these prosecutors is immoral, illegal, unethical and really bad government."

Attorney General Alberto Gonzales and other department officials have testified to Congress they plan to submit U.S. attorney replacements to the Senate for confirmation.

A Justice Department spokesman did not return a call Wednesday.

Bogden did not respond to a cell phone message Wednesday to comment on Reid's statement that Bogden was told of Justice Department strategy for a successor.

A legal source familiar with the appointment process said it seemed clear that the administration was preparing to "parachute in" a new U.S. attorney in Nevada, possibly from outside the state, under the Patriot Act umbrella.

Did they really think with only two years to go (in Bush's term) they would be able to nominate someone and get through the Senate Judiciary Committee?" the source said.

But uproar over the firings might have discouraged the administration from pursuing that course, the source said.

Ensign said he is reviewing applicants to succeed Bogden, and plans to refer a choice to the Justice Department. But he questioned how quickly a replacement could be seated and whether the Senate would confirm new U.S. attorneys in the charged atmosphere.

"Who knows whether we will be able to?" he said.

Besides Bogden, other federal prosecutors who were fired include Bud Cummins of Little Rock, Ark., David Iglesias of Albuquerque, N.M., Carol Lam of San Diego, Paul Charlton of Phoenix, John McKay of Seattle, Margaret Chiara of Grand Rapids, Mich., and Kevin Ryan of San Francisco.

The battle over fired US attorneys

from the March 08, 2007 edition

Eight lost their jobs, leading Democratic lawmakers to try to rein in presidential powers.

The Christian Science Monitor

WASHINGTON

The Bush administration's controversial firing of eight US attorneys sets up a major clash between the White House and the new Congress, as Democrats step up efforts to rein in new presidential powers.

At issue is whether the Justice Department's decision to replace these top federal prosecutors was a political purge and, if so, what Congress can do about it.

As a start, lawmakers are revisiting a last-minute provision added to last year's reauthorization of the USA Patriot Act at the request of the Justice Department. It gives the president authority to replace a US attorney without going back to the Senate for confirmation. At the time, no lawmaker noticed. But dramatic testimony Tuesday from fired attorneys, who appeared only after Congress began issuing subpoenas, is fueling a push to strike the provision.

The back-to-back Senate and House hearings also raised questions about whether three Republican lawmakers tried to influence public corruption investigations, in violation of congressional ethics rules.

"This week, the House and Senate have launched hearings into two scandals – the neglect of wounded soldiers at Walter Reed Army Medical Center and the firing of several US attorneys by the Bush administration – that profoundly demonstrate just how important it is that Democrats have restored broad and vigorous oversight," said House majority leader Steny Hoyer, in a statement on Wednesday.

A first move is to revoke the single sentence in the USA Patriot Act that allows the president to replace a US attorney without Senate confirmation.

"For over 150 years, the process of appointing interim US attorneys has worked with virtually no problems. Now, just one year after receiving unchecked authority in a little-known section added to the Patriot Act last spring, the administration has significantly abused its discretion," said Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D) of California at Tuesday's Senate hearing.

Last month, the Senate Judiciary Committee approved a bill sponsored by Senator Feinstein that limits the term for an interim appointment to 120 days – returning the law to what it was prior to the reauthorization of the Patriot Act.

"That's to create an incentive to go to the Senate for confirmation," says Feinstein. If a nominee is not confirmed by the Senate in 120 days, the appointment would be made by the district court.

So far, Senate Republicans have blocked moves to take the bill to the floor for debate. But lawmakers on both sides of the aisle predict that this week's hearings will give the bill more traction.

What emerged from the hearings are two starkly different versions of events.

No one disputes that the president has the right to remove political appointees.

"Each of us was fully aware that we served at the pleasure of the president and that we could be removed for any, or no, reason," said Carol Lam of San Diego, in a joint statement for herself and other fired US attorneys who appeared before Senate and House Judiciary panels. "In most of our cases, we were given little or no information about the reason for the request for our resignations. This hearing is not a forum to engage in speculation, and we decline to speculate about the reasons."

But in a full day of questioning, lawmakers pressed witnesses on whether they felt pressured to lay off corruption cases against Republicans – or step up prosecutions of Democrats.

Ms. Lam, who served as US attorney from 2002 until this year, declined to speculate on whether she had been fired because of her prosecution of former GOP Rep. Randy "Duke" Cunningham for corruption.

In response to the same questions, US Attorney David Iglesias told lawmakers he had been contacted by Rep. Heather Wilson and Sen. Pete Domenici, both New Mexico Republicans, who wanted to know whether he planned to indict a local Democrat for corruption before last November's elections. "I suspect they believed that I was not a help to them during the campaign, and I just started to kind of put the dots together," he told the Senate panel.

Both lawmakers acknowledge the phone calls to Mr. Iglesias but deny that they tried to influence an ongoing investigation – a violation of ethics rules. Another witness, former US Attorney John McKay in Seattle, said a former aide to Rep. Doc Hastings (R) of Washington called to ask whether he would convene a grand jury to investigate voter fraud in the 2004 governor's race. Congressman Hastings chaired the House ethics committee in the 109th Congress.

In testimony before the House panel, Justice Department official William Moschella told lawmakers that no US attorneys were "removed [or] asked or encouraged to resign in an effort to retaliate against them." He also testified that the Justice Department never intended to use interim appointments to "circumvent the Senate confirmation process."

The sharp questioning was to be expected, observers say.

"Many of those US attorneys had very strong evaluations from the Justice Department, so it shouldn't be surprising that they're questioning why they were fired," says Carl Tobias, a law professor at the University of Richmond.

Republicans on both panels say they are troubled by the way the Justice Department handled the firings, especially its decision to inform seven US attorneys on the same day without citing a reason for the firings.

"To replace seven United States attorneys all at once is not exactly a discreet thing to do," said Sen. Arlen Specter (R) of Pennsylvania, the ranking Republican on the Senate Judiciary Committee.

On Tuesday, Sen. Jon Kyl (R) of Arizona, who has been opposing moves to rewrite the rules on interim appointments of prosecutors, said he would have no objection to the bill proceeding if federal district courts were removed from the nomination process.

By Gail Russell Chaddock | Staff writer

Mailiki prepares indictments for parliamentarians who oppose new oil law

KarbalaNews.net reports in Arabic that al-Maliki gave an interview in which he said that high judicial authorities are preparing indictments against members of parliament for involvement in militia and death squad activity. Maybe al-Maliki thinks he does not need the Sadrist MPs because so many of them will soon be in prison.

Indeed, the scale of the indictments against sitting Iraqi representatives and officials hinted at by al-Maliki suggests a judicial coup.

Given that Sunni and Sadrist MPs have been loudest in denouncing the new oil law, if large numbers of them were incarcerated, it would also make it easier for al-Maliki to get the legislation enacted.

posted by Juan @ 3/06/2007 05:51:00 AM 5 comments