Hmmm, so having folks torture our prisoners for us by proxy, completely absovlves our government of responsibility ?
I didn't say that. All I said was they do not torture? please don't put words in my mouth. I also didn't say I agree with it. In this fight we are in I remember something that was said.
We are going to have to deal with some shady characters. even some down right evil people if we are going to make a difference in this fight.
I will say that if we are involved in torture, I don't think we need to know, We can not expect our people to fight by all the rules( why there are rules in war I'll never get that but) while every one else tramples on our agreement with the Geneva convention.
Terrorists have no remorse cutting the heads off their captives.They abide by no rules. The only way to strike fear in them, is to be even more brutal than them.
It's sad, but that is the only thing that will make them think twice. We have tried being the nice country,look where it got us.
I have a problem with anyone torturing anyone,but I also have no problem with what was going on at GITMO. It was not outside the realm of being reasonable high stress interogation. In most cases there.
BloodStone...
You ignore a great deal to keep your comfort zone Bloodstone. Your focus is to narrow widen your scope.
1# Regardless of your opinion, our nation is being accused of torture. You may find dozens of reasons in your mind to justify or deny it. But that fact will not be changed.
2# Torture has very likely happened in one form or another in all our wars. But it was a very secret thing you can be sure. What we see now is very different Bloodstone.
3# This is a public display.........it's not been secret from the start. Things like this don't happen by accident. You remember Bush's speech? The one where he said to the World "You are either with US, or your with the Terrorist". Well I see this open display of torture and human rights abuses as a simular warning to the American people. And it's had a calculated chilling effect no doubt.
4# It's the American people that stand in the way of the New World Order Bloodstone. Not the Iraqi's, Afghani's or iranians.
5# Of all the nations in the World we are the most well armed people on the planet. Look around man we are it, everyone else has either been completely registered or disarmed. You really believe that all just happened by chance? If you do your wrong. They saved the best for last, because they knew we would be the hardest country to disarm.
6# How will they do it? Most likely by declaring martial law after some trumped up attack. Or a real one, it doesn't matter it will serve the same purpose just aswell
In both katrina and the recent floods in the Midwest they confiscated citizens guns. They just can't wait to get started. FEMA is using these minor desasters to make law enforcement more accustomed to the idea of disarming Americans.
At the end of the day these public displays of torture, even if you feel they are fictious. Serve the same purpose as the public draw and quartering of the England of the dark ages. It's to keep the peasants fearful and in check.
You say this is all unlikely? I say you haven't read enough of the documents on this site and others.
_________________ Mankind must put an end to war, or war will put an end to mankind.
Bloodstone, honestly I'm disappointed. Rebut the argument, I haven't twisted your words, or at least I don't think I have, so for me... Just post a rebuttal.
I think it hit home, just me, so what I really want too know is not about your opinion but about your character, and I'm a curious, analytical individual.
And I also think this "public display" is very chillingly deliberate, not just for the reasons you point out (which are all valid in my opinion) but i also believe that there is a purposeful move to set the USA up as the badguy on the world scene....why else would our leaders so openly thumb their noses as the rest of the world?
_________________ You can't comfort the afflicted without afflicting the comfortable.
And I also think this "public display" is very chillingly deliberate, not just for the reasons you point out (which are all valid in my opinion) but i also believe that there is a purposeful move to set the USA up as the badguy on the world scene....why else would our leaders so openly thumb their noses as the rest of the world?
Exactly.
“A great civilization is not conquered from without until it has destroyed itself from within.”
Hmmm, so having folks torture our prisoners for us by proxy, completely absovlves our government of responsibility ?
I didn't say that. All I said was they do not torture? please don't put words in my mouth.
See, BStone must have meant physically dirty when he wrote:
" As as I know we do not torture people , we outsource it, so we don't get dirty. "
I hate physical dirt too. Makin' me take a damn shower, sheesh! Now that's a good reason to get someone else to brutalize others for you. No shower needed.
Quote:
I also didn't say I agree with it. In this fight we are in I remember something that was said.
We are going to have to deal with some shady characters. even some down right evil people if we are going to make a difference in this fight.
Nothing like stooping to their level, huh? Nothing like freely giving up the moral high ground. Geez, isn't it plain....we have to be shady to protect you from shady people. Oh and did I mention that YOU don't need to know.
Quote:
I will say that if we are involved in torture, I don't think we need to know,
What about government of, by, and for the people?
Are you actually endorsing the idea of a deliberately uninformed populace? That's the 2nd most unAmerican statement in your post.
Quote:
We can not expect our people to fight by all the rules
And that is the 1st most unAmerican statement in your post. Following the rules is the only thing that separates us from them.
Quote:
( why there are rules in war I'll never get that but) while every one else tramples on our agreement with the Geneva convention.
#1 we started the war. #2 we trampled the Geneva conventions.
Quote:
Terrorists have no remorse cutting the heads off their captives.
Sensationalism. As if killing an innocent civilian with a precision guided missile is somehow in a different category.
Quote:
They abide by no rules. The only way to strike fear in them, is to be even more brutal than them.
Frankly, I am more afraid of you than of them.
Quote:
It's sad, but that is the only thing that will make them think twice. We have tried being the nice country,look where it got us.
And where has brutality gotten us?
Quote:
I have a problem with anyone torturing anyone,but I also have no problem with what was going on at GITMO. It was not outside the realm of being reasonable high stress interogation. In most cases there.
BStone...
Do you have a problem with the entire lack of oversight? Or I suppose that is too secret, too sensitive. We cannot even be assured of oversight.
"Trust me," says the gov't.
No.
We did not start the war you lying S.O.B. Some jerk like you found a fault that was just enough of an excuse to piss on our leg and now peep squeaks like you are trying to tell us it is raining outside. That's what your friends get for pissin' on us, in our front yard...shoulda never jacked with the U.S.A., you and your Radical beaudreouxs. How stupid was that!?!?! Real stupid. I am thrilled to no end we popped a fist full of your crazy bastard friends.
Your oversight is the same as all the the other grating sons of bitches in this forum puking America's defense is America's fault. And That won't do for you and your spewing ilk of rats; all the leg pissers had to come together and theorize rationale to justify the warped and perverted judgments of America's culpability of its own destruction from outside, supposedly incited by intrigue from inside, from lack of having any kind of a real life of their own. An absolutely insane lot.
The real intrigue is the ignorant spittle heads spewing demoralizing garbage that America cannot make it; and to prove it's so, stupidly choke its ability to become economically and democratically more viable by binding her powerful legs out from under her in blocking her own personal at home economic and [i]energy riches needed now, while an asinine political theocratic threat continues; belaying our oil needs with lies; trickery and deception at any cost by eco-terrorist propaganda via Al Gump and the demosleaze thirst to power their self serving agendas just to prove they are right ...about what!?!? That there is no economic oil pressure? that there are no terrorist threats? That These things are a figment of imagination, or more sinisterly distractive, police state power plays instead of reactions to a direct and present danger?- THEY ARE WRONG AS HELL'S JUDGMENT!
The whack jobs blame Bush for ineffectiveness, but of all the effective ploys acutely and accurately placed on the plate of the enemy - he wants to open up our oil power 'till we get alternative energies down pat; Bush and a BIG handful of spry minds that see the problem. I'm not judging the man, I'm saying this is what he by God did - and you all damn well know he did it. It was in the flamin' news you sqweeks worship every night but a couple of weeks ago! YET, despite the spaz ass efforts of the psycho left, Bush only says, with removal of an executive order, drill!... and oil prices drop overnight and continue to do so - you silly people.
Not only were our money grubbers influenced by this, so was the entire Middle East oil industry, not to mention the Worlds - just because one very powerful fellow said drill....and there ain't a dang thing any of you can do about it; but for the democrat's real stupid foot draggin' the shine would be brighter still. What more do you think would happen if the enemy perceives that American Dream actually manifesting and unfolding again?!?!? Then prove our sand with successful energy alternatives to boot - which are breathlessly underway -Because We Can; while smartly beating them to the anti-pollution draw? Which we most soundly have!! We have far outstripped the world in anti-pollution efforts by a long shot despite the Kioto Treaty criticism. ..and we've excelled 'em soundly! Did you not know that?
Lets just ignore that truth and also let an asinine political theocratic threat drop the other shoe - it will be a plot by our gov to destroy America - again....of course...
I'd like to know (for real) which came first, the chicken or the egg...or more specifically...who breached the others land first?
Did America's presence, and activities, on foreign soil kick off the sentiment of hatred towards the American Gov't?
Or did they really strike out at us with absolutely no provocation other than some idea made up in their heads for hatred towards America?
Now as far as "legally" declaring war, I would say that America did indeed begin that process, not that I think "legal" war was ever declared necessarily speaking.....or was it that war was declared on us by them from way back? Were they justified in declaring that war?
Were we in any actual danger from Iraq or was this hyped (cough cough)......
in any case, if one is going to be prideful of being an American, while at the same time totally throwing away all the sentimental and important things that MAKE us America, then one is a hypocrite and has very misguided feelings about what he or she is actually supporting.
_________________ You can't comfort the afflicted without afflicting the comfortable.
I dunno scream...seems like a pretty far-fetched idea to me....one I've heard before, but only since the situation has arisen where justification (after the fact) was needed to explain the drive to invade Iraq this time around.
These remarks were delivered in Congress on February 26 by Republican Congressman Dana Rohrabacher. They are deeply troubling, because they suggest that the Bush Administration is pro-actively seeking to impede investigation into extremely serious terrorist links between Timothy McVeigh and dangerous al Quaeda terrorists, while at the same time attempted to deceive the public into thinking that such investigations are going forward.
Mr. ROHRABACHER. Madam Speaker , I come to the floor tonight with a heavy heart. The nature of the allegations I make speaks poorly of this administration. In my heart of hearts, I have always wanted this administration to succeed, but the issue at hand is of such magnitude that the American people need to know what is being done and what precedents are being set.
In my tenure as a senior member of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, both as chairman and ranking member of an investigative subcommittee, I have witnessed firsthand behavior by the Bush administration which I find deeply troubling.
The disdain and uncooperative nature that this administration has shown toward Congress, including Republican Members, is so egregious that I can no longer assume that it is simply bureaucratic incompetence or isolated mistakes. Rather, I have come to the sad conclusion that this administration has intentionally obstructed Congress' rightful and constitutional duties.
Tonight I will discuss some serious examples of this administration's contemptuous disregard for the authority delegated to Congress by the Constitution. This bad attitude has consistently manifested itself in a sophomoric resentment toward Congress' constitutional role as an equal branch of government. The result has been an executive branch too insecure to let Congress do its job, an executive branch that sees Congress, even when Republicans held the majority, as a rival and a spoiler, rather than as elected representatives of the American people playing a rightful role in establishing policy for our great country.
Unfortunately, when the President of the United States rejects the legitimacy of congressional prerogatives, there are serious consequences. Tonight, I will provide examples of how this administration for the past 7 years has undercut congressional investigators, has lied to Members of Congress, and has forged ahead with secret deals in spite of efforts and pleas by Congress to be informed, if not involved.
In the last Congress, I was chairman of the Oversight and Investigations Subcommittee of the House Foreign Affairs Committee. In that capacity, I learned that in the time immediately leading up to the bombing of the Federal Building in Oklahoma City, convicted Oklahoma City bomber and murderer Terry Nichols had been in Cebu City in the Philippines. His stay in Cebu City coincided with another visitor to that city, al Qaeda's terrorist leader Ramsey Yousef. Interestingly, both Nichols and Yousef used similar bombs and methods just 2 years apart to blow up two American targets. Yousef was the mastermind of the first attack on the World Trade Center in 1993. Nichols was a coconspirator in the bombing of the Oklahoma City Federal Building in 1995.
By the way, I would like to acknowledge that today happens to be the 15-year anniversary of that first devastating attack on the World Trade Center.
These individuals, one American and one Arab, were responsible for planning two of the most lethal terrorist attacks on our countrymen in our history. We are to believe that by coincidence they ended up in an off-the-beaten-track city in the Southern Philippines? One doesn't have to be a conspiracy nut to understand that this coincidence is certainly worth looking into.
I started an official congressional investigation sanctioned by Henry Hyde, then the chairman of the International Relations Committee, to see whether Terry Nichols or his accomplice, Timothy McVeigh, had foreign help in their murderous terrorist bombing of the Alfred Murrah Building in Oklahoma City.
In light of the fact that Terry Nichols and Ramsey Yousef were both in Cebu City at the same time prior to hauntingly similar terrorist attacks, it was no stretch for a congressional investigative committee to be looking into this matter. However, the Bush administration felt quite differently. To those I had to deal with, it was "case closed, don't bother us.'' They had looked into the matter, and Congress should simply and blindly accept their conclusion that there was no Nichols-Yousef connect ion. "Don't bother us.'' This was at times bureaucratic laziness, and at other times it was clearly based on a disdain for congressional investigations and authority.
During my investigation, I secured Ramsey Yousef's cell phone records. The records were part of the phone calls that he made when he was in that New York City area in the months just prior to the bombing of the World Trade Center in 1993.
The phone records show that Ramsey Yousef made at least two phone calls to a row house in Queens, New York.
That row house was occupied by the cousin of Terry Nichols' Filipina wife. Let me repeat that. The terrorist bomber of the first World Trade Center attack, the nephew of al Qaeda 9/11 mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammad, made phone calls to the same row house that was occupied by Terry Nichols' cousins-in-law just 2 months before he exploded t he bomb in the garage of the World Trade Center 15 years ago. Another coincidence?
I gave this information to the Department of Justice and since that time have repeatedly sought their help in investigating this matter. Time after time, my requests have gone unanswered or have just been flatly denied.
I also asked the Department of Justice on numerous occasions to help me investigate the name Samir Khahil. This name is on a list of unindicted co-conspirators of the 1993 World Trade Center bombing, a gain in connection with Ramsey Yousef.
It also is the name, by the way, of an Iraqi man in Oklahoma City who at the time of the Oklahoma City bombing employed an Arab immigrant who fits the description originally made by numerous witnesses as to John Doe II.
This Oklahoma-based Iraqi lied, meaning the John Doe II look-alike, lied to the investigators about his whereabouts at the time of the Oklahoma City bombing, yet there was little if any follow-up on this John Doe II look-alike. In fact, the FBI simply declared that John Doe II never existed. The existence of John Doe II, let it be remembered, was based on a sketch and sketches derived from witnesses on the scene of the Oklahoma City bombing and the truck rental company in which that bomb was placed on a truck from that truck rental company. Those witnesses described a man who, as I say, looked very much like Samir Khahil's employee.
Now, I have repeatedly asked the Department of Justice to tell me if the Samir Khahil on the unindicted coconspirators list of the 1993 World Trade Center bombing is the same Samir Khahil who employed a man originally identified as John Doe II, the bomber, the number two bomber in the Oklahoma City bombing. The Justice Department's answer: "It would be too burdensome to find out if it was the same man.''
Further, we asked help in finding the Arab immigrant who looked like John Doe II and the man who was employed by Samir Khahil. We traced him to Boston, but we have had no support or cooperation in finding this very possible terrorist, or at least terrorist suspect. He may well have been working at Boston's Logan Airport on 9/11/01, the day that a plane took off from that airport and was hijacked and crashed into the World Trade Center. Another weird coincidence to the Oklahoma City bombing. Another coincidence, yes.
You don't have to be a conspiracy nut to believe that these things should be investigated. Instead, there has been no follow-through, no interest. The case is closed, forget it, both in terms of Samir Khahil and his Iraqi employer and employee; and both of these people, of course, reside in the United States right now.
That is just a small taste of the deplorable lack of cooperation for a legitimate congressional investigation. And it was no fluke. I didn't just happen to snag some uncooperative Federal employee. No, this is the level of non-cooperation Congress has learned to expect from this administration.
Yes, Departments and agencies do have limited resources, and I understand that. I used to work in the executive branch. So, yes, there may be some better uses for and some good uses for those limited resources and better uses for their time and investigators, rather than just following up on leads that are provided by Members of Congress.
You can hear someone explaining that. But the lack of cooperation that we have had goes far beyond the fact that they are not going to give their limited resources or even use some of their investigators to track down what most of us would consider a very worthwhile lead, especially considering that the terrorist that we are asking to look into currently resides in the United States and may well have had something to do with the bombing of the World Trade Center and the bombing of the Oklahoma City building there.
But, again, a lot of my requests don't require a lot of time and effort on the part of the executive branch, and I still have been stonewalled. For the past year, for example, I have repeatedly requested to interview the imprisoned terrorist Ramzi Yousef. He is in Colorado and in strict lockup. He has been there for 10 years.
This would have taken no time and no resources from any executive branch or Federal employee. None. This request is well within my committee's jurisdiction as ranking member of the Investigative Subcommittee of the House Foreign Affairs Committee.
This request has been supported by the chairman of the Investigative Subcommittee, the chairman of the full Foreign Affairs Committee, the chairman of the Judiciary Committee, and the chairman of the Intelligence Committee.
Such attention by Congress should be welcomed by this administration and every administration. The legislative branch can help bring new information to light and inform the public.
Nevertheless, the Department of Justice, consistent with its treatment of congressional inquiries during the tenure of this President, has dismissed this valid request. This request has been treated with what can only be described as contempt and condescension.
The point is, unfortunately, that this rejectionist attitude is typical. It is not that they don't have enough resources to help out, to look into an easy matter to look into. It is just that they do not want to cooperate with Congress, even when it's a Republican in Congress, even when the Congress was controlled by a Republican majority.
So, why would this administration obstruct congressional inquiries such as this? Remember, Ramzi Yousef was the mastermind behind several devastating terrorist attacks and plots against America. He led the first murderous attack on the World Trade Center in 1993, as I say.
After fleeing to the Philippines, he and two other terrorists plotted to kill thousands of Americans by blowing up 12 commercial airliners over the Pacific at the same time. It was known as the Bojinka plot. It was within 2 weeks of being executed when it was discovered and thwarted by Philippine police.
Interestingly, the terrorist operation, the Bojinka plot, was to take place about the same time as the Oklahoma City Federal building bombing, perhaps on the same day. We don't know. Perhaps we should know. Perhaps we should ask Ramzi Yousef about that.
Ramzi Yousef has been in Federal prison for over a decade. He is a prisoner with a unique understanding of the al Qaeda terrorist structure. He is the nephew of Khalid Sheik Mohammed, the mastermind of the 9/11 attack on the World Trade Center.
In 2006, when I was the chairman of the House Oversight Investigations Subcommittee on the Foreign Affairs Committee, I was investigating Yousef's movements and activities not only in the United States but in the Philippines. I even traveled to the Philippines to question authorities who had captured Yousef's roommate and coconspirator in the Bojinka plot.
In spite of that fact and in spite of the fact that I was looking into Yousef's terrorist activities and in spite of the fact that I had obtained new information about Yousef's phone calls right here in the United States and new information about his associates while he was in the United States, the Department of Justice still dismisses the effort and, more than that, they are obstructing a legitimate congressional investigation, refusing to permit this elected Member of Congress, a ranking member of a congressional investigating committee, to interview a Federal prisoner. They refused access to Yousef claiming that there is a "ongoing investigation.''
This prisoner has been in jail for over 10 years. It is more likely that what we have here is an ongoing coverup and not an ongoing investigation. In fact, I have been told recently by a former member of the Justice Department that they were told routinely simply to give answers that there is an ongoing investigation even if no ongoing investigation was underway, but simply using it as a phrase to dismiss a request from Congress.
Well, this is outrageous, but it's typical of this administration. This is a lot more than just a hurtful pride on my part of being turned down.
This administration is setting a terrible precedent. What people have to understand, when I am turned down like this, is when there is a liberal Democrat in the White House, the President will have set that Members of Congress can simply be dismissed, and that when they are trying to do a congressional investigation need not be cooperated with, in fact, can be obstructed. Is that the type of President that we want? Is that acceptable? It shouldn't be acceptable to Democrats and it shouldn't be acceptable to Republicans.
Doesn't Congress have a right to talk to Federal prisoners. Are these the rules of engagement? Is it really the rules of engagement that we want for our government that Members of Congress and the legislative branch don't have a right to talk to Federal prisoners?
Well, that's apparently what the Bush administration is trying to establish as the executive authority, as executive authority, the right to deny congressional investigators access to Federal prisoners. The danger of this should be easy to understand, both on my side of the aisle, the Republican side, and the Democratic side of the aisle.
Again, the attitude, apparent in the treatment of this request, is not an aberration or is it some sort of situation where this is not really a representative way the President has acted with his authority. No, I am afraid that's not the case.
This request was first made and denied when the Republicans controlled the Congress and I was the chairman of the Investigative Subcommittee.
Now Congress has a Democrat majority. In my position as ranking member of the International Organizations, Human Rights, and Oversight Subcommittee of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, I have seen it time and time again.
Our subcommittee chairman, BILL DELAHUNT from Massachusetts, read in the newspaper that our President is negotiating a security agreement with the Iraqi Prime Minister that will govern the future relationship of our countries.
Now let me say that again. The Chairman of the Oversight Subcommittee on Foreign Affairs Committee is getting the information about a hugely important foreign bilateral security agreement by reading the newspaper. So, Chairman Delahunt conducted a hearing about the status of such an agreement and invited the administration to send a witness to testify before Congress.
How did the administration respond? They ignored the request. So the hearing was held with a private panel of witnesses, and, yes, the public has a right and an obligation to fully understand such commitments that are being made by the President in our name.
In a democratic society, policy is made after having an open dialogue. George Bush was elected President, not king.
In another attempt last month, our subcommittee held another hearing on the Iraqi security agreement and, again, our panel invited and pleaded with the administration to provide a witness. Their response? Silence.
Our subcommittee held another, a third hearing on this topic. Again, our subcommittee invited the administration to attend and explain to Congress what kind of commitment our government has agreed to with the government of Iraq. Even our full committee chairman wrote letter s asking for the administration to participate in the subcommittee hearing. All the requests to the administration by our committee and by the superiors in the full committee were ignored, except for one, and, in one instance, where the contact was made, and I am sad to say that once again this administration was less than honest on a matter of national importance, Chairman Delahunt's subcommittee was told by a White House staffer that the administration's unwillingness to participate in hearings was because "There is nothing to talk about because we haven't put pen to paper'' on security, because they haven't put the pen to paper on the security agreement, supposedly.
Well, when confronted with the fact that the New York Times had written a story saying that a 17-page agreement was being passed around, this White House staffer backtracked and quibbled.
This is unacceptable, it's dishonest, and it's typical. It's like saying there is an ongoing investigation; don't discuss anything anymore with me. There is nothing going on here.
Now, there is something going on, just as, instead of talking and trying to negotiate about what type of spokesman we could have at a hearing, instead, what we get is an undermining of the congressional right to oversee for the foreign policy decisions of this administration.
This stonewalling prevailed until a few weeks ago, when Condoleezza Rice, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, a person and a leader who I deeply admire, testified at a hearing of the full International Relations Committee.
When asked about this issue, about witnesses not showing up from the State Department and this administration to explain to us in public and to discuss in public these very important agreements that are being negotiated with Iraq, she pledged at that time that there would be future witnesses dealing with this Iraqi agreement.
At least Condoleezza Rice, the Secretary of State, feels secure enough in this administration to do what's right and to talk directly to Congress and to send her people over to talk to us.
Unfortunately, we had to go all the way to the Secretary of State before we could get anybody in this administration to participate. Let me note, I am a supporter of the President's Iraqi policies. I have been a supporter since day one. I supported the surge, and I am not in favor of some of the propositions made by my friends on the other side of the aisle, which I consider would be a precipitous leaving of Iraq and would cause damage, I believe.
But that's not the point. The point is, Congress has a legitimate oversight responsibility and that the President of the United States should be discussing in public so that the public could understand why policy is being made rather than trying to secretly arrange a policy agreement and then surprise everybody, you know, as a done deal. Sadly, this administration's antipathy to the constitutional responsibilities of the legislative branch of government does not stop and end with my efforts and those of my subcommittee on investigations.
In October of last year, 22 of my colleagues and I wrote to the Acting Attorney General, Peter Keisler, regarding the pending lie detector test for former National Security Advisor Sandy Berger.
Madam Speaker, I submit for the Record, a copy of a letter concerning making that request of Acting Attorney General Peter Keisler.
October 10, 2007.
Mr. PETER D. KEISLER, Acting Attorney General,
Department of Justice,
Washington, DC.
DEAR ACTING ATTORNEY GENERAL KEISLER:
In 2005, former Clinton National Security Advisor Sandy Berger pled guilty to the mishandling and destruction of classified documents.
He admitted to entering the National Archives and unlawfully removing, then subsequently destroying, classified documents dealing with terrorist related issues. He removed the documents by stuffing them down his pants and in his suit jacket, presumably with the intention of getting rid of any damning evidence showing his involvement in the failure of our intelligence and law enforcement communities to prevent the Sept. 11th attacks prior to his testimony before the 911 Commission. These documents have never been recovered.
As part of a plea deal, Mr. Berger agreed to take a polygraph test to be administered by the Department of Justice. It has been two years since that agreement and Mr. Berger has yet to fulfill his obligation.
We are writing to officially request that as Attorney General you direct the Department of Justice without any further delay to administer a lie detector test to Mr. Berger and determine what documents were stolen and how our National Security was compromised.
The Congress, and the American people, deserve to know the facts of this crime and what Mr. Berger was covering up. Therefore we respectfully request a directive be issued by your office ordering Mr. Berger to surrender to the Justice Department immediately and that a polygraph test be administered forthwith.
Sincerely,
Dana Rohrabacher,
Member of Congress.
In 2005, Sandy Berger pled guilty to the mishandling and destruction of classified documents. He admitted that he unlawfully removed and subsequently destroyed classified documents from the National Archives. These documents dealt with the failure of our intelligence agencies during the Clinton administration to prevent the horrendous attacks on 9/11.
As part of his plea, Mr. Berger agreed to a lie detector test which was given by the Department of Justice. This would determine what documents had been stolen by Mr. Berger. We are still waiting for that test to be administered.
As a member, as a senior member of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, I was and still am rightfully concerned about the length of time between his crime and the administration of his lie detector test.
So on October 10, 2007, I sent a letter, that letter signed by 22 of my colleagues, asking the Department of Justice why the test had not been administered.
On October 22, 2007, my office received a form letter acknowledging the DOJ's receipt of our inquiry. It was signed with an illegible signature. We have no idea who signed it. All we know is that he or she penned it "for'' next to a printed name Brian Benczkowski.
Principally, he is the principal Deputy Assistant Secretary General.
We were also given a tracking number so we could track any future correspondence. In spite of that fact, we received a computer- generated response and a tracking number to an official congressional inquiry, okay, signed by 23 Members of Congress. We had hoped that we would actually have an answer to our request and that there would actually be a human being rather than a tracking number that we could look to.
Well, we got our wish and we got a letter back. On January 24, 2008, 94 days after the letter, we received a response, and I submit the response for the Record.
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE,
OFFICE OF LEGISLATIVE AFFAIRS,
Washington, DC,
January 24, 2008.
Hon. DANA ROHRBACHER,
House of Representatives,
Washington, DC.
DEAR CONGRESSMAN ROHRBACHER: This is in response to your letter, dated October 10, 2007, in which you requested that the Department of Justice administer a polygraph examination to Mr. Samuel Berger, who pleaded guilty in April 2005, to violations of federal law relating to the removal of copies of classified documents from the National Archives.
We appreciate your interest and have enclosed a copy of our letter, dated February 16, 2007, to the Honorable Henry A. Waxman, Chairman of the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, advising him of our views regarding the Minority Staff Report that was issued regarding this matter. As stated in our response to Chairman Waxman, we believe that there are no facts that would justify a polyg raph of Mr. Berger at this time.
We are sending an identical response to the other Members who joined in your letter to us. Please do not hesitate to contact this office if you would like additional assistance regarding this or any other matter.
Sincerely,
Brian A. Benczkowski,
Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General.
The letter was dismissive and said that the DOJ found no reason to issue a polygraph test to Sandy Berger, and attached was an old letter the DOJ had sent to Chairman Waxman of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee almost a year before our correspondence. The letter this time was signed by Brian Benczkowski.
Madam Speaker, I have been a Member of Congress for 19 years. I have never seen such a pattern of blatant disregard and outright disdain for Members of Congress. If Sandy Berger is not to be polygraphed to verify the documents that were stolen from the Archives, we need to know why such verification is not being done. This administration wouldn't even give a respectable answer to the rightful inquiry of Members of Congress of why we are not verifying through a polygraph test what documents were stolen from the National Archives by the former National Security Adviser.
On the one hand, this President believes he has a right to make demands on us. The President said in his State of the _Union_ address that Congress must act on certain issues. We must do as he wishes. We must pass legislation he deems necessary. Yet while 23 Members of Congress write his Justice Department a serious letter of inquiry about a national security issue, we get a computer-generated form letter and a copy of an old response to a different inquiry. The bad attitude I am detailing is pervasive.
The handling of a proposed totalization agreement with Mexico is again yet another example. The totalization agreements, and totalization agreements are not necessarily a bad thing, they can serve a useful function. Large corporations both in the United States and abroad often assign people to work in an overseas office for several years. During these years, employers are double taxed. They pay both Social Security and the equivalent tax in their native countries. Allowing the Social Security Administration and foreign agencies to give credit under one system towards retirement makes sense if there are a limited number of people involved and the people who are involved in this are working here legally and temporarily. The concept itself is not alarming.
However, this is emphatically not the case with Mexico. We have millions of Mexican citizens living illegally in the United States. This is not a limited number of Swedish or Japanese executives who will only work here for a number of years and then go home. Not only are Mexicans not going to return to Mexico; the Mexican Government encourages them to stay in the United States. After all, if the U.S. is going to pay for their health care, their education and now their retirement, why should Mexico be bothered.
Knowing the volatility of the American people on both the Social Security and illegal immigration issues, the totalization negotiations with Mexico were kept totally under wraps. Now remember, these negotiations with Mexico started in 2002 with a Republican- controlled Congress. One would think that a Republican administration would at the very least advise Congress, perhaps giving a status report, concerning such diplomatic efforts as the totalization negotiations with Mexico.
Well, Congress did not know the details until it hit the press. Worse, these press releases on the agreement, put out by the administration, were misleading and it appears that Congress was being misled as to just what the administration had agreed to concerning Social Security benefits for Mexican nationals illegally working in the United States.
Now, I have proposed legislation to ensure that no work done while someone is in this country illegally should be counted towards a Social Security benefit. The administration apparently agreed in the totalization agreement negotiations that illegal aliens from Mexico will be eligible for the same treatment under Social Security as U.S. citizens without ever becoming a legal resident or citizen. It took a long, drawn-out legal battle in the form of a Freedom of Information lawsuit to get the details of this agreement from the administration. Again, stonewalling and concealment, whether it deals with Iraq or whether it deals with a totalization agreement dealing with Social Security rights for the people from Mexico who come to our country illegally.
In both cases, regardless of how you feel about the Iraq policies or Social Security for illegal immigrants into our country, the point is we should not be keeping this debate secret. Congress has a right to oversee such agreements, and we should have a public dialogue about these types of decisions.
This administration has, as I am pointing out, a history of concealment and in some cases of distorting and actually not telling us the truth about what is going on with these negotiations and agreements that are happening behind closed doors.
Once Congress and the public found out about the agreement in the totalization agreement, a fire storm broke out not just about giving illegals Social Security but about keeping it secret from Congress. Yes, as I said, Congress, as well as America's seniors, have every right to know if the President of the United States is in the process of signing an agreement to give Social Security benefits to illegal immigrants. It is something we should discuss. It is not something where the President should try to make an agreement behind closed doors. In this case the administration is undermining the public's right to know and the Congress is being left in the dark.
And please remember, the danger from this agreement is not past. Due to the public outrage, it has been put on the back burner, but the President at any time can submit this agreement to Congress even if he has not detailed it for us now so we can discuss it.
What I am describing is a pattern of arrogance and contempt, and that is especially true not just with Social Security but with broader issues relating to illegal immigration and on issues dealing with Mexico.
The tragic case of wrongly imprisoned Border Patrol agents Ignacio Ramos and Jose Compean exemplifies the worst aspects of this administration's attitude problem, and will forever leave a black mark on this administration.
President Bush has himself made decisions that directly led to the ongoing tragedy which sees these two Border Patrol agents languishing in solitary confinement; and that's where they are today, in solitary confinement, being treated worse than we treat the terrorists in Guantanamo. That is where we are now. That is what they have had to endure in that solitary confinement for over a year.
Now, this is clearly a questionable case, but President Bush has deliberately dug in his heels to protect his good friend and young protege, the prosecutor, U.S. Attorney Johnny Sutton. Rather than entertain the probability that a terrible injustice was in progress and instruct the Justice Department and the Department of Homeland Security to cooperate so Congress could get to the bottom of this nightmare, this President has thumbed his nose at the congressional concerns and initiated a policy of obstruction and denial in terms of Ramos and Compean.
Since the Ramos and Compean case was brought to my attention in September 2006, I have written over a dozen letters to this administration requesting various documents regarding the harsh prosecution of Ramos and Compean. I have been joined by several other Members of Congress in this effort, including Congressmen POE, CULBERSON, and MCCAUL. These three Members of Congress, in fact, attended a briefing on Ramos and Compean's prosecution by the Department of Homeland Security Inspector General's Office on September 26, 2006.
In that briefing, serious questions were raised by these three Members about the fundamental justification for this prosecution to begin with. The President and his lap-dog prosecutors would like us to believe that they have no discretion, but these Members of Congress who have long histories in the law and in prosecution, they know. They could see there was something wrong because we know that the actual charges being brought against Ramos and Compean, and they were fully aware of this because these Members of Congress, as I said, have a big background in law, they knew that what charges were being brought were totally at the discretion of the prosecutors. The prosecution's hands were not tied.
What were the grounds for charging these men with crimes like attempted murder, assault with a deadly weapon, the unlawful discharge of a firearm during a crime of violence, and a Federal civil rights violation?
These charges that could have put Ramos and Compean in prison for 10-20 years were totally at the discretion of the prosecution. Did this fit the crime? If there was any crime at all that was committed, why would they be charged with this overwhelming attack by the prosecution knowing that by making these charges these men are going to end up being put away for one or two decades of their life.
These two Border Patrol agents had wounded a fleeing illegal alien drug smuggler who was escaping after assaulting one of the officers who had intercepted the drug dealer during an attempt to bring $1 million worth of drugs into this country. Although they were never intended by Congress to be applied in this way, the gun laws which were applied by the prosecution, the gun law of mandatory prison sentence, was applied to the law enforcement officers in this case, and these law enforcement officers had made a split-second decision to discharge their weapons. Is that right? Isn't there some question about that, considering they threw the book at these guys?
The prosecutors knew that it was not the intent of Congress that they should be charging law enforcement officers with split-second decisions in the discharge of a weapon; but they threw the book at the agents, including the charges that required tens of years of mandatory imprisonment. Again, it was at their discretion that they made these charges.
When Congressmen POE, CULBERSON, and MCCAUL asked why the most serious charges that could be leveled at the Border Patrol agents were initiated by the prosecutors, and why the prosecutors took the word of the drug dealer that he had no weapon rather than the word of the law enforcement officers, the DHS officials, briefing these Congressmen, assured them that this was a legitimate and righteous prosecution. These were, according to the DHS briefing given to these Members of Congress, these were rogue cops. Ramos and Compean were rogue cops, and the Congressmen were told they actually confessed that they knew that the drug smuggler was unarmed and that the agents didn't really feel threatened.
And the biggest lie of all, the Department of Homeland Security briefer insisted that Ramos and Compean had told fellow officers the day of the incident that they "wanted to shoot a Mexican'' that day. That charge raised eyebrows considering that the accused, Ignacio Ramos and Jose Compean, are themselves Mexican Americans married to Mexican American wives with Mexican American children. Sure, they just go out and intentionally shoot some Mexicans that day. Sure.
This is what Members of Congress were told in an official briefing. Asking for proof, the three Congressmen who were being briefed were told that the charges were documented in the reports of the investigative officers. The Department of Homeland Security briefer promised to provide this proof that Ramos and Compean had actually intended that day to go out and "kill a Mexican.'' Of course, the proof never came.
The Congressmen kept asking. Calls weren't returned. The Department of Homeland Security stalled for 5 months. Members asked for copies of the completed report of investigation which should have backed up the alleged facts that were told to Members during the September 26 briefing to the Members of Congress.
Months passed, and nothing more. Just months passed. Nothing from the Department of Homeland Security. Several letters and public pressure arose, and the Department of Homeland Security finally released a redacted version of the official report of investigation in February 2007. And surprise, surprise, the alleged confession of Ramos and Compean was nowhere to be found in that document. The documentation of the charge that they had brazenly proclaimed their intent to kill a Mexican was not there. But that charge was repeated over and over again.
How could this be? How could the Department of Homeland Security officials, how could they assure Members this was a solid prosecution and that evidence existed that Ramos and Compean were guilty and they wanted to shoot a Mexican? These were flat out lies told to Members of Congress who were being officially briefed by this administration.
During a Department of Homeland Security subcommittee hearing on February 6, 2007, DHS Inspector General Richard Skinner was questioned by Congressman Culberson about this issue. Under oath Skinner acknowledged the information given to the Texas Congressman was in fact false, but he smugly justified his blatant and willful lying by calling it "mischaracterization unfortunately repeated at the briefing.'' No, Mr. Skinner, it was a lie, no matter how colorful the euphemism.
Ollie North was prosecuted on a charge far less egregious than what we're talking about now. Ollie North gave, or so it was alleged, misinformation to congressional staffers who were not part of an official briefing of Members of Congress; yet, he w
In the sense that I thought initially, not in the sense you meant.
