A BBC report on Bush’s ‘independent’ commission refers to John McCain as “the maverick”.
It also includes the following:
Speaking shortly after the announcement of the commission, Mr McCain told reporters: “The president of the United States, I believe, did not manipulate any kind of information for political gain or otherwise.”
There seems to be a recurring theme, if you will, to developing reports on the intent of this commission that it will focus not on faulty Iraq intelligence or how the Bush administration may have manipulated it, but how better to manipulate it in the future.
The appointees in brief:
Laurence Silberman, former judge (chair): Described in this article as “a long-time political operative in the right-wing of the Republican Party” who as an aide to Ronald Reagan carried out some of the most ‘politically sensitive’ duties of that administration, “he was dubbed the Reagan-Bush campaign’s “ambassador to Iran” for his behind-the-scenes contacts with the Khomeini regime.”
The article goes on to illustrate his inconsistency in matters of justice that can only be observed as blatant partisanship:
Silberman and Sentelle required the Independent Counsel to prove that neither the prosecutors nor any of the witnesses had been affected by the testimony given by North and Poindexter during weeks of nationally televised congressional hearings. This impossible requirement–essentially the proof of a negative–was the basis for dismissing the convictions of the two military officers who directed the illegal arms trafficking operation.
Silberman’s cynical reversal of position–from condemning the Independent Counsel in Iran-Contra to demanding unquestioned obedience to the dictates of Kenneth Starr–demonstrates the essentially political nature of the struggle which is now taking place in Washington.
To further illustrate the inappropriateness of appointing this man to a commission alleged to be independent see this BuzzFlash article that contains excerpts from an interview they did with David Brock, author of “Blinded by the Right“. According to Brock, Silberman “openly advised him on ways to help attack Clinton, while Silberman was sitting full-time on the appellate court that Estrada is nominated for.” [link to interview]
In that first article I linked you’ll find a reference to the article “Circuit Breaker” by Chris Mooney, published by The American Prospect on March 1, 2003.
From it you can learn that Laurence Silberman has, in the past, been accused of threatening to assault someone who disagreed with him.
Both sides admit that collegiality is a critical factor in determining how well a court functions, especially in the case of one such as the D.C. Circuit, which has a relatively small number of appointees. A decade and a half ago the court was notoriously polarized; The New York Times even reported that Judge Laurence Silberman at one point threatened to assault Judge Abner Mikva.
So far we have a ‘maverick’ who has already decided the Bush administration has done no wrong, and a judge-for-hire, radical right-winged partisan who has resorted in the past to threats of violence when his ideas were challenged.
Moving on.
Lloyd Cutler, former White House counsel: Cutler enjoyed the ‘distinction’ of acting as White House counsel to Clinton while maintaining an active role at his firm, denying these dual roles posed a conflict of interest.
Consider an excerpt from this review of the book “No Contest: Corporate Lawyers and the Perversion of Justice in America” by Ralph Nader and Wesley J. Smith.
How did Cutler rise to such esteem? According to No Contest: Corporate Lawyers and the Perversion of Justice in America, by consumer activists Ralph Nader and Wesley J. Smith, it wasn’t by maintaining a spotless reputation. Rather, they say, in addition to serving as a lawyer-lobbyist for numerous companies and trade associations, Cutler had shamelessly capitalized on his social connections to win the praise of the powerful. Nor did it hurt that he had served as chairman of the Reagan-era commission on government salaries that recommended raises of at least 50% for the President, Cabinet members, Congress, and federal judges. ”Was there a better way to become popular with the branches of government, each of which is crucial to your law firm’s success?” ask Nader and Smith.
Cutler serves as No Contest’s ultimate embodiment of the evil power lawyer.
Richard Levin, President Yale university: On the surface I’m not sure what substantive value a university president can bring to a commission investigating matters of national security. He might prove usefull should George resort to fits of spontaneous cheerleading?
His character can’t be the qualifier:
“Would Richard Levin lie to you, honey?“
“The two faces of Yale President Richard Levin“
Or could it? The ‘liberals’ appointed so far share a propensity for caving in to the highest bidder. While I understand how that character flaw would be usefull to the Bush administration it certainly portends dire straits for the ‘independent’ part of this investigation.
William Studeman, former CIA deputy director:
Disinfopedia provides the following:
Biography from Northrop Grumman
“William O. Studeman is vice president and deputy general manager for intelligence and information superiority, of Northrop Grumman Mission Systems. Mission Systems, based in Reston, Va., is a $3.5 billion global integrator of complex, mission-enabling systems and services for defense, intelligence and civil government markets.
Not only is he Northrop Grumman’s VP, Studeman heads their homeland security task force. “The group’s mission is to identify opportunities and find the appropriate internal group to pursue them, said Gravell, who participates in the task force.”
One might consider Studeman’s extensive intelligence background a plus. However one of his goals has been ferreting out the ‘insider gone wrong’. Could he apply this expertise to whistleblowers as well? His active role in the current administration tips my opinion that his naming to the commission should more importantly be viewed as a conflict of interest.
His record on investigations doesn’t alter my opinion.
Despite a letter to then President Clinton made public on March 22, 1995 by Congressman Robert Torricelli (D-NJ) “accusing a Guatemalan military intelligence officer of having ordered the killings of an American citizen in 1990 and a Guatemalan guerilla leader in 1992”, Studeman immediately defended the CIA against allegations of complicity or wrongdoings.
Responding to Torricelli, acting CIA director Admiral William Studeman said the charges are “false and utterly irresponsible.” He also said that information about the two deaths “was acquired by the US intelligence community well
after they occurred,” and that information was turned over to “appropriate US government authorities.”However, Torricelli claimed the CIA withheld evidence in its possession from the time the murders were committed, including knowledge of Alpirez’s involvement. The US, he said, could protect its interests in Guatemala “without having contractual relationships with hired killers who are involved in a brutal civil war.”
In April, acting CIA Director Studeman and other US officials implicated Alpirez in the June 1990 killing but “offered no explanation for the murder, and Alpirez’s motive for ordering it has remained a mystery.”
Now Studeman claims that the CIA must maintain contacts with Guatemalan military intelligence officers — such as Alpirez — to collect information about drug trafficking. The Clinton administration agrees; after cutting other CIA programs to Guatemala, it has allowed the CIA’s anti-drug operations there to continue. The trouble is that the CIA has been relying for information about drug trafficking on the very institution that has been producing drug trafficking suspects wanted by the DEA. At the very least, this casts doubt on the reliability of Guatemalan military intelligence. It also casts doubt on the CIA: whatever information the CIA has provided so far has yet to lead to the prosecution of a single officer.
In this April 1995 speech at Marquette University, along with breathing a sigh of relief to be out of D.C., Studeman attacked the “liberal”, “shrill” and “negative” press treatment of the CIA. He also stated he had confidence that the Aspin Commission and the Council of Foreign Relations were competent to investigate and define the CIA of the future.
Does this sound like a man who is receptive to criticism? Did his recommendations stand the test of time?
And what of his views on foreign policy?
From a review of “Body of Secrets– Anatomy of the Ultra-Secret National Security Agency” by James Bamford:
It also places growing support to the idea that while America prides itself on being the leading democracy in the world, there is not much real democracy happening. Most of what the everyday citizen sees and hears are the platitudes and manipulations of the people in power for what they really want – and then the people get to put a mark on a piece of paper to pretend that they actually have a say in matters. A current example of these manipulations is the remarkable turn-about with Iraq, where NSA director Studeman says “the principal problem…was converting a former friend into an enemy overnight.”
His views on Iran, in this January-February 1995 article, were reported to echo the testimony of outgoing-Director of Central Intelligence R. James Woolsey to the Senate Select Intelligence Committee on January 10.
The area “which deserves day-in, day-out, perhaps the most attention is Iran, because of its role in connection with international terrorism and because of its role as a potential weapons proliferation state.” Iran, he declared, is the principal sponsor of many of the world’s premier terrorist organizations, including Hizballah, and is the leading promoter of Islamic extremism, anti-Western politics, and violence in both Shiite and Sunni Muslim communities around the world.
In the intelligence community’s judgement, Iran would probably be able to produce enough fissionable material for a nuclear weapon sometime early next century if it relies on its own resources, Mr. Woolsey told the panel. But he also said that if Iran is able to acquire this nuclear material through international organized crime channels, that period of time could be shortened substantially.
Is he a singularly focussed individual?
“The greatest terrorist threats to US interests today come from extremist groups who claim–however falsely–to act on behalf of a religion, especially Islam.”
Pat Wald, former US Appeals Court judge: Patricia Wald appears to have an exemplary judicial record.
In 1999, after twenty years on the federal bench, Judge Wald stepped down. Her colleague and successor as Chief, Abner J. Mikva spoke of her as “the model of the good judge”. But retirement from the federal bench was not to lead to the front porch rocking chair – not for Judge Wald. “There is a time – this was my incentive to leave – when you realize you only have a limited number of years in which to pursue any new or different endeavor, and a little bit of the adventure or pilgrim spirit rises to the surface. You want to try one more thing that’s exciting and worthwhile before you quit.” she recently said in an interview.
Upon her retirement, Judge Wald accepted an appointment to serve on the 14 member panel of judges of the International Criminal Tribunal in The Hague, where she spent the next two years hearing cases on wartime atrocities in the former Yugoslavia. It was arduous work for Judge Wald. The trials in the Tribunal lasted, on average, fifteen months, many much longer. There was the obstacle of language and no uniform set of rules for the judges to apply. It was a grueling process for all involved. Judge Wald became a leader of the Tribunal and established a standard for fairness and the rule of law. As a result of her dedication to those principles, the lessons learned will vastly improve future international courts.
Judge Wald now serves as Chair of the Open Society Institute’s Criminal Justice Initiative.
That yet another judge, even one with a superb record, should be included on this commission signals to me that a significant goal will be to define ways in which to protect the Bush administration from detractors. Who better for Silberman to debate on these matters than a former adversary who failed to prevail in a highly controversial, prior dissent?
Then-Chief Judge Patricia M. Wald dissented, declining to find that the district judge’s “prodigious and conscientious efforts to protect North’s Fifth Amendment rights were in any way so ineffectual as to require reversal on the formalistic grounds the majority advances.” She noted that virtually all of the Grand Jury evidence relating to the counts on which North was convicted had been presented prior to North’s congressional appearance. And she found it “indeed striking that North’s counsel cannot point to a single instance of alleged witness testimony tainted by exposure to North’s immunized testimony.” In all, she observed that the procedural regime imposed by the majority “makes a subsequent trial of any congressionally immunized witness virtually impossible.”
I haven’t forgotten Chuck Robb, former Democratic senator (chair).
The question is why did George Bush decide to remember him?
[Updated @11:45 a.m. to include the last link.]
Pingback: Press Action