My compliments Kinetic. You're one of the few people who use "myriad" as an adjective and not a noun. I won't mention "moot" or "decimate" or "tinkers dam"
I remember when the paperwork reduction act was enacted. It generated lots of new forms to be sure everyone was in compliance. Dan
Politics, Everyday, All day... morning, noon and night....
-
can't sit still
- Posts: 4645
- Joined: Tue Aug 23, 2005 4:21 pm
- Location: SoCal
-
EvilDustBooger
- Posts: 3807
- Joined: Wed Feb 16, 2005 1:56 pm
- Location: Outside the Box
Here you go.
Read it and weep.
http://msnbc.msn.com/id/13337155/
2,500 brave Americans who stayed the course.
Read it and weep.
http://msnbc.msn.com/id/13337155/
2,500 brave Americans who stayed the course.
-
geekster
- Posts: 4865
- Joined: Wed Sep 08, 2004 2:53 pm
- Location: Hospice For The Terminally Breathing
- Contact:
Not really political ART RANT
There is a publishing company called HFM (Hachette Filipacchi Media) that publishes many magazines of which many will be familiar. These include titles such as Car and Driver, Road and Track and several other titles. They recently launched a new magazine called Shock! and on the cover is a picture of a US soldier in Iraq cradling a baby in a blanket in his arms.
The reason for my rant is that HFM and Shock! magazine stole that pictutre. It is the work of Michael Yon. He asked that HFM either recall the issue or compensate him. They refused to do either and began to threaten Mr. Yon with lawsuits. Eventually Michael reached an agreement with HFM where they (HFM) would make a donation to charity. After some time passed, HFM informed Michael that they had decided against making any donations to any charities, they would not compensate Michael for the photograph, nor would they recall the magazine.
The issue that has me upset has nothing to do with Mr. Yon's personal or Shock! magazine's editorial policy on events in Iraq. My problem is that a major US publisher should steal a private individual's art and use it as the cover art of a national magazine on it's debut issue. They could have just as easily stolen the art of a NGO worker, or you, or me.
Will your picture from a trip to a car race be cover art on Road and Track without your knowledge or consent? The concept of stealing people's work and using it benefit a huge corporate entity bugs the living piss out of me.
So far Mr. Yon with the help of others have been successful in having this issue of the magazine taken off the shelves of many outlets. I am not asking anyone to boycott anything or to protest. What I am asking is that you look at some links I will post following this and if you subscribe to magazines published by HFM, take a moment to let them know your opinion. The opinion of their customers carries more weight than mine. Stealing someone else's art for your own corporate gain is just plain wrong.
http://thebookblogger.com/compasspoints ... e_job.html
http://www.nypost.com/business/shock_fi ... _kelly.htm
http://thebookblogger.com/compasspoints ... honor.html
http://www.michaelyon-online.com/wp/dishonor.htm
http://michaelyon-online.com/shockmag.php
There is a publishing company called HFM (Hachette Filipacchi Media) that publishes many magazines of which many will be familiar. These include titles such as Car and Driver, Road and Track and several other titles. They recently launched a new magazine called Shock! and on the cover is a picture of a US soldier in Iraq cradling a baby in a blanket in his arms.
The reason for my rant is that HFM and Shock! magazine stole that pictutre. It is the work of Michael Yon. He asked that HFM either recall the issue or compensate him. They refused to do either and began to threaten Mr. Yon with lawsuits. Eventually Michael reached an agreement with HFM where they (HFM) would make a donation to charity. After some time passed, HFM informed Michael that they had decided against making any donations to any charities, they would not compensate Michael for the photograph, nor would they recall the magazine.
The issue that has me upset has nothing to do with Mr. Yon's personal or Shock! magazine's editorial policy on events in Iraq. My problem is that a major US publisher should steal a private individual's art and use it as the cover art of a national magazine on it's debut issue. They could have just as easily stolen the art of a NGO worker, or you, or me.
Will your picture from a trip to a car race be cover art on Road and Track without your knowledge or consent? The concept of stealing people's work and using it benefit a huge corporate entity bugs the living piss out of me.
So far Mr. Yon with the help of others have been successful in having this issue of the magazine taken off the shelves of many outlets. I am not asking anyone to boycott anything or to protest. What I am asking is that you look at some links I will post following this and if you subscribe to magazines published by HFM, take a moment to let them know your opinion. The opinion of their customers carries more weight than mine. Stealing someone else's art for your own corporate gain is just plain wrong.
http://thebookblogger.com/compasspoints ... e_job.html
http://www.nypost.com/business/shock_fi ... _kelly.htm
http://thebookblogger.com/compasspoints ... honor.html
http://www.michaelyon-online.com/wp/dishonor.htm
http://michaelyon-online.com/shockmag.php
Pabst Blue Ribbon - The beer that made Gerlach famous.
-
can't sit still
- Posts: 4645
- Joined: Tue Aug 23, 2005 4:21 pm
- Location: SoCal
Geekster, it's a good rant,,and it is political. The Fucking French can't seem to keep their mouths shut. They run down American soldiers on Memorial day.
They even want the American dead disenterred from normandy and moved out of France. The many thousands who died saving france should be kicked out.
The french have a GIGANTIC inferiority complex,,,and rightfully so.
Especially their soldiers. Google up "french military victories" and hit "I'm feeling lucky"
The cheap bastards had to steal the pic because they knew they would never get permission to print. The fuckers couldn't pass up on an opportunuty to run down America. The theft was an incidental necessity.
Dan
They even want the American dead disenterred from normandy and moved out of France. The many thousands who died saving france should be kicked out.
The french have a GIGANTIC inferiority complex,,,and rightfully so.
Especially their soldiers. Google up "french military victories" and hit "I'm feeling lucky"
The cheap bastards had to steal the pic because they knew they would never get permission to print. The fuckers couldn't pass up on an opportunuty to run down America. The theft was an incidental necessity.
Dan
I don't post things because I believe that they are the absolute truth. I post them because I believe that they should be considered.
-
geekster
- Posts: 4865
- Joined: Wed Sep 08, 2004 2:53 pm
- Location: Hospice For The Terminally Breathing
- Contact:
They could have run the picture. Yon wasn't after personal gain which is why he suggested payment to a charity instead. They accepted and then reneged on the deal. It is about having control of his art. He travels at his own risk, embeds with combat units, often special operations units, and is armed only with a camera. I admire ANYONE with that kind of courage but what got me was the concept of a major publisher stealing someone's art, running it as COVER art for a magazine and they saying "so, sue us!".
It could just as easily be the art of any amateur photographer. Anyone who has ever transmitted an electronic copy of a photograph. I know people steal pics all the time, but a commercial publication is the last place I would expect this practice AND this attitude.
He explains how he makes his money here:
http://www.michaelyon-online.com/wp/how ... is-funded/
Basically, he doesn't make much at all and he refuses to whore himself out, he wants to remain independent.
It could just as easily be the art of any amateur photographer. Anyone who has ever transmitted an electronic copy of a photograph. I know people steal pics all the time, but a commercial publication is the last place I would expect this practice AND this attitude.
He explains how he makes his money here:
http://www.michaelyon-online.com/wp/how ... is-funded/
Basically, he doesn't make much at all and he refuses to whore himself out, he wants to remain independent.
Pabst Blue Ribbon - The beer that made Gerlach famous.
-
EvilDustBooger
- Posts: 3807
- Joined: Wed Feb 16, 2005 1:56 pm
- Location: Outside the Box
People-5 / Pentagon-3
....hmmmmmm.
Well, 1 more appointment to the Supreme Court; and the Executive, Legislative and the Judicial branches will all be moving into the WhiteHouse.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - In a sharp rebuke of President George W. Bush's tactics in the war on terrorism, the U.S. Supreme Court on Thursday struck down as illegal the military tribunal system set up to try Guantanamo prisoners.
ADVERTISEMENT
By a 5-3 vote, the nation's highest court declared that the tribunals, which Bush created right after the September 11 attacks, violated the Geneva Conventions and U.S. military rules.
"We conclude that the military commission convened to try (Salim Ahmed) Hamdan lacks power to proceed because its structure and procedures violate" the international agreement that covers treatment of prisoners of war, as well as the Uniform Code of Military Justice, Justice John Paul Stevens wrote for the court majority.
The decision was a stinging blow for the administration in a case brought by Hamdan, who was Osama bin Laden's driver in Afghanistan. Hamdan, captured in November 2001, is one of about 450 foreign terrorism suspects at the U.S. naval base in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.
The ruling, handed down on the last day of the court's 2005-06 term, followed the deaths of three Guantanamo prisoners this month and increased calls for Bush to close the prison camp. U.S. treatment of inmates at Guantanamo and in Iraq and Afghanistan has drawn international criticism.
The court's decision gave ammunition to rights activists worldwide who urged the prison be shut down. But the ruling only addressed the military tribunals, not the broader issues of whether "enemy combatants" can be held indefinitely or whether the camp should be closed.
Stevens, at 86 the high court's longest-serving justice and a leading liberal, said the tribunals failed to provide one of the most fundamental protections under U.S. military rules, the right for a defendant to be present at all proceedings.
"The rules specified for Hamdan's trial are illegal," he said.
In a 73-page opinion, he also said there was no reason why Hamdan could not be tried by court-martial, which offers greater protections for defendants than the tribunal.
At the White House, Bush said he had not fully reviewed the ruling and would consult with the U.S. Congress to attain appropriate authority for military tribunals.
BUSH: TAKES FINDINGS SERIOUSLY
"We take the findings seriously," Bush said. "The American people need to know that this ruling, as I understand it, won't cause killers to be put out on the street."
A Pentagon spokesman reiterated the need for a U.S. facility to hold dangerous captives and Bush spokesman Tony Snow added, "This will not mean closing down Guantanamo."
One of Hamdan's lawyers, Lt. Cmdr. Charles Swift, praised the high court action. "All we wanted was a fair trial," he said outside the Supreme Court. "Yes, it is a rebuke for the process. ... It means we can't be scared out of who we are."
Civil liberties and human rights groups were also jubilant. Amnesty International said it "sends a clear message to President Bush that he cannot act unilaterally to create a system of law from thin air."
Nicholas Howen, secretary-general of the International Commission of Jurists in Geneva, said the prisoners should be freed. "Now is the time for the Bush administration to move ahead swiftly to release all prisoners in Guantanamo."
Stevens said the military commissions were not authorized by the U.S. Congress. He did not address whether the government can detain Hamdan indefinitely but said the government must "comply with the rule of law" in seeking to try Hamdan and subject him to criminal punishment.
Stevens also wrote the Supreme Court decision two years ago that handed the Bush administration another major setback in ruling the Guantanamo prisoners can sue in U.S. courts.
He was joined by the other liberal justices David Souter, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen Breyer, and moderate conservative Anthony Kennedy.
NO BLANK CHECK
Breyer wrote in a separate opinion, "The court's conclusion ultimately rests on a single ground: Congress has not issued the executive a 'blank check."'
The conservatives -- Justices Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito, who was appointed by Bush -- dissented.
The ninth member of the court, Chief Justice John Roberts, also appointed by Bush, removed himself because he was on the U.S. appeals court panel that ruled for the Bush administration in Hamdan's case.
Republican lawmakers vowed to act quickly in view of the ruling. Senate Armed Services Committee Chairman John Warner of Virginia said his committee would consider revising laws governing the detention of enemy combatants
....hmmmmmm.
Well, 1 more appointment to the Supreme Court; and the Executive, Legislative and the Judicial branches will all be moving into the WhiteHouse.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - In a sharp rebuke of President George W. Bush's tactics in the war on terrorism, the U.S. Supreme Court on Thursday struck down as illegal the military tribunal system set up to try Guantanamo prisoners.
ADVERTISEMENT
By a 5-3 vote, the nation's highest court declared that the tribunals, which Bush created right after the September 11 attacks, violated the Geneva Conventions and U.S. military rules.
"We conclude that the military commission convened to try (Salim Ahmed) Hamdan lacks power to proceed because its structure and procedures violate" the international agreement that covers treatment of prisoners of war, as well as the Uniform Code of Military Justice, Justice John Paul Stevens wrote for the court majority.
The decision was a stinging blow for the administration in a case brought by Hamdan, who was Osama bin Laden's driver in Afghanistan. Hamdan, captured in November 2001, is one of about 450 foreign terrorism suspects at the U.S. naval base in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.
The ruling, handed down on the last day of the court's 2005-06 term, followed the deaths of three Guantanamo prisoners this month and increased calls for Bush to close the prison camp. U.S. treatment of inmates at Guantanamo and in Iraq and Afghanistan has drawn international criticism.
The court's decision gave ammunition to rights activists worldwide who urged the prison be shut down. But the ruling only addressed the military tribunals, not the broader issues of whether "enemy combatants" can be held indefinitely or whether the camp should be closed.
Stevens, at 86 the high court's longest-serving justice and a leading liberal, said the tribunals failed to provide one of the most fundamental protections under U.S. military rules, the right for a defendant to be present at all proceedings.
"The rules specified for Hamdan's trial are illegal," he said.
In a 73-page opinion, he also said there was no reason why Hamdan could not be tried by court-martial, which offers greater protections for defendants than the tribunal.
At the White House, Bush said he had not fully reviewed the ruling and would consult with the U.S. Congress to attain appropriate authority for military tribunals.
BUSH: TAKES FINDINGS SERIOUSLY
"We take the findings seriously," Bush said. "The American people need to know that this ruling, as I understand it, won't cause killers to be put out on the street."
A Pentagon spokesman reiterated the need for a U.S. facility to hold dangerous captives and Bush spokesman Tony Snow added, "This will not mean closing down Guantanamo."
One of Hamdan's lawyers, Lt. Cmdr. Charles Swift, praised the high court action. "All we wanted was a fair trial," he said outside the Supreme Court. "Yes, it is a rebuke for the process. ... It means we can't be scared out of who we are."
Civil liberties and human rights groups were also jubilant. Amnesty International said it "sends a clear message to President Bush that he cannot act unilaterally to create a system of law from thin air."
Nicholas Howen, secretary-general of the International Commission of Jurists in Geneva, said the prisoners should be freed. "Now is the time for the Bush administration to move ahead swiftly to release all prisoners in Guantanamo."
Stevens said the military commissions were not authorized by the U.S. Congress. He did not address whether the government can detain Hamdan indefinitely but said the government must "comply with the rule of law" in seeking to try Hamdan and subject him to criminal punishment.
Stevens also wrote the Supreme Court decision two years ago that handed the Bush administration another major setback in ruling the Guantanamo prisoners can sue in U.S. courts.
He was joined by the other liberal justices David Souter, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen Breyer, and moderate conservative Anthony Kennedy.
NO BLANK CHECK
Breyer wrote in a separate opinion, "The court's conclusion ultimately rests on a single ground: Congress has not issued the executive a 'blank check."'
The conservatives -- Justices Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito, who was appointed by Bush -- dissented.
The ninth member of the court, Chief Justice John Roberts, also appointed by Bush, removed himself because he was on the U.S. appeals court panel that ruled for the Bush administration in Hamdan's case.
Republican lawmakers vowed to act quickly in view of the ruling. Senate Armed Services Committee Chairman John Warner of Virginia said his committee would consider revising laws governing the detention of enemy combatants
-
EvilDustBooger
- Posts: 3807
- Joined: Wed Feb 16, 2005 1:56 pm
- Location: Outside the Box
-
Kinetic IV
- Posts: 2977
- Joined: Sun Apr 03, 2005 7:34 pm
- Location: Kyiv, Ukraine as of 10/27/06
I found Clarence Thomas's dissent to be interesting....and I'll leave it at that.
Here's the full 185 page ruling for those who don't want to have their info spoonfed through mass media outlets.
http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/05pdf/05-184.pdf
(p.s. I hope you can speed read.)
Here's the full 185 page ruling for those who don't want to have their info spoonfed through mass media outlets.
http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/05pdf/05-184.pdf
(p.s. I hope you can speed read.)
K-IV
~~~~
Thank you for over 7 years of eplaya memories. I have asked Emily Sparkle to delete my account and I am gone. Goodbye and Goodluck to all of you! I will miss you!
~~~~
Thank you for over 7 years of eplaya memories. I have asked Emily Sparkle to delete my account and I am gone. Goodbye and Goodluck to all of you! I will miss you!
-
EvilDustBooger
- Posts: 3807
- Joined: Wed Feb 16, 2005 1:56 pm
- Location: Outside the Box
Democracy Grinds On As Ideologies Collide:
A timeline of legal developments at Guantanamo Bay
Knight Ridder Newspapers
A timeline of legal developments surrounding U.S.-held foreign prisoners at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba:
Nov. 13. 2001: President Bush signs an Executive Order authorizing the secretary of defense to hold non-U.S. citizens in indefinite detention.
Dec. 27, 2001: Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld confirms that the Pentagon will move war-on-terror detainees from Afghanistan to the U.S. Navy Base at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, "the least worst place" to hold them.
Jan. 11, 2002: The U.S. military sends 20 prisoners from Afghanistan to Guantanamo, a figure that would swell to 750 men and teenaged boys in the course of three years.
Jan. 19, 2002: Some clergy and law professors led by former Attorney General Ramsey Clark file a habeas corpus petition for Guantanamo detainees; it is dismissed because no petitioner is a captive's kin.
Feb. 7, 2002: President Bush issues a directive defining Taliban and al-Qaida captives as "unlawful combatants," not prisoners of war.
Feb. 19, 2002: Empowered by family members, The Center for Constitutional Rights files a habeas petition in federal court in Washington, D.C., on behalf of Guantanamo detainees David Hicks of Australia and Shafiq Rasul and Asif Iqbal of Britain.
March 18, 2002: U.S. government asks the court to dismiss Rasul v. Bush, saying Guantanamo is not U.S. jurisdiction.
April 5, 2002: U.S. officials discover detainee Yaser Esam Hamdi, thought to be a Saudi, was born in Louisiana, and swiftly evacuate him from Guantanamo Bay to stave off federal court intrusion into the U.S. Navy base in Cuba.
June 11, 2002: Hamdi, now held without access to an attorney at a Navy Brig in Norfolk, Va., files a writ of habeas corpus in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia. The government replies that President Bush's war powers give him authority that extends beyond judicial review to detain him indefinitely and to deny him access to counsel and the courts.
Aug. 8, 2002: U.S. District Court dismisses Rasul v. Bush, saying Guantanamo detainees cannot file habeas corpus petitions because they are non-U.S. citizens detained outside U.S. jurisdiction.
March 11, 2003: U.S. Court of Appeals rejects appeal of Rasul v. Bush, setting the stage for a U.S. Supreme Court confrontation.
Nov. 10, 2003: The U.S. Supreme Court agrees to hear Rasul v. Bush.
Feb. 13, 2004: Defense Secretary Rumsfeld tells the Greater Miami Chamber of Commerce that prisoners are not being tortured or otherwise mistreated at Guantanamo Bay.
March 9, 2004: Pentagon sends four Guantanamo prisoners to Britain, including Rasul and Iqbal, who are detained for a day and set free; the issue of whether Guantanamo detainees can sue is still bound for the Supreme Court.
April 20, 2004: Former Philadelphia federal judge John Gibbons, 79, a Nixon appointee, argues at the Supreme Court that Guantanamo is U.S. jurisdiction and foreign detainees have right to file habeas petitions on behalf of the detainees. He is joined in written briefs by a former Japanese-American internee, former judges and military lawyers, retired diplomats and civil liberties professors.
May 14, 2004: Freed Britons Rasul and Iqbal write an open letter to President Bush declaring that U.S. soldiers abused and humiliated them at Guantanamo Bay. They said guards used strobe lights, dogs and loud rap music to extract information.
June 28, 2004: The Supreme Court rules 6-3 that Guantanamo detainees can challenge their captivity in federal courts. Chief Justice William Rehnquist, Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas dissent. In a related case, the court also says Hamdi can be held as an enemy combatant but he, too, may challenge his detention in U.S. courts.
July 1, 2004: Civilian habeas corpus lawyers write Secretary Rumsfeld seeking to meet their clients at Guantanamo Bay.
July 30, 2004: In a bid to mollify the Supreme Court and create a substitution to challenge at the federal courts, the Pentagon creates military panels of officers to review each detainee's "enemy combatant" status on a case-by-case basis. Lawyers are banned from the so-called Combatant Status Review Tribunals (CSRTs).
Aug. 24, 2004: The Pentagon convenes its first ever Military Commission at Guantanamo Bay. Five U.S. military officers, only one an ex-lawyer, formally charge four of the 550 or so captives with war crimes, using rules written by the Defense Department rather than charge them in federal courts.
Aug. 30, 2004: The Pentagon permits the first civilian lawyer - Gita Gutierrez of a Newark, N.J., firm - to meet a Guantanamo detainee filing a habeas suit. Gutierrez sees British detainees Moazzam Begg and Feroz Abassi, who have since been sent home.
Oct. 20, 2004: U.S. District Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly orders Pentagon to stop intelligence eavesdropping of lawyer-client conversations at Guantanamo, calling lawyer-client privacy a "bedrock" American principle.
Nov. 8, 2004: U.S. District Judge James Robertson orders the Pentagon to halt the war crimes trial of alleged a Yemeni who worked as Osama bin Laden's driver, saying the Military Commissions are flawed and likewise calls the Pentagon's Combatant Status Review Tribunals an inadequate, non-judicial alternative to habeas proceedings in federal courts.
Dec. 17, 2004: Pentagon notifies Guantanamo detainees that they can sue for their freedom in a U.S. court, distributing the court's Washington, D.C., address to detainees for the first time.
Jan. 19, 2005: U.S. District Judge Richard Leon dismisses seven Guantanamo prisoners' habeas petitions, ruling that President Bush's wartime powers permit the Pentagon to hold enemy combatants and review the detentions on their own.
Jan. 31, 2005: U.S. District Judge Joyce Hens Green rules the opposite of Leon, saying Guantanamo Bay captives can sue for their freedom, and specifically citing torture allegations and criticizes the CSRTs as fundamentally flawed. The stage is set for a U.S. Court of Appeals decision and likely later review by the Supreme Court.
May 3, 2005: The U.S. District Court in Washington, D.C., places on his docket the first 16 of what would become dozens of habeas corpus suits by captives who, through military contract linguists, wrote one-page letters to the court, from behind the razor wire at Camp Delta. Even though many of the captives are illiterate Afghanis, they are listed as pro se, or self-representation cases, because they wrote the court directly, without attorneys.
July 15, 2005: The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit unanimously upheld President Bush's war powers to create a Military Commission to try Salim Ahmed Hamdan, 35, of Yemen, overturning Judge Robertson's Nov. 8 order.
July 18, 2005: Defense Secretary Rumsfeld says at press appearance with Australian Prime Minister John Howard that the war crimes trials of Hamdan and Hicks will resume soon.
Nov. 7, 2005: The U.S. Supreme Court announces that it will hear Hamdan v Rumsfeld, and decided it with the new Chief Justice John Roberts abstaining from the discussion.
Nov. 10, 2005: The U.S. Senate votes 49-42 to adopt a proposal by Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., that strips Guantanamo detainees of the right to file habeas petitions, a proposal that goes next to the House and then for President Bush's signature.
Nov. 14, 2005: Judge Kollar-Kotelly blocks the Pentagon from resuming Hicks' Military Commission until Supreme Court rules on its constitutionality in Hamdan v Rumsfeld.
March 28, 2006: The U.S. Supreme Court hears oral arguments as it grappled with whether the Pentagon's plan to try Osama bin Laden's former driver, Salim Hamdan, before a special Military Commission violates international law and the U.S. Constitution. A decision is expected soon.
May 10, 2006: Britain's attorney general, Lord Goldsmith, calls the Guantanamo camp's existence unacceptable. "It is time in my view that it should close. . . ," he said in a speech. "The historic tradition of the United States as a beacon of freedom, of liberty and of justice deserves the removal of this symbol."
May 15, 2006: The Pentagon releases to the Associated Press the first list of everyone who has been held at Guantanamo Bay since the detention center was opened in January 2002. The names total 759.
SOURCES: Department of Defense; The Miami Herald; Human Rights First; U.S. federal court filings, Center for Constitutional Rights, National Institute of Military Justice.
A timeline of legal developments at Guantanamo Bay
Knight Ridder Newspapers
A timeline of legal developments surrounding U.S.-held foreign prisoners at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba:
Nov. 13. 2001: President Bush signs an Executive Order authorizing the secretary of defense to hold non-U.S. citizens in indefinite detention.
Dec. 27, 2001: Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld confirms that the Pentagon will move war-on-terror detainees from Afghanistan to the U.S. Navy Base at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, "the least worst place" to hold them.
Jan. 11, 2002: The U.S. military sends 20 prisoners from Afghanistan to Guantanamo, a figure that would swell to 750 men and teenaged boys in the course of three years.
Jan. 19, 2002: Some clergy and law professors led by former Attorney General Ramsey Clark file a habeas corpus petition for Guantanamo detainees; it is dismissed because no petitioner is a captive's kin.
Feb. 7, 2002: President Bush issues a directive defining Taliban and al-Qaida captives as "unlawful combatants," not prisoners of war.
Feb. 19, 2002: Empowered by family members, The Center for Constitutional Rights files a habeas petition in federal court in Washington, D.C., on behalf of Guantanamo detainees David Hicks of Australia and Shafiq Rasul and Asif Iqbal of Britain.
March 18, 2002: U.S. government asks the court to dismiss Rasul v. Bush, saying Guantanamo is not U.S. jurisdiction.
April 5, 2002: U.S. officials discover detainee Yaser Esam Hamdi, thought to be a Saudi, was born in Louisiana, and swiftly evacuate him from Guantanamo Bay to stave off federal court intrusion into the U.S. Navy base in Cuba.
June 11, 2002: Hamdi, now held without access to an attorney at a Navy Brig in Norfolk, Va., files a writ of habeas corpus in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia. The government replies that President Bush's war powers give him authority that extends beyond judicial review to detain him indefinitely and to deny him access to counsel and the courts.
Aug. 8, 2002: U.S. District Court dismisses Rasul v. Bush, saying Guantanamo detainees cannot file habeas corpus petitions because they are non-U.S. citizens detained outside U.S. jurisdiction.
March 11, 2003: U.S. Court of Appeals rejects appeal of Rasul v. Bush, setting the stage for a U.S. Supreme Court confrontation.
Nov. 10, 2003: The U.S. Supreme Court agrees to hear Rasul v. Bush.
Feb. 13, 2004: Defense Secretary Rumsfeld tells the Greater Miami Chamber of Commerce that prisoners are not being tortured or otherwise mistreated at Guantanamo Bay.
March 9, 2004: Pentagon sends four Guantanamo prisoners to Britain, including Rasul and Iqbal, who are detained for a day and set free; the issue of whether Guantanamo detainees can sue is still bound for the Supreme Court.
April 20, 2004: Former Philadelphia federal judge John Gibbons, 79, a Nixon appointee, argues at the Supreme Court that Guantanamo is U.S. jurisdiction and foreign detainees have right to file habeas petitions on behalf of the detainees. He is joined in written briefs by a former Japanese-American internee, former judges and military lawyers, retired diplomats and civil liberties professors.
May 14, 2004: Freed Britons Rasul and Iqbal write an open letter to President Bush declaring that U.S. soldiers abused and humiliated them at Guantanamo Bay. They said guards used strobe lights, dogs and loud rap music to extract information.
June 28, 2004: The Supreme Court rules 6-3 that Guantanamo detainees can challenge their captivity in federal courts. Chief Justice William Rehnquist, Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas dissent. In a related case, the court also says Hamdi can be held as an enemy combatant but he, too, may challenge his detention in U.S. courts.
July 1, 2004: Civilian habeas corpus lawyers write Secretary Rumsfeld seeking to meet their clients at Guantanamo Bay.
July 30, 2004: In a bid to mollify the Supreme Court and create a substitution to challenge at the federal courts, the Pentagon creates military panels of officers to review each detainee's "enemy combatant" status on a case-by-case basis. Lawyers are banned from the so-called Combatant Status Review Tribunals (CSRTs).
Aug. 24, 2004: The Pentagon convenes its first ever Military Commission at Guantanamo Bay. Five U.S. military officers, only one an ex-lawyer, formally charge four of the 550 or so captives with war crimes, using rules written by the Defense Department rather than charge them in federal courts.
Aug. 30, 2004: The Pentagon permits the first civilian lawyer - Gita Gutierrez of a Newark, N.J., firm - to meet a Guantanamo detainee filing a habeas suit. Gutierrez sees British detainees Moazzam Begg and Feroz Abassi, who have since been sent home.
Oct. 20, 2004: U.S. District Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly orders Pentagon to stop intelligence eavesdropping of lawyer-client conversations at Guantanamo, calling lawyer-client privacy a "bedrock" American principle.
Nov. 8, 2004: U.S. District Judge James Robertson orders the Pentagon to halt the war crimes trial of alleged a Yemeni who worked as Osama bin Laden's driver, saying the Military Commissions are flawed and likewise calls the Pentagon's Combatant Status Review Tribunals an inadequate, non-judicial alternative to habeas proceedings in federal courts.
Dec. 17, 2004: Pentagon notifies Guantanamo detainees that they can sue for their freedom in a U.S. court, distributing the court's Washington, D.C., address to detainees for the first time.
Jan. 19, 2005: U.S. District Judge Richard Leon dismisses seven Guantanamo prisoners' habeas petitions, ruling that President Bush's wartime powers permit the Pentagon to hold enemy combatants and review the detentions on their own.
Jan. 31, 2005: U.S. District Judge Joyce Hens Green rules the opposite of Leon, saying Guantanamo Bay captives can sue for their freedom, and specifically citing torture allegations and criticizes the CSRTs as fundamentally flawed. The stage is set for a U.S. Court of Appeals decision and likely later review by the Supreme Court.
May 3, 2005: The U.S. District Court in Washington, D.C., places on his docket the first 16 of what would become dozens of habeas corpus suits by captives who, through military contract linguists, wrote one-page letters to the court, from behind the razor wire at Camp Delta. Even though many of the captives are illiterate Afghanis, they are listed as pro se, or self-representation cases, because they wrote the court directly, without attorneys.
July 15, 2005: The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit unanimously upheld President Bush's war powers to create a Military Commission to try Salim Ahmed Hamdan, 35, of Yemen, overturning Judge Robertson's Nov. 8 order.
July 18, 2005: Defense Secretary Rumsfeld says at press appearance with Australian Prime Minister John Howard that the war crimes trials of Hamdan and Hicks will resume soon.
Nov. 7, 2005: The U.S. Supreme Court announces that it will hear Hamdan v Rumsfeld, and decided it with the new Chief Justice John Roberts abstaining from the discussion.
Nov. 10, 2005: The U.S. Senate votes 49-42 to adopt a proposal by Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., that strips Guantanamo detainees of the right to file habeas petitions, a proposal that goes next to the House and then for President Bush's signature.
Nov. 14, 2005: Judge Kollar-Kotelly blocks the Pentagon from resuming Hicks' Military Commission until Supreme Court rules on its constitutionality in Hamdan v Rumsfeld.
March 28, 2006: The U.S. Supreme Court hears oral arguments as it grappled with whether the Pentagon's plan to try Osama bin Laden's former driver, Salim Hamdan, before a special Military Commission violates international law and the U.S. Constitution. A decision is expected soon.
May 10, 2006: Britain's attorney general, Lord Goldsmith, calls the Guantanamo camp's existence unacceptable. "It is time in my view that it should close. . . ," he said in a speech. "The historic tradition of the United States as a beacon of freedom, of liberty and of justice deserves the removal of this symbol."
May 15, 2006: The Pentagon releases to the Associated Press the first list of everyone who has been held at Guantanamo Bay since the detention center was opened in January 2002. The names total 759.
SOURCES: Department of Defense; The Miami Herald; Human Rights First; U.S. federal court filings, Center for Constitutional Rights, National Institute of Military Justice.
-
DVD Burner
- Posts: 11031
- Joined: Fri Dec 12, 2003 3:09 am
- Burning Since: 1986
- Camp Name: White Trash Camp
- Contact:
-
DVD Burner
- Posts: 11031
- Joined: Fri Dec 12, 2003 3:09 am
- Burning Since: 1986
- Camp Name: White Trash Camp
- Contact:
News Alert 10:16 a.m. ET Wednesday, July 5, 2006
Former Enron CEO Kenneth L. Lay, 64, Dies
The recently convicted co-founder and former CEO of Enron Corp. died of an apparent heart attack in Aspen, Colo. Find photos and more throughout the day on washingtonpost.com
For more information, visit washingtonpost.com
Former Enron CEO Kenneth L. Lay, 64, Dies
The recently convicted co-founder and former CEO of Enron Corp. died of an apparent heart attack in Aspen, Colo. Find photos and more throughout the day on washingtonpost.com
For more information, visit washingtonpost.com
https://www.facebook.com/NeXTCODER
-
joel the ornery
- Posts: 2657
- Joined: Sun Aug 31, 2003 3:28 pm
- Burning Since: 1998
- Location: i'm the snarky one in your worst fucking nightmares
- Contact:
-
Apollonaris Zeus
- Posts: 3716
- Joined: Sun Sep 14, 2003 11:17 am
Joel!!!!
you haven't answered my question>>>>>
When was the last time you join us on the playa???????
until then here a little something for you Mr. Ornery.
<<<<<<<<<<<<>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
WASHINGTON, July 6th - President Bush appears to be losing support among a key group of voters who had hitherto stood firmly with the president even as his poll numbers among other groups fell dramatically.
A new Gallup poll shows that, for the first time, Bush's approval rating has fallen below 50% among total fucking morons, and now stands 44%. This represents a dramatic drop compared to a poll taken just last December, when 62% of total fucking morons expressed support for the president and his policies.
The current poll, conducted by phone with 1,409 total fucking morons between may 4 and may 8th, reveals that only 44% of those polled believe the pres is doing a good job, while 27% believe he is doing a poor job and 29% don't understand the question.
The December poll, conducted by phone with 1,530 total fucking morons, showed 62% approved of the president, 7% disapproved and 31% didn't understand the question.
Faltering approval ratings for the president among a group once thought to be a reliable source of loyal support gives Republicans one more reason to he nervous about the upcoming mid-term elections. "If we can't depend on the support of total fucking morons, "says Sen. Rick Santonin (R-PA), "then we have got a big problem. They're a key factor in our electoral strategy, and an important part of today's Republican coalition."
"We've taken the total fucking moron vote for granted," says Rep Tom Feeney, " and now we're paying for it. We've let the Democrats control the debate lately, and they've dragged discourse back into the realm of complex, nuance issues. So your average total rucking moron turns on his TV and sees his Republican Congressman arguing about constitutional law or the complexities of state formation in the Middle East, and he tunes out. He wants to hear comforting, pandering, flattering bromides and he doesn't want to hear a logical argument more complex then what you'd find on a bumper sticker."
For Feenet, the poll is dire warning that Republicans can ignore only at their peril. This should send a signal that we have to regain control of the debate if we want the support of our key constituencies in the coming election and beyond we need to bring public discourse back into the realm of stupidity and vacuity. We should be talking about homosexual illegal immigrants burning flags. We should be talking about the powers of pride. We should talking about freedom fries. These are the issues that resonate with total fucking morons."
But some total fucking morons say it's too late. Bill Snarpel of Enid, Oklahoma is a total fucking moron who voted for Bush in both in 2000 and 2004. But he says he won't be voting for Bush in 2008. "I don't want my children riding camels and wearing towels on our heads. I don't want my children singing the Star Spangled banner in Muslim."
Total fucking moron Kurt Meyer of Turlock, CA. also says his once solid support for Bush has collapsed. "He invaded Iraq and all those soldiers died, and for what? We
destroyed all their WMDs, but now their new president is making fun of us and saying he's going to build nuclear bombs and that we can't stop him. Well, nuclear bombs and even worse then WMDs, so what did we accomplish?
Laura McDonald, a total fucking moron from Chandler, Arizona, say she is disappointed that the president hasn't been a more forceful advocate of Christian values. "This was founded on Christian values, "she say, "but you'd never know it looking around and all the Mexicans running around. I thought Bush was going to bring Jesus back into the government. Instead, Christians are being persecuted even worse then ever before in history, because all these Mexicans come and tell Christians that we have to respect their religions beliefs. So now it's illegal for children to pray in school. Son it well be illegal for them to speak English."
Not all total fucking morons have turned their backs on the president. Jeb Larkin of Topeka, Kansas says he still fully supports Bush. "He is doing a great job. He is a great president. He is a great decider. I have a puppy. His tail sticks straight up and you can see his butthole."
And not all Republican lawmakers are concerned about the poll. Sen. Lamar Alexander (R-TN), for one, does not find is a cause for anxiety. While he agrees that his party should not take total fucking morons for granted, "they never be able to understand someone like Al Gore or John Deny or anybody intelligent and articulate who wants to talk about substantive issues. Just try having a conversation with one of them about global warning. They' say, "Oh, but Rush says volcanoes consume more ozone then humans do. I mean, they're morons! Total fucking morons!"
"They've got nowhere else to go, Alexander reaffirms with a smile, "and they always vote."
you haven't answered my question>>>>>
When was the last time you join us on the playa???????
until then here a little something for you Mr. Ornery.
<<<<<<<<<<<<>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
WASHINGTON, July 6th - President Bush appears to be losing support among a key group of voters who had hitherto stood firmly with the president even as his poll numbers among other groups fell dramatically.
A new Gallup poll shows that, for the first time, Bush's approval rating has fallen below 50% among total fucking morons, and now stands 44%. This represents a dramatic drop compared to a poll taken just last December, when 62% of total fucking morons expressed support for the president and his policies.
The current poll, conducted by phone with 1,409 total fucking morons between may 4 and may 8th, reveals that only 44% of those polled believe the pres is doing a good job, while 27% believe he is doing a poor job and 29% don't understand the question.
The December poll, conducted by phone with 1,530 total fucking morons, showed 62% approved of the president, 7% disapproved and 31% didn't understand the question.
Faltering approval ratings for the president among a group once thought to be a reliable source of loyal support gives Republicans one more reason to he nervous about the upcoming mid-term elections. "If we can't depend on the support of total fucking morons, "says Sen. Rick Santonin (R-PA), "then we have got a big problem. They're a key factor in our electoral strategy, and an important part of today's Republican coalition."
"We've taken the total fucking moron vote for granted," says Rep Tom Feeney, " and now we're paying for it. We've let the Democrats control the debate lately, and they've dragged discourse back into the realm of complex, nuance issues. So your average total rucking moron turns on his TV and sees his Republican Congressman arguing about constitutional law or the complexities of state formation in the Middle East, and he tunes out. He wants to hear comforting, pandering, flattering bromides and he doesn't want to hear a logical argument more complex then what you'd find on a bumper sticker."
For Feenet, the poll is dire warning that Republicans can ignore only at their peril. This should send a signal that we have to regain control of the debate if we want the support of our key constituencies in the coming election and beyond we need to bring public discourse back into the realm of stupidity and vacuity. We should be talking about homosexual illegal immigrants burning flags. We should be talking about the powers of pride. We should talking about freedom fries. These are the issues that resonate with total fucking morons."
But some total fucking morons say it's too late. Bill Snarpel of Enid, Oklahoma is a total fucking moron who voted for Bush in both in 2000 and 2004. But he says he won't be voting for Bush in 2008. "I don't want my children riding camels and wearing towels on our heads. I don't want my children singing the Star Spangled banner in Muslim."
Total fucking moron Kurt Meyer of Turlock, CA. also says his once solid support for Bush has collapsed. "He invaded Iraq and all those soldiers died, and for what? We
destroyed all their WMDs, but now their new president is making fun of us and saying he's going to build nuclear bombs and that we can't stop him. Well, nuclear bombs and even worse then WMDs, so what did we accomplish?
Laura McDonald, a total fucking moron from Chandler, Arizona, say she is disappointed that the president hasn't been a more forceful advocate of Christian values. "This was founded on Christian values, "she say, "but you'd never know it looking around and all the Mexicans running around. I thought Bush was going to bring Jesus back into the government. Instead, Christians are being persecuted even worse then ever before in history, because all these Mexicans come and tell Christians that we have to respect their religions beliefs. So now it's illegal for children to pray in school. Son it well be illegal for them to speak English."
Not all total fucking morons have turned their backs on the president. Jeb Larkin of Topeka, Kansas says he still fully supports Bush. "He is doing a great job. He is a great president. He is a great decider. I have a puppy. His tail sticks straight up and you can see his butthole."
And not all Republican lawmakers are concerned about the poll. Sen. Lamar Alexander (R-TN), for one, does not find is a cause for anxiety. While he agrees that his party should not take total fucking morons for granted, "they never be able to understand someone like Al Gore or John Deny or anybody intelligent and articulate who wants to talk about substantive issues. Just try having a conversation with one of them about global warning. They' say, "Oh, but Rush says volcanoes consume more ozone then humans do. I mean, they're morons! Total fucking morons!"
"They've got nowhere else to go, Alexander reaffirms with a smile, "and they always vote."
-
joel the ornery
- Posts: 2657
- Joined: Sun Aug 31, 2003 3:28 pm
- Burning Since: 1998
- Location: i'm the snarky one in your worst fucking nightmares
- Contact:
-
joel the ornery
- Posts: 2657
- Joined: Sun Aug 31, 2003 3:28 pm
- Burning Since: 1998
- Location: i'm the snarky one in your worst fucking nightmares
- Contact:
-
can't sit still
- Posts: 4645
- Joined: Tue Aug 23, 2005 4:21 pm
- Location: SoCal
wages
Everyone knows that, in general, wages haven't kept up with inflation.
Managers are slowly learning that qualified labor is getting harder to find.
We've seen mentions of a "working wage"
Here's a long but very interesting article that addresses collective labor.
Inflation is definitely kicking in. We now have a "nickel dollar"
It's time for skilled labor to be regarded as an important asset.
http://sp.trafficmarketplace.com/f.ad/t.pun.default/
Dan
Managers are slowly learning that qualified labor is getting harder to find.
We've seen mentions of a "working wage"
Here's a long but very interesting article that addresses collective labor.
Inflation is definitely kicking in. We now have a "nickel dollar"
It's time for skilled labor to be regarded as an important asset.
http://sp.trafficmarketplace.com/f.ad/t.pun.default/
Dan
I don't post things because I believe that they are the absolute truth. I post them because I believe that they should be considered.
-
Apollonaris Zeus
- Posts: 3716
- Joined: Sun Sep 14, 2003 11:17 am
02 is too long....
Thank you for the response.
Novak outs Rove
By DAVID JOHNSTON
Published: July 12, 2006
WASHINGTON, July 11 — The journalist who first identified the intelligence officer at the center of the C.I.A. leak case says he later voluntarily identified three sources to the prosecutor in the case, who, he says, had already learned of his conversations with each of the three.
In his syndicated column being published Wednesday, the journalist, Robert D. Novak, confirms that two of his sources were Karl Rove, the senior White House adviser, and Bill Harlow, then a spokesman for the Central Intelligence Agency, both of whose roles in the case are already widely known. Mr. Novak does not disclose his primary source, saying this official has not come forward publicly.
Mr. Novak’s column of July 14, 2003, identified the C.I.A. officer, Valerie Wilson, by her maiden name, Valerie Plame. That column focused primarily on a trip that Ms. Wilson’s husband, former Ambassador Joseph C. Wilson IV, took to Africa at the C.I.A.’s request in 2002 to check reports that Iraq had tried to buy uranium there. Mr. Wilson found no evidence of such a purchase and subsequently became a critic of the Bush administration’s Iraq policy.
The 2003 column had far-reaching consequences, leading to a criminal inquiry that began as an effort to determine whether Ms. Wilson’s identity had been disclosed by someone in the government as retaliation for her husband’s criticism of the administration. Last October the prosecutor, Patrick J. Fitzgerald, obtained an obstruction and perjury indictment of I. Lewis Libby Jr., Vice President Dick Cheney’s chief of staff. Mr. Libby, who has pleaded not guilty, is to be tried early next year. Judith Miller, a former New York Times reporter, was jailed for 85 days for refusing to testify and reveal her confidential source in the case, Mr. Libby.
In the column, which circulated over the Internet on Tuesday evening, Mr. Novak said his decision to discuss his sources with Mr. Fitzgerald had been made reluctantly, after he realized that the prosecutor had learned independently of those sources and his lawyers had advised him that he faced a costly and probably unsuccessful legal fight if he refused to cooperate.
“I have been subpoenaed by and testified to a federal grand jury,” Mr. Novak wrote. “Published reports that I took the Fifth Amendment, made a plea bargain with the prosecutors or was a prosecutorial target were all untrue.”
Mr. Novak said he had previously avoided discussing the case at the request of Mr. Fitzgerald. He said he was doing so now because Mr. Fitzgerald had advised Mr. Novak’s lawyers that the inquiry related to him had ended. Last month, Mr. Fitzgerald informed Mr. Rove, who had testified before the grand jury five times, that he would not be charged. That step would appear to have given Mr. Novak impetus to seek the prosecutor’s permission to discuss matters related to the columnist, who did not return a telephone call to his office on Tuesday evening.
Mr. Novak said he refused to reveal his sources when F.B.I. agents first interviewed him about the 2003 column that fall. During that interview, he said, he discussed in general how he had learned that Ms. Wilson might have had a role in the C.I.A.’s assigning her husband to the Africa trip. But he did not disclose his sources then, he said, and was not asked by the agents to identify them.
Then, he said, on Jan. 14, 2004, at his first interview with the prosecutor, Mr. Fitzgerald made it clear that he already knew the identity of the sources, having brought with him three legal waivers, each signed by one of the three, relieving Mr. Novak of any confidentiality pledge.
Mr. Novak said he had a second session with Mr. Fitzgerald on Feb. 5, 2004. He was then subpoenaed, he said, and testified to the grand jury three weeks later.
“In my sworn testimony,” he wrote, “I said what I have contended in my columns and on television: Joe Wilson’s wife’s role in instituting her husband’s mission was revealed to me in the middle of a long interview with an official who I have previously said was not a political gunslinger. After the federal investigation was announced, he told me through a third party that the disclosure was inadvertent on his part.”
After his interview with that primary source, Mr. Novak sought out Mr. Rove at the White House and Mr. Harlow at the C.I.A. for confirmation, he wrote.
His new column confirms what he hinted at in a previous one: that although he had been told that Mr. Wilson’s wife was a C.I.A. officer, he learned her name from reading the former ambassador’s entry in Who’s Who in America. It identified her as Valerie Plame.
End of Article
The special investigator had dropped Rove as a suspect. I wonder now what will happen? Will This information re-open the case?
AIIZ
Thank you for the response.
Novak outs Rove
By DAVID JOHNSTON
Published: July 12, 2006
WASHINGTON, July 11 — The journalist who first identified the intelligence officer at the center of the C.I.A. leak case says he later voluntarily identified three sources to the prosecutor in the case, who, he says, had already learned of his conversations with each of the three.
In his syndicated column being published Wednesday, the journalist, Robert D. Novak, confirms that two of his sources were Karl Rove, the senior White House adviser, and Bill Harlow, then a spokesman for the Central Intelligence Agency, both of whose roles in the case are already widely known. Mr. Novak does not disclose his primary source, saying this official has not come forward publicly.
Mr. Novak’s column of July 14, 2003, identified the C.I.A. officer, Valerie Wilson, by her maiden name, Valerie Plame. That column focused primarily on a trip that Ms. Wilson’s husband, former Ambassador Joseph C. Wilson IV, took to Africa at the C.I.A.’s request in 2002 to check reports that Iraq had tried to buy uranium there. Mr. Wilson found no evidence of such a purchase and subsequently became a critic of the Bush administration’s Iraq policy.
The 2003 column had far-reaching consequences, leading to a criminal inquiry that began as an effort to determine whether Ms. Wilson’s identity had been disclosed by someone in the government as retaliation for her husband’s criticism of the administration. Last October the prosecutor, Patrick J. Fitzgerald, obtained an obstruction and perjury indictment of I. Lewis Libby Jr., Vice President Dick Cheney’s chief of staff. Mr. Libby, who has pleaded not guilty, is to be tried early next year. Judith Miller, a former New York Times reporter, was jailed for 85 days for refusing to testify and reveal her confidential source in the case, Mr. Libby.
In the column, which circulated over the Internet on Tuesday evening, Mr. Novak said his decision to discuss his sources with Mr. Fitzgerald had been made reluctantly, after he realized that the prosecutor had learned independently of those sources and his lawyers had advised him that he faced a costly and probably unsuccessful legal fight if he refused to cooperate.
“I have been subpoenaed by and testified to a federal grand jury,” Mr. Novak wrote. “Published reports that I took the Fifth Amendment, made a plea bargain with the prosecutors or was a prosecutorial target were all untrue.”
Mr. Novak said he had previously avoided discussing the case at the request of Mr. Fitzgerald. He said he was doing so now because Mr. Fitzgerald had advised Mr. Novak’s lawyers that the inquiry related to him had ended. Last month, Mr. Fitzgerald informed Mr. Rove, who had testified before the grand jury five times, that he would not be charged. That step would appear to have given Mr. Novak impetus to seek the prosecutor’s permission to discuss matters related to the columnist, who did not return a telephone call to his office on Tuesday evening.
Mr. Novak said he refused to reveal his sources when F.B.I. agents first interviewed him about the 2003 column that fall. During that interview, he said, he discussed in general how he had learned that Ms. Wilson might have had a role in the C.I.A.’s assigning her husband to the Africa trip. But he did not disclose his sources then, he said, and was not asked by the agents to identify them.
Then, he said, on Jan. 14, 2004, at his first interview with the prosecutor, Mr. Fitzgerald made it clear that he already knew the identity of the sources, having brought with him three legal waivers, each signed by one of the three, relieving Mr. Novak of any confidentiality pledge.
Mr. Novak said he had a second session with Mr. Fitzgerald on Feb. 5, 2004. He was then subpoenaed, he said, and testified to the grand jury three weeks later.
“In my sworn testimony,” he wrote, “I said what I have contended in my columns and on television: Joe Wilson’s wife’s role in instituting her husband’s mission was revealed to me in the middle of a long interview with an official who I have previously said was not a political gunslinger. After the federal investigation was announced, he told me through a third party that the disclosure was inadvertent on his part.”
After his interview with that primary source, Mr. Novak sought out Mr. Rove at the White House and Mr. Harlow at the C.I.A. for confirmation, he wrote.
His new column confirms what he hinted at in a previous one: that although he had been told that Mr. Wilson’s wife was a C.I.A. officer, he learned her name from reading the former ambassador’s entry in Who’s Who in America. It identified her as Valerie Plame.
End of Article
The special investigator had dropped Rove as a suspect. I wonder now what will happen? Will This information re-open the case?
AIIZ
-
joel the ornery
- Posts: 2657
- Joined: Sun Aug 31, 2003 3:28 pm
- Burning Since: 1998
- Location: i'm the snarky one in your worst fucking nightmares
- Contact:
-
cowboyangel
- Posts: 6986
- Joined: Fri May 14, 2004 10:32 pm
-
joel the ornery
- Posts: 2657
- Joined: Sun Aug 31, 2003 3:28 pm
- Burning Since: 1998
- Location: i'm the snarky one in your worst fucking nightmares
- Contact:
-
Apollonaris Zeus
- Posts: 3716
- Joined: Sun Sep 14, 2003 11:17 am
-
joel the ornery
- Posts: 2657
- Joined: Sun Aug 31, 2003 3:28 pm
- Burning Since: 1998
- Location: i'm the snarky one in your worst fucking nightmares
- Contact:
-
DVD Burner
- Posts: 11031
- Joined: Fri Dec 12, 2003 3:09 am
- Burning Since: 1986
- Camp Name: White Trash Camp
- Contact:
-
Apollonaris Zeus
- Posts: 3716
- Joined: Sun Sep 14, 2003 11:17 am
-
cowboyangel
- Posts: 6986
- Joined: Fri May 14, 2004 10:32 pm
Lay's not dead, he's undead. Where once he sucked the life out of Enron shareholders, he'll now suck the blood out of anything unfortunate enough to cross his slime path.
"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believe is false."- William Casey, CIA Director 1981