But Michael Hayden IS A War Criminal

And yet,

From the Post-Gazette:

Gen. Michael V. Hayden, former director of the National Security Agency and the CIA, said he was not surprised when four young protesters interrupted his remarks Tuesday afternoon at Duquesne University. He has had to make some difficult and controversial decisions in the war on terror.

This is what happened:

The four protesters stood up about 45 minutes into the 90-minute forum displaying small signs and chanting, ”Michael Hayden is a war criminal!”

“Assassination is a war crime! Torture is a war crime!” one of the men shouted before being led from the room by university police. “You are a war criminal and you should be in jail. Arrest Michael Hayden! He murdered people!”

“Welcome home,” Gen. Hayden said, drawing laughter from the audience.

Assistant Chief Michael Sippey of the Duquesne University police said two of the protesters, who were taken off campus in handcuffs before being released, were students at the University of Pittsburgh. He said his department will contact the Allegheny County District Attorney’s office before deciding whether to charge them with causing a disturbance.

Interesting that there's a question about whether the protestors will be charged.  Granted this is private property (Duquesne University) and they might have rules about "free speech" on their property.  But take a step back - there may be an issue with four protestors but Duquesne had no problem inviting a war criminal to their lovely and peaceful campus.

So what did Hayden do?

Do you remember a set of video tapes that showed torture that were destroyed?  Take a look at how Michael Hayden covered up their destruction.  This is from Senator Diane Feinstein's speech before the Senate:

It was the first time the interrogation program was explained to the full Committee as details had previously been limited to the chairman and vice chairman.

Then, on December 7, 2007, the New York Times reported that CIA personnel in 2005 had destroyed videotapes of the interrogation of two CIA detainees: the CIA's first detainee, Abu Zubaydah, as well as 'Abd al-Rahim al-Nashiri.

The committee had not been informed of the destruction of the tapes. Days later, on December 11, 2007, the committee held a hearing on the destruction of the videotapes.

Director Hayden, the primary witness, testified that the CIA had concluded that the destruction of videotapes was acceptable, in part, because Congress had not yet requested to see them. (Source: SSCI transcript, Dec. 11, 2007 hearing)

Director Hayden stated that, if the committee had asked for the videotapes, they would have been provided. But, of course, the committee had not known that the videotapes existed. And we now know from CIA emails and records that the videotapes were destroyed shortly after senior CIA attorneys raised concerns that Congress might find out about the tapes.

And then there was the outright lying:

The second set of findings and conclusions is that the CIA provided extensive inaccurate information about the program and its effectiveness to the White House, the Department of Justice, Congress, the CIA inspector general, the media, and the American public.

This conclusion is somewhat personal for me. I recall clearly when Director Hayden briefed the Intelligence Committee for the first time on the so-called EITs at that September 2006 committee meeting.

He referred specifically to a 'tummy slap,' among other techniques, and presented the entire set of techniques as minimally harmful and applied in a highly clinical and professional manner. They were not.

The committee's report demonstrates that these techniques were physically very harmful and that the constraints that existed, on paper, in Washington did not match the way techniques were used at CIA sites around the world.

Of particular note was the treatment of Abu Zubaydah over a span of 17 days in August 2002.

This involved non-stop interrogation and abuse, 24/7 from August 4 to August 21, and included multiple forms of deprivation and physical assault. The description of this period, first written up by our staff in early 2009, while Senator Rockefeller was chairman, is what prompted this full review.

But the inaccurate and incomplete descriptions go far beyond that. The CIA provided inaccurate memoranda and explanations to the Department of Justice while its [Office of] Legal Counsel was considering the legality of the coercive techniques.

In those communications to the Department of Justice, the CIA claimed the following: the coercive techniques would not be used with excessive repetition; detainees would always have an opportunity to provide information prior to the use of the techniques; the techniques were to be used in progression, starting with the least aggressive and proceeding only if needed; medical personnel would make sure that interrogations wouldn't cause serious harm, and they could intervene at any time to stop interrogations; interrogators were carefully vetted and highly trained; and each technique was to be used in a specific way, without deviation, and only with specific approval for the interrogator and detainee involved. "None of these assurances, which the Department of Justice relied on to form its legal opinions, were consistently or even routinely carried out.

Michael Hayden's CIA tortured and then they lied about the torture to the Justice Department and to the Congress.  All those things are against the law.  And yet he was invited to speak at Duquesne University.

Looks like the police led the wrong people away in handcuffs.

City Council Hearing Today on Ravenstahl's Honoring of Bush's NSA/CIA Dir. Michael Hayden (Updated 1x)

Michael Hayden seated at the center of the table
Of all the boneheaded moves by Pittsburgh Mayor Luke Ravenstahl, this may be the most inexplicable and easily avoidable.

Here's a clue, Lil Mayor Luke: You don't honor a man who has a record of condoning torture, destroying evidence and misleading Congress about Bush’s warrantless wiretapping program which Hayden himself helped to implement.

Pretty simple, huh?

But that's precisely what Ravenstahl has done.

From WDUQ News:

A small nameplate honoring Gen. Michael V. Hayden at the corner of Allegheny Avenue and North Shore Drive will be the subject of what could be a big public hearing today before Pittsburgh Council. Greg Barnhisel of Pittsburgh’s Park Place neighborhood noticed the nameplate while visiting the Carnegie Science Center. Barnhisel says he does not question the debt of gratitude owed to the general for his service in the U.S. Air Force but he does question the wisdom of honoring him for his work after leaving the military. Hayden left the Air Force as a four-star general to become the Director of the National Security Agency and then the Director of the Central Intelligence Agency. While in those post Hayden became a lightening rod for the left when he helped to implement the Bush administration’s warrantless-wiretapping program and then helped defined the CIA’s interrogation program that many have equated to torture. Hayden is a native of Pittsburgh and Mayor Luke Ravenstahl honored him with the plaque but did not get it approved by the city council. Something he did not have to do but is customary. Barnhisel Gathered the needed signatures on a petition to get the hearing scheduled. He says the way the mayor posted the nameplate should be part of the debate at today’s public hearing and so should an examination of the appropriateness of honoring Hayden. What he does not want is to have the public hearing devolve into a debate about Bush era policies. The hearing begins at 9:00am in Council Chambers.

And, if you're wondering about the illustration at the top, I created it back in 2006 for a post entitled Bush's Made Men. In that post, I quoted Jonathan Turley, law professor at George Washington University, on Hayden's nomination to CIA Director by George W. Bush:

As these shadowy figures multiply, you can understand why civil libertarians increasingly see the White House like a gathering at Tony Soprano's Bada Bing! club. In Soprano's world, you cannot become a "made man" unless you first earn your bones by "doing" some guy or showing blind loyalty. Only when you have proven unquestioning loyalty does Tony "open the books" for a new guy.

Hayden earned his bones by implementing the NSA operation despite clear federal law declaring such surveillance to be a criminal act. He can now join the rest of the made men of the Bush administration.

Heck of a job, Lukey!

*********************************************************

UPDATE:

WPXI coverage here.
Pittsburgh Post-Gazette coverage here.
Pittsburgh Tribune-Review coverage here.
.

More on Valerie Plame's Status

I see that someone calling himself "Honzman" has wished the Other Political Junkie a Happy Birthday.

Let's hope that it IS Fred "The Honzman" Honsberger who's checking out the blog - if he sticks around long enough, maybe he'll learn something. Hahahaha!

Fred, if it is you, you need to take a look at the transcript from The House Commmittee on Oversight and Government Reform Hearing on CIA Identity Leak on Friday the 16th. Henry Waxman opened said this:

This hearing is being conducted in open session. This is appropriate, but it is also challenging. Ms. Wilson was a covert employee of the CIA. We cannot discuss all of the details of her CIA employment in open session.

I have met, personally, with General Hayden, the head of the CIA, to discuss what I can and cannot say about Ms. Wilson's service. And I want to thank him for his cooperation and help in guiding us along these lines.

My staff has also worked with the agency to ensure these remarks do not contain classified information.

I have been advised by the CIA and that even now, after all that has happened, I cannot disclose the full nature, scope and character of Ms. Wilson's service to our nation without causing serious damage to our national security interests.

But General Hayden and the CIA have cleared these following comments for today's hearing.

During her employment at the CIA, Ms. Wilson was undercover. Her employment status with the CIA was classified information, prohibited from disclosure under Executive Order 12958.

At the time of the publication of Robert Novak's column on July 14, 2003, Ms. Wilson's CIA employment status was covert. This was classified information.

Ms. Wilson served in senior management positions at the CIA, in which she oversaw the work for other CIA employees and she attained the level of GS-14, Step 6, under the federal pay scale.

Ms. Wilson worked on some of the most sensitive and highly secretive matters handled by the CIA.

Ms. Wilson served at various times overseas for the CIA.[emphasis added]

Here we have the chairman of a powerful House committee declaring, in statements cleared by the CIA and the head of the CIA (and Pittsburgh native, by the way) Michael Hayden, that Valerie Plame was "undercover" her employment status was "covert" and that that information was "classified."

Finally, releasing that information was a violation of Executive Order 12958.

Fred, will you be stating anytime soon how wrong you've been for these last few years when you repeatedly said in no uncertain terms that Valerie Plame was not covert?

I mean, the frickin head of the CIA just said she was. What that means to you is, you're just plain wrong whenever you said she wasn't.

Aren't you?

Kevin Miller is Wrong, Wrong, Wrong

I was just on KDKA. Kevin Miller (he's filling in for Fred today) had been saying about Valerie Plame that she was NOT covert. Therefore the whole Libby trial was somehow a sham.

He also said that Bush was right in commuting the prison sentence because (and I am NOT joking here) "rank has its privileges." So Kevin Miller, patriotic American, thinks that that the same laws that you and I have to abide by, the powerful don't have to.

Nice going, Kevin.

I had to call in and spank him. I just had to.

I pointed out that he was absolutely wrong about Valerie Plame. Congressman Henry Waxman opened a Congressional Hearing with a statement that he and his staff cleared with the CIA and Michael Hayden, head of the CIA where he said:

This hearing is being conducted in open session. This is appropriate, but it is also challenging. Ms. Wilson was a covert employee of the CIA. We cannot discuss all of the details of her CIA employment in open session.

I have met, personally, with General Hayden, the head of the CIA, to discuss what I can and cannot say about Ms. Wilson's service. And I want to thank him for his cooperation and help in guiding us along these lines.

My staff has also worked with the agency to ensure these remarks do not contain classified information.

I have been advised by the CIA and that even now, after all that has happened, I cannot disclose the full nature, scope and character of Ms. Wilson's service to our nation without causing serious damage to our national security interests.

But General Hayden and the CIA have cleared these following comments for today's hearing.

During her employment at the CIA, Ms. Wilson was undercover. Her employment status with the CIA was classified information, prohibited from disclosure under Executive Order 12958. [emphasis added]

Patrick Fitzgerald filed papers saying that Valerie Plame was covert - MSNBC covered it here. The complete document is here.

Right now he's mixing in President Clinton's impeachment in order to muddy the waters.

He raised the question in regards to Libby, "What was the underlying crime?" Implying, I guess, that since no one was charged with an underlying crime, the real crime of perjury (for which Libby was convicted) should be ignored.

Of course when a caller brought up exactly the same argument about the Clinton impeachment ("What was the underlying crime in the Clinton impeachment?"), Kevin Miller dutifully pointed out that Clinton lied to the grand jury.

Since Kevin Miller is on NewsRadio1020, don't you think he should actually maybe you know read the news?

The Post-Gazette Continues To Give Political Cover To Donald J. Trump

The confusing right-ward shift of the P-G editorial board continues - sometimes in subtle ways as seen with a recent editorial.

(By the way, the discussion of the P-G's shift has reached as high as the Columbia Journalism Review.)

Anyway, back to the P-G editorial.  It opens with this:

Days after Vladimir Putin’s massive, engineered victory March 18 in Russia’s elections, he has been hit, first, with a tragedy and, second, with an unusually steadfast reaction by the West to his latest rogue act — the alleged poisoning of a former Russian spy and his daughter by Russian agents.

A few paragraphs later we read:

Russia continues to deny having carried out the attack, and Mr. Putin’s having authorized it. The British maintain stoutly that their investigation validates the charge.

And now, after some delay, the West has responded. The poisoning has resulted in the expulsion of some 100 Russian spies from 26 countries, including 60 from the United States.

Which is followed immediately by:

President Donald Trump deserves credit for joining the United Kingdom, 17 other European Union nations and NATO and other allies in the expulsions and in condemning the Salisbury attack.

Subtle. Trump deserves credit. But what, exactly, did he do? And how much credit should he "deserve"?

The Washington Post reported:

State Department officials said Trump signed off on the recommendation to expel the diplomats but was not heavily engaged in the discussion leading up to Monday’s announcement. The officials spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss internal processes.

The administration last week began considering expulsions of a minimum of 20 diplomats, and State Department and White House officials recommended the higher number, officials said.

Trump wanted fewer diplomats expelled. The State Department recommended more and he signed off on their recommendation. Otherwise he was "not heavily engaged in the discussion" regarding the expulsions.

As former CIA Director Michael Hayden explained on NPR:

Hayden said it wasn't actually Trump's decision, and the idea for a mass expulsion of Russia diplomats originated in the UK and the State Department.

Specifically:

Hayden said he didn't think "this was something that the president demanded be pulled out of the bureaucracy, that he asked for options and said "give me the tough one." I don't think so. I think that actually came from the bureaucracy, actually came from the national security establishment, and actually came from the allies who did want to act in concert."

How much credit should he get for that? For simply not getting in the way of the grown-ups?

For a post-Obama Post-Gazette editorial board that wants little more than to kiss some orange Trump-butt, this is enough.

MAGA!

Jack Kelly - He's at it again.

Oh. My. God.

That's the only way to describe the length and breadth of spin and outright dishonesty found in today's column by "National Security Correspondent" Jack Kelly.

I will do my best to point out the deceptions point-by-point. He starts out with this:

In an audiotape broadcast Thursday on al Jazeera, Osama bin Laden said al-Qaida is preparing to strike the United States again.

Last month Italian authorities arrested three Algerians with al-Qaida connections. They were plotting attacks on ships, railway stations and stadiums in the United States, said Interior Minister Giuseppe Pisanu.

Some Democrats think President Bush should be impeached for trying to keep them from succeeding.

First off, there are so many subtle insinuations to that last sentence that I barely know where to begin. The calls for impeachment are to stop Bush from stopping terrorism? Am I going too far a field to wonder whether in Commando Kelly's mind, he thinks that anyone who protests the administration's assault on the rule of law is helping out the terrorists? This is just too silly to contemplate. How long until the subtle covert accusations become loud and overt? Here, I'll start:

Anyone criticizing Bush and/or the war on terror is doing nothing but helping the terrorists and anyone who helps the terrorists should be locked up as a traitor.

But what of those three Algerians? Turns out that they are members of a group called GSPC. It's a terrorist which aims to overthrow the Algerian government. Recently it's expanded its terrorism to Europe. So no doubt these are nasty guys. But Kelly, by placing one sentence after the other, implies that the plans that bin laden describes are the plans that the three Algerians were arrested for. Is this true or is it another post hoc fallacy? Kelly is hoping you see the connection that he doesn't offer any real evidence for. Is Osama bin laden no longer using al-qaeda to attack the United States? Is he now directing the GSPC to do his dirty work? Kelly doesn't say.

But the implication is there. Bin laden says there are plans, these guys "with al-qaeda connections" were arrested while plotting, so therefore the GSPC plots must've been the plans that bin laden was talking about! And if only the traitorous Democrats would stop hounding Bush, he'd be able to win this war!

In any event, this is not Kelly's main argument - it's just the insulting teaser. Take a look at the next paragraph:

In a speech Monday remarkable (even for him) for its bombast and hypocrisy, former Vice President Al Gore accused the president of having violated the law when he authorized the National Security Agency to listen in, without warrants, on conversations between al-Qaida suspects abroad and people in the United States.

Notice Kelly's description of the NSA program. It is to "listen in, without warrants, on conversations between al-Qaida suspects abroad and people in the United States."

Notice he used the word "people" and not the phrase "American citizens" or "U.S. persons" (the legal term). "People" can be anyone, from your Aunt Bertha to Charles Manson to the guy running across the Arizona desert from Mexico. Again, Kelly's spinning the program just a little to make it into something it's not.

In any event, the accusation is correct. Bush did violate the law when he authorized the NSA to listen in. But Kelly is just setting us up for another Clinton attack (you know, I used to count how many paragraphs it took Kelly to blame it all on Bill Clinton. In some columns Clinton never surfaces, this one only takes six paragraphs for it to happen). Here it is:

"A president who breaks the law is a threat to the very structure of our government," Mr. Gore declared.

I don't recall him uttering such sentiments when President Clinton committed perjury.

Those were just "lies about sex." But I also don't recall Mr. Gore complaining about Echelon, a much broader electronic intercept program begun in the Clinton administration, when we were not at war.

And after the oblique reference to Clinton's perjury (where he was impeached for breaking the law), we get to the heart of Kelly's column: Echelon.

Conservatives nation-wide have been playing the "Echelon card" for sometime now. Kelly even asserts that it's a program started in the Clinton Administration. But it isn't exactly what Kelly says it is. Let's take a look.

The Echelon story from the rightwing almost always references a piece done by Steve Kroft on 60 Minutes in late February 2000. Here's a transcript. (For giggles, I want you to search for the part of the story about Margaret Newsham. She's quoted as saying that she heard Senator Strom Thurman's voice via Echelon. The piece also says she worked on the system in 1979. Message to Jack Kelly: If the system was in place in 1979, it wasn't started in the Clinton Administration.)

Back to Echelon. Too bad that Medal of Freedom recipient and former CIA director George Tenet had this to say to Congress in April of 2000 to current CIA head Porter Goss' congressional committee:

There have been recent allegations that the Intelligence Community through NSA has improperly directed our SIGINT capabilities against the private conversations of US persons. That is not the case.

There is a rigorous regime of checks and balances which we—the CIA, the NSA and the FBI—scrupulously adhere to whenever the conversations of US persons are involved—directly or indirectly.

We do not collect against US persons unless they are agents of a foreign power, as that term is defined in law. We do not target their conversations for collection in the United States unless a FISA [Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act] warrant has been obtained from the FISA court by the Justice Department. And we do not target their conversations for collection overseas unless Executive Order 12333 has been followed and the Attorney General has personally approved collection.

Did you catch that? He said they were adhering to the FISA statues. The Other Political Junkie mentioned this in a comment about a month ago. Too bad, if Jack Kelly actually read this blog more consistently, he would have saved himself the humiliation of looking like a right-wing idiot.

And then there's Michael V. Hayden's testimony on the same day. The Introduction:

The National Security Agency (NSA) performs electronic surveillance to collect foreign intelligence information for the military and policymakers. As the Director of Central Intelligence noted, NSA provides valuable intelligence to U.S. government consumers on a wide range of issues of concern to all Americans, such as international terrorism, narcotics trafficking, and proliferation of weapons of mass destruction. NSA’s electronic surveillance activities are subject to strict regulation by statute¹ and Executive Order² due to the potential intrusiveness and the implications for the privacy of U.S. persons³ of these activities. NSA’s electronic surveillance activities are also subject to oversight from multiple bodies within all three branches of the government. These safeguards have ensured that NSA is operating within its legal authority.

The "strict regulation by statute" that Hayden mentions? The FISA statute.

Anyway, Hayden also referenced Excutive Order 12333 in 2000:

There are certain restrictions imposed by E.O. 12333 upon all intelligence collection activities engaged in by the Executive Branch agencies. Intelligence collection must be conducted in a manner “consistent with the Constitution and applicable law and respectful of the principles upon which the United States was founded.” (Sec. 2.1). These include the Fourth Amendment’s prohibition against unreasonable searches and seizures. Intelligence collection must not be undertaken to acquire information concerning the domestic activities of U.S. persons. (Sec. 2.3(b)). The least intrusive collection techniques feasible must be used in the United States or against U.S. persons located abroad. (Sec. 2.4). Finally, agencies in the Intelligence Community are prohibited from having other parties engage in activities forbidden by the Executive Order on their behalf. (Sec. 2.12) This means that NSA can not ask another country to illegally spy on U.S. persons on our behalf, and we do not.

Hmm. So, unless Michael Hayden and George Tenet were lying to Congress about what their respective intelligence agencies were doing with Echelon, just about everything that Jack Kelly and other conservatives said about it is false.

But I found out this stuff in a few hours on my own. Jack Kelly has a computer (probably a better one than mine) and Internet access (again, probably faster than mine) so he should have been able to find this stuff. If he didn't bother, he's incompetent. If he did find it and omitted it from his column, he's as dishonest as the day is long.

Which do you think it is?

Shame on Trump for Advocating Torture. Shame on His Supporters For Agreeing With Him

From NBC this week:

Donald Trump on Tuesday prescribed fighting "fire with fire" when it comes to battling terrorism, seemingly making the case for using similarly brutal tactics as terror groups like ISIS have in the past.

The GOP's presumptive nominee has been outspoken on enhanced interrogation, telling Tuesday's enthusiastic crowd once again that he doesn't think waterboarding is "tough enough" and that it's "peanuts" compared to what terrorists have done in the past. Trump lamented being limited by laws when fighting terror, allowing that waterboarding is "not the nicest thing," but advocating for its use when "the enemy" is "chopping off people's heads."

And from The Guardian:

Trump also renewed his praise of waterboarding, which was banned by the Bush administration in 2006 as both potentially illegal and ineffective. “What do you think about waterboarding?” Trump asked the crowd. They cheered as he gave his answer: “I like it a lot. I don’t think it’s tough enough.”

Let me first correct The Guardian.  This is what Bush did in 2006:

President Bush said Saturday he vetoed legislation that would ban the CIA from using harsh interrogation methods such as waterboarding to break suspected terrorists because it would end practices that have prevented attacks.

"The bill Congress sent me would take away one of the most valuable tools in the war on terror," Bush said in his weekly radio address taped for broadcast Saturday. "So today I vetoed it," Bush said.

According to ABC, the CIA banned it (with quiet White House approval) sometime later:

The controversial interrogation technique known as waterboarding, in which a suspect has water poured over his mouth and nose to stimulate a drowning reflex, has been banned by CIA director Gen. Michael Hayden, current and former CIA officials tell ABCNews.com. (Image above is an ABC News graphic.)

The officials say Hayden made the decision at the recommendation of his deputy, Steve Kappes, and received approval from the White House to remove waterboarding from the list of approved interrogation techniques first authorized by a presidential finding in 2002.

So Bush authorized the torture then vetoed a ban and then quietly OKed the CIA's abandonment of it.

That's a little different from what The Guardian said.

In any case, it was illegal all along.  From ABC, again:

The practice of waterboarding has been branded as "torture" by human rights groups and a number of leading U.S. officials, including Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., because it amounted to a "mock execution."

But that was 2007.  What does McCain think now?

The same.

"It's not the United States of America. It's not what we are all about. It's not what we are," the Arizona lawmaker and former prisoner of war in North Vietnam said to applause at the Bipartisan Policy Center in Washington on Wednesday.

At a rally Tuesday in Ohio, Trump reiterated his praise for using waterboarding -- banned by the Bush administration -- as an effective tool to fight terror just hours after the attack that left dozens of people dead. "I like it a lot. I don't think it's tough enough," said Trump, adding that the tactic was "peanuts compared to many alternatives."

McCain noted at the event that waterboarding is considered a war crime according to the Geneva conventions, "But perhaps more important than that, if you're not into academics and history is it doesn't work ... Because if you inflict enough pain on someone they will tell you whatever they think you want to hear."

Shame on Donald J. Trump for advocating a war crime.  And shame on his supporters in Ohio (and nationwide) who agree with him.

Senator Toomey Responds! (Or, rather, "Responds")

It's been a while since we've heard from Pennsylvania's jr Senator. Initially, he wrote back to me via the USPS but then he started responding via email.

Yesterday was no exception. It was email. Which is good for me because it's easier to cut and paste his responses.

So what was he responding to? Which of my NINETEEN (so far) letters is he answering?

His first line is a clue:

Thank you for contacting me about Russian actions during the 2016 election. I appreciate hearing from you.

Before we go any further, I just noticed something. Toomey's first sentence in response to my ninth letter begins like this:

Thank you for contacting me about the situation in Syria. I appreciate hearing from you.

And his response to my seventh letter begins like this:

Thank you for contacting me about United States Supreme Court Associate Justice Neil Gorsuch. I appreciate hearing from you.

Hmm. I'm beginning to think there's a pattern here.

Anyway, which letter could it be? Toomey's next paragraph offers a clue-er-two:

Former FBI Director James Comey recently testified before Congress that an investigation into potential coordination between the Trump campaign and the Russian government is still ongoing. While the former director did not say whether any coordination has been found, he confirmed there is no evidence of vote tampering. President Trump recently fired Mr. Comey, and has nominated Christopher Wray as the next FBI director. It is now up to the Senate to vet and confirm this nomination.

There are only three of my letters that mention Comey:

• The Sixth - but that's about Trump's false allegation lie about the Obama Administration wiretapping him.
• The Thirteenth - but that's about Trump's leaking of sensitive intelligence to the Russian Ambassador in the Oval Office, not about Russian interference in our recent election.
• The Fourteenth - but that was about Trump firing Comey and calling him a "nut job."

As far as I can tell, I've never actually asked Senator Toomey about Comey investigating any "potential coordination between the Trump campaign and the Russian government" so I am at a loss as to which letter he's answering.

In any event, here's the letter in its entirety:

Thank you for contacting me about Russian actions during the 2016 election. I appreciate hearing from you.

Former FBI Director James Comey recently testified before Congress that an investigation into potential coordination between the Trump campaign and the Russian government is still ongoing. While the former director did not say whether any coordination has been found, he confirmed there is no evidence of vote tampering. President Trump recently fired Mr. Comey, and has nominated Christopher Wray as the next FBI director. It is now up to the Senate to vet and confirm this nomination.

In the interim, Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein has appointed former FBI Director Robert Mueller as special counsel to continue the investigation into any links between Russia and individuals associated with the Trump campaign, and any matters that arose from such investigation - an assignment that encompasses the recent allegations surrounding Michael Flynn and Mr. Comey. I have every confidence that Robert Mueller will execute these responsibilities with integrity and professionalism.

I look forward to reviewing the findings of Special Counsel Mueller and the findings by the various House and Senate Committees investigating these issues. If the Russian government or its agents meddled in our election, they should face serious consequences. Towards that end, I was pleased to support legislation (S. 722) that codified and strengthened existing sanctions on Russia. If the Trump campaign colluded with the Russian government in an attempt to influence the election, then that should be disclosed and acted upon, too. Russia remains a dangerous threat, and Congress must remain vigilant against our adversaries' attempts to expand their influence and undermine trust in our government.

While I am not a member of the Senate Intelligence Committee, please be assured I understand your concerns and will keep your thoughts in mind moving forward. Thank you again for your correspondence. Do not hesitate to contact me in the future if I can be of assistance.

A few take-aways from the letter:

• He said he appreciates hearing from me and that I should not hesitate to contact him in the future.
• He said he has "every confidence that Robert Mueller will execute these responsibilities (the investigation into any links between Russia and individuals associated with the Trump campaign, and any matters that arose from such investigation - an assignment that encompasses the recent allegations surrounding Michael Flynn and Mr. Comey) with integrity and professionalism." Though I don't know what Comey allegations he's referring to.
• He said, that if the Russian government/agents interfered in the election, "they should face serious consequences."
• He said that if the Trump campaign colluded with the Russians, "then that should be disclosed and acted upon, too." Though you'll note that the language he used was much less harsh than the "serious consequences" for Russia. 

And here's the questions from the above letters that he didn't answer:

• Sixth Letter - "Ok, so here's the thing. If there's no evidence that supports those tweets (about Obama wiretapping him), then there has never been any evidence to support those tweets. And yet, Trump repeated the allegation as recently as this week in his press conference with German Chancellor Angela Merkel.
  
  This, after numerous other refutations of his charge by former NSA/CIA director Michael Hayden, former DNI James Clapper and others.
  
  The facts are clear and yet Donald Trump continues to push this untruth. So here's my question: How much does this erode your confidence in his ability as a leader?"
• Thirteenth Letter - "Given the events of the last few days (the Comey firing and the disclosure of highly classified information to the Russians) do you a still have confidence in Donald J Trump's ability to be president and commander in chief? If not, what are your plans to deal with him? If you still do have confidence in his leadership abilities, considering the events of the past few days, what would it take for you to lose that confidence?"
• Fourteenth Letter - "A few days ago the New York Times reported that Donald Trump, in his meeting in the Oval Office with the Russian Foreign Minister and the Russian Ambassador to the US, called the former head of the FBI James Comey (who he'd just fired) "crazy" and "a real nut job."
  
  Here's my question: Are you OK with any of this?
  
  Are you OK with the president of the United States in effect bragging to the Russian Ambassador that he'd just fired the guy in charge of the investigation into whatever connections there may have existed between his presidential campaign and Russian intelligence?
  
  Are you OK with his characterization of Comey as "crazy" and "a real nutjob" during that brag?"

It's nice to see Senator Toomey supporting Robert Mueller and going on the record saying that if there was collusion between the Trump campaign and the Russians then that's something to be "acted upon." To be honest, I'd rather get an answer to "given all of Trump's shenanagans, what would it take for Toomey to lose confidence in him?" or whether he's OK with Trump lying about being wiretapped and so on.

Time will tell. More letters to Toomey to come. I promise.

My THIRTY-EIGHTH Open Letter To Senator Pat Toomey (UPDATED)

I'll be dropping this letter to Senator Pat Toomey in the mail today:

Dear Senator Toomey:

It's me, again. Your constituent who also writes for the local Pittsburgh-based political blog, "2 Political Junkies."

Donald Trump is attacking the press again, Senator. Recently, he tweeted,

"[Fox News] is MUCH more important in the United States than CNN, but outside of the U.S., CNN International is still a major source of (Fake) news, and they represent our Nation to the WORLD very poorly. The outside world does not see the truth from them!"

Answering that attack was conservative writer David Frum, who tweeted:

Inside the US, CNN’s reporting is protected by the First Amendment and the courts. Outside the US, US-affiliated journalists do ultimately depend on the protection of the US government. Trump’s words are a direct attack on those international journalists' freedom & even safety

And former head of the CIA and NSA, General Michael Hayden, who tweeted:

If this is who we are or who we are becoming, I have wasted 40 years of my life. Until now it was not possible for me to conceive of an American President capable of such an outrageous assault on truth, a free press or the first amendment.

Senator, your constituents are watching. You need to pick a side. Do you agree with Donald Trump's attack on the free press or not?

I await your response.

And I will be posting whatever response I get from him or his office.

UPDATE: Senator Toomey kinda sorta almost answers this letter here.

Follow-up:

• Round-up Volume 1
• Round-up Volume 2
• Round-up Volume 3
• Thirty-third letter - No response so far  
• Thirty-fourth letter - No response so far 
• Thirty-fifth letter - No response so far 
• Thirty-sixth letter - No response so far
• Thirty-seventh letter - No response so far

Senator Toomey RESPONDS To Another Letter

As promised.

I got ANOTHER Toomey response the other day!

This one is different as it's only about half a page. It's dated June 29. Let's go see to which letter of mine Toomey (or his office) is responding.

He beings:

Thank you for contacting me about the nomination of Gina Haspel as the Director of the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA). I appreciate hearing from you.

That makes it easy. He's responding to this letter, my 62st. My letter was written after Senator Toomey had already posted his support of Haspel as Director of the CIA. I pointed out that she oversaw a CIA "black site" in which someone was tortured. Torture is illegal, by the way.

I asked:

Now that she's been installed as head of CIA, how could we as a nation possibly criticize any other country for whatever torture programs they might be running when our own Director of Central Intelligence oversaw (and covered up) just such a program?

And here's how Senator Toomey "answered" my question:

On May 18, 2018, the Senate confirmed Gina Haspel as CIA Director on a bipartisan vote of 54-45. I was proud to support her confirmation given her impressive qualifications and deep experience in the CIA. Ms Haspel has served as a career intelligence officer since 1985 and, prior to her confirmation, held the role of Deputy Director of the CIA. She has excelled in several positions of leadership within the National Clandestine Service and is highly decorated member of the intelligence community. Several former Obama Administration intelligence officials have endorsed her nomination, including James Clapper, Leon Panetta, John Brennan, Michael Hayden, and Mike Morell.

But Senator, the question was about the torture. Gina Haspel oversaw a torture program. Torture is a war crime, Senator. How can we protest another country when it tortures when we promoted someone who oversaw a torture program to the top of our own intelligence community?

You didn't answer the question, Senator.

Senator Toomey RESPONDS To Another Letter (But Doesn't Get Around To ANSWERING It)

Yesterday, I received an email from Senator Pat Toomey.

It begins like this:

Thank you for contacting me regarding First Amendment protections for free speech. I appreciate hearing from you.

So like all the other responses from the Senator, we now have to figure out WHICH letter he's answering.

Turns out closest letter (and you'll see why it's not a match in a bit) is this one, my thirty-eighth dated November 28, 2017.

Hey, that's a thirty-eight day turn-around, interesting coincidence!

Anyway, what was I asking in that letter?

What triggered it was this tweet from the early-bedded cheeseburger-eater:

.@FoxNews is MUCH more important in the United States than CNN, but outside of the U.S., CNN International is still a major source of (Fake) news, and they represent our Nation to the WORLD very poorly. The outside world does not see the truth from them!

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) November 25, 2017

I contrasted that tweet with responses from conservative columnist David Frum and former NSA and CIA head Michael Hayden who each in his own way protested Trump's disrespect of the First Amendment press protections.

And from there, I asked Senator Pat Toomey a simple question: Whose side are you on?

And this is how Pat Toomey, Junior Senator from Pennsylvania responded:

As you know, the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution guarantees freedom of religion, expression, assembly, and the right to petition. Specifically, the Constitution states that Congress shall make no law "abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press."

Free speech is a fundamental right that is expressly protected in the First Amendment. Attempts to punish or repress speech undermine the basic purpose of the First Amendment and erode the foundational importance of the "marketplace of ideas" in contributing to a free, open, and prosperous society.

I share your concerns regarding preserving free speech, and I value your input. Please be assured that I will keep your views in mind on this issue should related legislation come before the Senate for consideration.

Thank you again for your correspondence. Do not hesitate to contact me in the future if I can be of assistance.

Take a close look. I was specifically asking about Donald Trump's assault on the First Amendment as it applies to a free press and Toomey responded with a defense of the First Amendment as it applies to free speech.

Sadly, I'd say that constitutes a non-answer to the very important question: WHOSE SIDE ARE YOU ON, SENATOR? ARE YOU IN FAVOR OF DEFENDING THE FIRST AMENDMENT PROTECTIONS NECESSARY FOR A FREE PRESS OR AREN'T YOU?

There is really only one right answer to this, Senator, and you failed to provide it.

My SIXTH Open Letter To Senator Pat Toomey

I'll be dropping this letter to Senator Pat Toomey in the mail today:

Dear Senator Toomey:

It's me, again. Your constituent who also writes for the local Pittsburgh-based political blog, "2 Political Junkies."

On March 4, and repeatedly afterwards, Donald Trump tweeted that President Obama, when was still in office wiretapped Trump Tower and the Trump campaign.

Yesterday, the Washington Post reported that in testimony before Congress, FBI Director James Comey said:

“I have no information that supports those tweets,’’ Comey said. “We have looked carefully inside the FBI,’’ and agents found nothing to support those claims.

He added that the Justice Department had asked him to tell the committee that the agency has no such information, either.

Ok, so here's the thing. If there's no evidence that supports those tweets, then there has never been any evidence to support those tweets. And yet, Trump repeated the allegation as recently as this week in his press conference with German Chancellor Angela Merkel.

This, after numerous other refutations of his charge by former NSA/CIA director Michael Hayden, former DNI James Clapper and others.

The facts are clear and yet Donald Trump continues to push this untruth. So here's my question: How much does this erode your confidence in his ability as a leader?

And I will be posting whatever response I get from him or his office.

Follow-up: 

• First Letter - No response so far
• Second Letter -No response so far
• Third Letter - No response so far
• Fourth Letter - No response so far 
• Fifth Letter - No response so far

On Waterboarding

From Reuters:

The controversial interrogation technique known as waterboarding and used by the United States qualifies as torture, the U.N. human rights chief said on Friday.

And:

Arbour made her comment in response to a question about whether U.S. officials could be tried for the use of waterboarding that referred to CIA director Michael Hayden telling Congress on Tuesday his agency had used waterboarding on three detainees captured after the September 11 attacks.

Violators of the U.N. Convention against Torture should be prosecuted under the principle of 'universal jurisdiction' which allows countries to try accused war criminals from other nations, Arbour said.

By the way, here's a link to the UN Conventions Against Torture. According to the signatures page, the US signed (0n April 4, 1988) and ratified (on October 21, 1994) this more than a decade ago.

Here's how the UN Conventions defines torture:

For the purposes of this Convention, the term "torture" means any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person for such purposes as obtaining from him or a third person information or a confession, punishing him for an act he or a third person has committed or is suspected of having committed, or intimidating or coercing him or a third person, or for any reason based on discrimination of any kind, when such pain or suffering is inflicted by or at the instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official or other person acting in an official capacity. It does not include pain or suffering arising only from, inherent in or incidental to lawful sanctions.

And here's Article VI of the Constitution (remember that?) that says that ratified treaties become U.S. Law:

All debts contracted and engagements entered into, before the adoption of this Constitution, shall be as valid against the United States under this Constitution, as under the Confederation.

This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding.

The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the members of the several state legislatures, and all executive and judicial officers, both of the United States and of the several states, shall be bound by oath or affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States.

Morning, Pittsburgh.

Jack Kelly Sunday

Oh, Jack.  You were getting so...nearly factual last week in your column at the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette.

And this week?  When you're attempting to redefine torture in your efforts to defend the "enhanced interrogations" of the Bush Administration?

This week, you are simply, shatteringly incorrect.  And considering the severity of the topic and how incorrect you are, this column is usual for you as it clearly borders in the immoral.

Let's start where Jack starts, with Abraham Lincoln:

How many legs does a calf have, if you call the tail a leg?” Abraham Lincoln asked a congressman during a discussion of whether he had the authority to issue the Emancipation Proclamation.

“Five,” the congressman replied.

“Four,” Lincoln corrected him. “Calling a tail a leg doesn't make it a leg.”

Before we get to the torture let's take a look at the Lincoln story.  It's interesting to note that Kelly, in using this story, is validating the idea that a President can issue an Executive Order to achieve a policy objective not available to him via the usual legislative process.

Huh.  Presidents can do that?  I guess so.

Jack's point in using this story is that calling the "enhanced interrogation techniques" torture doesn't make them torture.

And for that he has a SERE trained Naval Aviator to say so:

The more than 70,000 U.S. military personnel who’ve experienced it during SERE (Survival, Evasion, Resistance, Escape) training can attest that waterboarding, which simulates drowning, is highly unpleasant.

But “there’s no pain, actually. There’s no trauma. There’s no lasting effect,” said Capt. Ken Kropkowski, a naval aviator who was waterboarded. “I don’t see how you can equate that with torture.”

Ok, fine. Here's another SERE trained veteran to say otherwise. When asked on The View about whether he was waterboarded as part of his Navy SEAL training, former Minnesota Governor Jesse Ventura said this:

Well, it wasn’t part of the Navy seal training, it was part of what they call SERE school: Survival, Escape, Resistance, Evasion. It’s a school they required you to go to prior to the combat zone of Vietnam. And yes, we were all water boardedthere, and yes it is torture.

And a sentence or two later he said this:

Torture is torture. If you’re going to be a country that follows the rule of law, which we are, torture is illegal.

So we haven't actually gotten anywhere, have we?  But since Governor Ventura mentioned Vietnam, we have to wonder, did it happen there?  And if so what was the outcome?

From ABC News:

Water boarding was designated as illegal by U.S. generals in Vietnam 40 years ago. A photograph that appeared in The Washington Post of a U.S. soldier involved in water boarding a North Vietnamese prisoner in 1968 led to that soldier's severe punishment.

"The soldier who participated in water torture in January 1968 was court-martialed within one month after the photos appeared in The Washington Post, and he was drummed out of the Army," recounted Darius Rejali, a political science professor at Reed College.

 So a soldier who waterboarded as recently as 1968 was court martialed for doing this:

Walter Pincus of the Washington Post wrote of waterboarding in Vietnam that it

...was "fairly common" in part because "those who practice it say it combines the advantages of being unpleasant enough to make people talk while still not causing permanent injury."

No permanent injury, yet still a court martial-able offence.

Are you paying attention, Jack?

In any event when we turn to the UN Conventions we can see that Jack, clever columnist that he is, is actually performing a few rhetorical sins of his own.  The Convention defines "torture" as:

For the purposes of this Convention, the term "torture" means any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person for such purposes as obtaining from him or a third person information or a confession, punishing him for an act he or a third person has committed or is suspected of having committed, or intimidating or coercing him or a third person, or for any reason based on discrimination of any kind, when such pain or suffering is inflicted by or at the instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official or other person acting in an official capacity. It does not include pain or suffering arising only from, inherent in or incidental to lawful sanctions.

So when torture is defined this way, "severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental..." whether there's any physical "pain" "trauma" or "lasting effect" is completely beside the point, if the suffering is mental.

Which leads to this from Jack:

Sleep deprivation, stress positions, liquid diets and playing loud music were other forms of “torture” the report decried.

Note the use of irony quotation marks.  But what about that "sleep deprivation" how can keeping someone up be torture? Jack seems to ask.  Here's how:

Sleep deprivation involved keeping detainees awake for up to 180 hours, usually standing or in stress positions, at times with their hands shackled above their heads. At least five detainees experienced disturbing hallucinations during prolonged sleep deprivation and, in at least two of those cases, the CIA nonetheless continued the sleep deprivation.” One of the prisoners forced to say awake for seven-and-a-half days was Khalid Sheikh Mohammed. Most of this time he was forced to stand. The report says that former CIS director Michael Hayden was aware that Mohammed had been deprived of sleep for this period.

When it causes hallucinations, it torture.

And note how Jack redefines the rectal feeding - "liquid diets".  This is what actually happened:

Prisoners were subjected to “rectal feeding” without medical necessity. Rectal exams were conducted with “excessive force”. The report highlights one prisoner later diagnosed with anal fissures, chronic hemorrhoids and “symptomatic rectal prolapse”.

Also torture.  Also disgusting.  Also done in our name.

Jack, you do realize you're guilty of the exact sin you've accused everyone else of doing, right?  You say that calling something "torture" doesn't actual make it torture.

When in effect what you're trying to do is to call torture something else (anything else) in order to make it not.

And that's the immoral part.  Low, even for you.

Torture is illegal.  Torture occurred.

Prosecute the torture.