June 08, 2004

New Enron Tapes

Here's something I snagged from CBS. More Enron tapes gloating about shutting down California. People died in these power outages. These people should be prosecuted for manslaughter. These are the people who put Bush in office and who Bush and Ashcroft are trying to protect. Ashcroft took $57,000 bucks from Enron when he ran for US senate against me in 2000.

-------

(CBS) The Department of Justice reportedly has thousands of hours of Enron employees recorded during the West Coast power crisis. Now, some in Congress want all the tapes released.

"I want to make sure that no federal agency suppresses this information, makes the case harder for us to get relief," says U.S. Sen. Maria Cantwell, D-Wash.

After CBS broadcast the voices of Enron energy traders gloating over the crisis they helped create, more tapes were released.

In one tape, an employee says, "You gotta think the economy is going to f------g get crushed, man. This is like a recession waiting to f-----g happen."

The tapes show Enron tried to bring California to its knees.

Elsewhere on the tapes, another employee says, "This is where California breaks."

"Yeah, it sure does man," says another.

And they proposed to do that by exporting energy out of the state so the company could drive up prices even more.

"What we need to do is to help in the cause of, ah, downfall of California," an employee is heard saying on the tapes. "You guys need to pull your megawatts out of California on a daily basis."

"They're on the ropes today," says another employee. "I exported like a f------g 400 megs."

"Wow,'' says another employee, "f--k 'em, right!"

Traders can be heard manipulating the market, using now-infamous schemes with names like death star, ricochet and fat boy.

One employee is heard asking, "You want to do some fat boys or, or whatever, man, you know, take advantage of it."

In fat boy, Enron traders used fake power sales to hide megawatts, shrinking the supply of energy and driving up prices. They also used the oldest trick in the book: lies.

"It's called lies. It's all how well you can weave these lies together, Shari, alright, so," an employee is heard saying.

The other employee says, "I feel like I'm being corrupted now."

The first employee adds, "No, this is marketing,"

"OK.''

The tapes could affect dozens of cases already filed against the company by California Attorney General Bill Lockyer.

"If these are ever heard by a jury, they're going get strung up," says Lockyer.

After hearing the tapes, the state's two U.S. senators demanded an immediate $8.9 billion refund.

At a recent hearing Sen. Barbara Boxer, D-Calif. said, "All I can tell you is you have to listen to what's happening out there to ordinary people who you are responsible to help through this."

With Enron and other major energy companies in bankruptcy, big refunds are unlikely. But the tapes could provide the evidence states and cities need to break contracts they were forced to sign at the height of the energy crisis.

Posted by marc at 10:25 PM | Comments (11) | TrackBack

Torture Memo Released

Snagged this off of MSNBC - Torture.pdf

This is pretty interesting legal bullshit. It basically justifies everything Bush and the millitary does. It makes me wish I was a lawyer defending the guards at Abu Griab. This memo provides the perfect legal cover. Here's why:

The guards say that they were acting under orders and that they were doing so because they believed that they were saving lives by extracting valuable information - because they were told that was the reason.

Now - here's the test. Would a person reasonably believe their actions were justified under these circumstances? Normally this excuse wouldn't fly - but - because of this memo - it changes everything.

The guards can argue that they could reasonably believe it because the legal counsel to the President believed it - and would a lowly guard be expected to be smarter that the presidents lawyers? See where this is going? It's the "I can be expected to be smarter than the President" defense. I think it would work.

Seriously - if the President says it's legal - the secretary of defense says it's legal - the justice department says it's legal - the generals say it's legal - the commanding officers say it's legal - then how can a burger flipper who was called to duty - trained as a truck mechanic - and made a prison guard know that it's not legal?

The truth is - everyone from the President on down know that it was illegal - but they all lied to create a legal fiction to justify breaking the law. It's a plan where if enough higher ups break the law - and the congress and the supreme court is under Republican control - we know they are all going to get away with it. But if these legal theories had any validity then Hitler and Saddam Husein would be innocent. Begause what this memo says is that the President is above the law and can do whatever the hell he wants.

Posted by marc at 08:05 PM | Comments (8) | TrackBack

Republicans insensitive ro Reagan's Death

Letter to the Editor

I'm somewhat disturbed by the lack of sensitivity of Republican comparing Bash and Reagan. I was never a Reagan fan - but I don't see the comparison. Reagan would never have fabricated a fake war and got over 800 American killed. Reagan would never have allowed rape, torture, and murder at Abu Griab Prison and then try to cover it up. Reagan didn't have contempt for law and honesty the way Bush does. And - Reagan was a whole lot smarter than Bush. Why Republicans want to disgrace Reagan in this time of national morning by comparing him to Bush is a mystery to me.

Posted by marc at 02:54 PM | Comments (5) | TrackBack

Ashcroft Torture Memo Coverup

Yahoo Story

WASHINGTON (AFP) - The US Attorney General refused to give lawmakers copies of a Justice Department memo that allegedly advised the White House that torture during 'war on terror' interrogations could be justified.

The Washington Post said an August 2002 memo sent by the Justice Department in response to a Central Intelligence Agency request for legal guidance said international laws against torture "may be unconstitutional if applied to interrogations" conducted in the war on terrorism.

But Attorney General John Ashcroft refused to provide the memo to lawmakers on the Senate Judiciary Committee.

"We believe that to provide this kind of information would impair the ability of advice-giving in the executive branch to be candid, forthright, thorough and accurate at all times," Ashcroft said.

Ashcroft told lawmakers that while "this administration rejects torture," he said he could not provide specific details of communications between his office and the White House.

"Congress has the right to ask whatever questions it wants," Ashcroft continued.

But, he said, "there are certain things that in the interest of the executive branch operating effectively that I think it's inappropriate for the Attorney General to say."

Democrats expressed outrage at Ashcroft's refusal to provide the document.

Posted by marc at 10:51 AM | Comments (4) | TrackBack

Bush approved the Torture

Of cource it's not like he directly said - go torture those people. That's not how these kind of orders are given. The president has to have his deniability, He has to be able to claim that - "I didn't know they were torturing people. I am like so shocked!"

So here's how this sort of thing works. The Bush legal team produces a memorandum that creates a justification for torture. And this happened. Under this memorandum "A team of administration lawyers concluded in a March 2003 legal memorandum that President Bush was not bound by either an international treaty prohibiting torture or by a federal antitorture law because he had the authority as commander in chief to approve any technique needed to protect the nation's security." According to an Article in the New York Times.

Basically - this says that Bush can throw out the Geneva Convention with merely a national security excuse.

It then creates cover of lower ranking officers. A reason would be if military personnel believed that they were acting on orders from superiors, the lawyers said.

"In order to respect the president's inherent constitutional authority to manage a military campaign," the lawyers wrote in the 56-page confidential memorandum, the prohibition against torture "must be construed as inapplicable to interrogation undertaken pursuant to his commander-in-chief authority."

Then - they go about trying to redefine what torture is. The March 6 document about torture provides tightly constructed definitions of torture. For example, if an interrogator "knows that severe pain will result from his actions, if causing such harm is not his objective, he lacks the requisite specific intent even though the defendant did not act in good faith," the report said. "Instead, a defendant is guilty of torture only if he acts with the express purpose of inflicting severe pain or suffering on a person within his control."

So - what this means is - if your primary objective is to get information or to obey your commanding officer respecting the chain of command - then what you are doing isn't really torture. It's only torture if you have no better reason than to cause pain.

And - buy saying "severe pain" they create another loophole as to what is severe. And - if the person causing the severe pain doesn't know it's severe - they would be immune.

And then where you torture is also significant. Accouding to the Times, "The March memorandum also contains a curious section in which the lawyers argued that any torture committed at Guantánamo would not be a violation of the anti-torture statute because the base was under American legal jurisdiction and the statute concerns only torture committed overseas. That view is in direct conflict with the position the administration has taken in the Supreme Court, where it has argued that prisoners at Guantánamo Bay are not entitled to constitutional protections because the base is outside American jurisdiction."

So - Gitmo is outside American jurisdiction? What a load of crap! Bet if I shot a general there that they would find plenty of jurisdiction to prosecute me. Or - would they? They'd just turture me without a trial.

The point - getting back to the main subject - is that this memorandum was circulated and only the extremely stupid would get the idea that this is an order from the president to start torturing prisoners. And - it is constructed in such a way that the further you go down the chain of command the more torture is required. It creates levels of willful ignorance so that if they are caught that combinations of "I didn't know what was happening" and "I was just following orders" could be used as a defense.

But putting aside the obuscations what is really happening here is that Bush and Rumsfield are war criminals and should be hauled in front of an international tribunal and tried for war crimes. Bush and Rumsfield didn't do anything that was substantially different that Saddam Hussein did. Saddam beats Bush only in quantity.

Of course we'll never see this happen because Bush is above the law. But being above the law doesn't make what you do legal. It merely means that you have a way of escaping justice. If anyone else on the planet did what Bush did they would be on trial as a war criminal. And even though Bush can escape justice doesn't mean that we can't at leat try him in the court of public opinion.

And for those who say that "Bush is innocent till proven guilty" I say that when someone is in a position of being above the law - then they can be guilty without being proven guilty bcause they are immune from the process of law.

I therefore declare Bush guilty was crimes against humanity because the evidence that he ordered the illegal tortures and violated International law is obvious.

There is no doubt in my mind that the turture hasn't stopped. I has just been moved to places where there are no cameras to take pictures and into countries where these kind of things go on. If we take a prisoner to Egypt to be tortured - it's no different in any way than if we are doing the torture ourselves.

Posted by marc at 07:30 AM | Comments (5) | TrackBack