Senate hearings interrupted to stop testimony (judiciary)

[rumpel]

Wow, I missed this one.

Here is Cal04's entry on June 10
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x3424143

and here is the video
http://therealnews.com/t/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=31&Itemid=74&jumival=1693

I wonder whether they can resume the hearings on another day...and whether they will. And how cowardly to place the objection anonymously..

[wurzel]

1. And we wonder why nothing gets done?

[Joanne98]

2. Here's more....

posted by Bob Lawless
Yesterday, Senator Patrick Leahy caused the Senate Committee on the Judiciary to hold a hearing with the intention of shedding some light on how Supreme Court decisions affect everyday Americans. In the middle of answering my first question, Senator Whitehouse interrupted me to say that, as the presiding officer, he regretted that he had to gavel the hearing to a close. An unnamed Republican senator had invoked Senate Rule XXVI, which requires the hearing to come to a close within two hours after the Senate convenes for the day. Normally, the Senate gives unanimous consent to waive this rule but not yesterday.

On the previous day, a Republican senator had used the same tactic to shut down a hearing about whether coercive interrogation tactics--a polite term for "torture"--were effective. As one of the spectators in the hearing quipped afterwards, you know you have a hit a nerve when the same tactics as were used in the torture debates are being used to silence those who would speak in favor of stronger protections of consumers. Senator Whitehouse was visibly unhappy with having to close the hearing, and Senator Leahy released a statement similarly criticizing the procedural move. What was being said at our hearing that was so awful?

We heard heart-breaking testimony from Bridget Robb, a 34-year old mother who nearly died in front of her 6-year old daughter while receiving repeated electric shocks because of an electronic lead in a pacemaker the manufacturer knew to be defective but for which had given no notice. Because of a U.S. Supreme Court decision protecting medical device manufacturers, Ms. Robb has been stripped of the right to sue for damages because of the harm she has received. We also heard from Maureen Kurtek, a 44-year old mother whose insurer denied her coverage for necessary medical treatment although it knew her previous insurer had authorized the same coverage on three previous occasions. As a result of not receiving a needed, Ms. Kurtek nearly died, had half of her right foot amputated, lost five fingertips, and suffers from numerous painful conditions. Again, Supreme Court decisions strip Ms. Kurtek of the right to sue. Professor Tom McGarrity was there from the University of Texas to provide expert commentary on how the Supreme Court's preemption decisions led to these results. I was there to discuss how the same trends toward centralized federal regulation in the financial services area similarly deprived consumers of important protections.

Reasonable people might disagree with the conclusions we drew from these examples and cases, but apparently some senators believe reasonable people are not to discuss these issues at all.

http://www.creditslips.org/creditslips/2008/06/senate-r...

[geckosfeet]

3. Sorry to say that the republics play for keeps - the dems play slow pitch.

[rumpel]

4. thanks, Joanne98

this is an equivalent to "obstruction of justice", IMHO. No, worse!

:grr:

[Joanne98]

6. You're welcome rumpel

[rumpel]

9. FYI: Press Statement from Leahy regarding the second interrupted hearing

This is the hearing entitled:

"Short-change for Consumers and Short-shrift for Congress? The Supreme Court’s Treatment of Laws that Protect Americans’ Health, Safety, Jobs and Retirement "


Comment Of Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.),
Chairman, Senate Judiciary Committee,

On Republican Objections To Committee Hearings
June 11, 2008



This morning an all too familiar pattern was underscored when a hearing on a topic our Republican colleagues did not like was cut short, without warning, by an anonymous Republican objection. Today’s hearing was scheduled to examine the impact on real people – on all Americans – of Supreme Court decisions that have stripped protections for American workers and consumers. The hearing began with the Ranking Member noting how important it is that we discuss these issues, and he was right. In recent decisions, the Supreme Court has misconstrued our laws, ignored the intent of Congress, and ultimately prevented state court juries from providing redress for misconduct that has harmed ordinary Americans.

The anonymous Republican objection prematurely shut the hearing down in the middle of Senator Whitehouse’s first round of witness questioning. I share the sentiments Senator Whitehouse expressed before recessing the hearing – this behavior is a disgrace to the Senate, and it is especially shameful given that the victims who traveled a long way to tell their stories to the Committee did not get a full hearing.



Republicans in the Senate earlier this year blocked Senate action on a bill to remedy one of these egregious Supreme Court decisions, and now they will not even listen to ordinary Americans who have been hurt. This objection signals that Republicans were perhaps concerned that, through today’s hearing, Americans will understand that “activist judges” include those conservative Supreme Court Justices who are misconstruing laws intended to protect American consumers? Whose side are our Republican colleagues on when they turn off the microphones of ordinary Americans trying to tell us what we need to hear about the injustice they have endured? Whosever bidding they were doing in shutting this hearing down, it was not done on behalf of the American people.

http://leahy.senate.gov/press/200806/061108c.html

[defendandprotect]

15. The GOP will disrupt and destroy in any way they can . . .

They are the destroyers --- and very efficient at it!

[robinlynne]

5. Jesus! watch the videos.

[pleah]

7. K&R

:banghead:

[rumpel]

8. The actual hearings (Torture)

The hearing on “Coercive Interrogation Techniques: Do They Work, Are They Reliable, and What Did the FBI Know About Them?”

and scheduled panel:

Panel I:

The Honorable Glenn A. Fine
Inspector General
Department of Justice
Washington, DC

In October 2007, when we completed a draft of this report, consistent with our normal practice we provided a copy of the report to the FBI, the DOJ, the DOD, and the CIA for a factual accuracy and classification and sensitivity review. We received timely responses from the FBI, DOJ, and the CIA on these reviews. However, the Department of Defense took many months to provide the results of its review. Eventually, however, we received the DOD’s comments on classification, and we redacted from the public version of the report information the agencies considered classified. We have provided the full versions of the report to Congress.

In my testimony, I will summarize our major findings with respect to the FBI’s involvement in and observations of detainee interrogations.

I will also focus on the FBI’s decision not to participate in joint interrogations of detainees with other agencies in which techniques not allowed by the FBI were used.

snip

Despite the FBI’s objections, the military proceeded with its interrogation plan for Al-Qahtani, without the FBI’s participation or observation. According to several military reviews of detainee treatment, as well as other military records, the techniques used on Al-Qahtani during this time period included stress positions, 20-hour interrogations, tying a dog leash to his chain and leading him through a series of dog tricks, stripping him naked in the presence of a female, repeatedly pouring water on his head, and instructing him to pray to an idol shrine.

One of the DOD’s later military reviews, the Schmidt-Furlow Report, concluded that many of the techniques that the DOD used on Al-Qahtani were authorized under military policies in effect at the time. However, that report concluded that other techniques used on Al-Qahtani by the military during this time period were “unauthorized” at the time they were employed. Although we found no evidence that the FBI was aware of the specific techniques used by the military during this period, one FBI agent learned from a member of the military that Al-Qahtani was hospitalized during this time frame for what the military said was low blood pressure along with low body core temperature.

We determined that some of the FBI agents’ concerns regarding DOD interrogation techniques at Guantanamo were communicated by the FBI to senior officials in the DOJ Criminal Division and ultimately to the Attorney General. The DOJ senior officials we interviewed generally said they recalled that the primary concern expressed about the Guantanamo interrogations was that DOD techniques and interrogators were ineffective at developing actionable intelligence.

snip

Almost immediately after the FBI’s May 2004 policy was issued, however, several FBI employees raised concerns about it. Among other things, the FBI On-Scene Commander in Iraq told FBI Headquarters that the policy did not draw an adequate line between conduct that is “abusive” and techniques such as stress positions, sleep management, stripping, or loud music that, while seemingly harsh, may have been permissible under orders or policies applicable to non-FBI interrogators.

Valerie Caproni
General Counsel
Federal Bureau of Investigation
Washington, DC

Panel II:

Jack Cloonan
Former FBI Special Agent
West Caldwell, NJ

"Torture degrades our image abroad and complicates our working relationships with foreign law enforcement and intelligence agencies. If I were the director of marketing for al Qaeda and intent on replenishing the ranks of jihadists. I know what my first piece of marketing collateral would be. It would be a blast e-mail with an attachment. The attachment would contain a picture of Private England (sp) pointing at the stacked, naked bodies of the detainees at Abu Ghraib. The picture screams out for revenge and the day of reckoning will come. The consequences of coercive intelligence gathering will not evaporate with time.

I am hopeful that this committee will use its oversight responsibility judiciously and try to move the debate in the direction of the prohibition of coercive interrogation techniques. This debate is a crucial one, and I know each member of the committee understands that. The decisions you make will have a far-reaching impact on our national security.

Proponents of the “ticking bomb” scenario seek to forestall discussions on interrogation techniques by ratcheting up the intensity of the debate to “panic mode”. There simply is no time to talk with a terrorist who might have information about an impending attack. Lives are at stake, and the clock is ticking, so it just makes sense to do whatever it takes to get the information. Experienced interrogators do not buy this scenario. They know that a committed terrorist caught in this conundrum will seek to throw his interrogator off the track or use it to his propaganda advantage. “ Go ahead and kill me, God is great.” Neither the “ticking bomb” scenario nor the idea of a torture warrant makes sense to me."

snip

Ladies and gentlemen of the committee, let me say that my heart tells me that torture and all forms of excessive coercion are inhumane and un-American, and my experience tells me that they just don’t work.

The interruption occured during this testimony:wow:

Philippe Sands QC
Professor of Law and Director of the Centre of International Courts and Tribunals
University College London

Chairman, Honourable Members of the Committee, this is an unhappy story. It points to the early and direct involvement of those at the highest levels of government, often through their lawyers. When he appeared before this Committee in July 2006, Mr Haynes did not share with you that his involvement (and that of Secretary Rumsfeld) began well before that stated in the official version. He did not tell you that in September 2002 he had visited Guantanamo, together with Mr Gonzales and Mr Addington, and discussed interrogations. This is a story not only of abuse and crime opposed by the FBI, but also of cover-up.

Philip B. Heymann
James Barr Ames Professor of Law
Harvard Law School
Cambridge, MA


http://judiciary.senate.gov/hearing.cfm?id=3399

[rumpel]

10. WOW! International Court - War Crimes - the testimony cut short!

Philippe Sands, the article he wrote for Vanity Fair mentioned in his testimony ends with the following:

It would be wrong to consider the prospect of legal jeopardy unlikely. I remember sitting in the House of Lords during the landmark Pinochet case, back in 1999—in which a prosecutor was seeking the extradition to Spain of the former Chilean head of state for torture and other international crimes—and being told by one of his key advisers that they had never expected the torture convention to lead to the former president of Chile’s loss of legal immunity. In my efforts to get to the heart of this story, and its possible consequences, I visited a judge and a prosecutor in a major European city, and guided them through all the materials pertaining to the Guantánamo case. The judge and prosecutor were particularly struck by the immunity from prosecution provided by the Military Commissions Act. “That is very stupid,” said the prosecutor, explaining that it would make it much easier for investigators outside the United States to argue that possible war crimes would never be addressed by the justice system in the home country—one of the trip wires enabling foreign courts to intervene. For some of those involved in the Guantánamo decisions, prudence may well dictate a more cautious approach to international travel. And for some the future may hold a tap on the shoulder.

“It’s a matter of time,” the judge observed. “These things take time.” As I gathered my papers, he looked up and said, “And then something unexpected happens, when one of these lawyers travels to the wrong place.”
oops! on edit here is the link:
http://www.vanityfair.com/politics/features/2008/05/guantanamo200805?printable=true¤tPage=all

The other day, in relation to Dennis Kucinich, Articles of Impeachment having been referred to Conyers, I was thinking, whether there is a way for ordinary citizens to file a complaint with the Hague - should impeachment investigations and hearings never occur.

I found that yes we can.
http://www.icc-cpi.int/organs/otp.html

However it applies only to member states. The US of course is not, as Bush obviously immunized himself.

Jurisdiction:

# where the person accused of committing a crime is a national of a state party (or where the person's state has accepted the jurisdiction of the Court);
# where the alleged crime was committed on the territory of a state party (or where the state on whose territory the crime was committed has accepted the jurisdiction of the Court); or
# where a situation is referred to the Court by the UN Security Council.

Therefore, I would like to see the first course of business for an Obama Presidency to ratify the Rome Treaty.

Perhaps, the route of an International Tribunal over the administration's conduct, may be in fact the best course, as it removes the bitter partisanship fight from the picture, and will be in fact investigated and prosecuted by independent parties.

Just my thoughts...

[ThomWV]

11. Lehay should reschedule the Hearing to begin at 1 minute after midnight

That would give them 11~12 hours under the rule on most days.

[rumpel]

12. Really? n/t

[rumpel]

13. I wonder...

are these hearings geared towards collecting evidence for the impeachment process?

The torture issue is clearly about high crimes, isn't it?

[havocmom]

14. .

[crickets]

16. .

[LaurenG]

17. Oh rumpel thank you!

:mad: