Bush Admin Documents On Detainee Deaths Missing?

Share |

Classified Bush-era documents related to the deaths of detainees in U.S. Military custody, their treatment, the administration's controversial interrogation and rendition programs are missing according to a recent court filing submitted by the Obama Justice Department. But a Justice Department spokeswoman says the documents may not actually be gone; they may never have existed—even though Bush administration records say that they do.

The potential disappearance of these Torture Documents is more than just a bureaucratic whodunit. There's a possibility that government officials purposely destroyed records pertaining to detainee abuse. Here's what happened: In 2007, the Bush administration was fighting a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit filed by the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), which was seeking records related to detainee deaths, there treatment, and the administration's rendition policies.

CIA lawyers drew up a list [PDF] of 181 documents that they considered exempt from release. Some of these records, which were stored in a secure facility, were so sensitive that Justice Department lawyers lacked the clearances to handle them. After President Obama took office, he issued a new FOIA policy, instructing executive branch agencies to "adopt a presumption in favor" of releasing information. The Obama Justice Department reprocessed the ACLU's earlier request under the new guidelines. But when they did so, department officials discovered that 10 documents listed on the index compiled by the Bush administration were nowhere to be found.

The Justice Department noted this in a filing [PDF] by David Barron, an acting assistant attorney general, which was submitted last week as part of the ongoing ACLU case and first highlighted by Firedoglake blogger Marcy Wheeler. Barron acknowledged in the filing that even more documents could be missing, because "many" of the documents the Obama team did find were "not certain matches" to the ones on the Bush administration's list.

"It was impossible to ascertain whether the discrepancy was the result of an error by the prior administration when it created the original…index or whether the prior administration misplaced the documents in question," Tracy Schmaler, a Justice Department spokeswoman, told Mother Jones. In other words, CIA and Justice Department lawyers might have mistakenly listed documents that never existed in the first place.

But is it plausible that the inconsistency could be merely a clerical error? After the Bush administration created the index, a CIA official swore under oath that she had reviewed the documents on the original list. And one of the disputed documents was listed on the original index as a 46-page memo "providing legal advice," classified as top secret and dated 25 July 2002.

Schmaler says the Obama administration's search never found a document matching that description. Could the CIA and Justice Department lawyers who composed the original list have mistakenly included a non-existent memo—complete with a date and precise page count?
According to Barron's filing, the documents on the original list were stored in a Sensitive Compartmented Information Facility, or SCIF, a specially secured room that is protected not only against unauthorized entry but also against electronic surveillance or monitoring by foreign intelligence services.

If documents went missing from a SCIF, says Steven Aftergood, a government secrecy expert at the Federation of American Scientists, that raises serious questions about the government's ability to keep sensitive documents secure. "If there is any indication of sloppiness in security procedures at one of these facilities, that's worrisome all by itself," he says. "It suggests that some of the nation's most sensitive information is not being properly protected."

Aftergood says he expects the court will try to determine if the discrepancies between the two indexes are due to an error or whether the documents actually disappeared. "The government will have to do better than shrug its shoulders and say 'I don't know' if they want to persuade the court that this was not an act of bad faith," he says.

Sheriff Joe Arpaio: The Most Racist Cop Now An FBI Target?

Share |

The single most racist law enforcement official in the country has finally come under the microscope of the FBI. The fact that Sheriff Joe Arpaio has maintained the top cop spot in Maricopa County Arizona speaks volumes about the counties registered voters. Arpaio suffers from the same personality disorder as that of former Vice President Dick Cheney. The rule of law simply does not apply as long as the ends justify the means.

Arpaio is already being sued by the federal government for alleged racial profiling and related civil rights violations. Now, he’s being sued by the American Civil Liberties Union of Arizona, which claims he and his deputies abused their authority to enforce federal immigration laws when they illegally arrested and detained a U.S. citizen and legal resident who were just driving down the road in their pickup truck.

The ACLU is representing Julian Mora, a legal permanent resident who has lived in the United States for 30 years, and his U.S. citizen son, Julio. The two claim they were the subjects of racial profiling — stopped while driving their truck for no reason other than being Latino.

The 66-year-old Julian Mora, who is diabetic, said he and his son were driving to work when a Maricopa County officers cut him off, then ordered the two men out of the truck, frisked and handcuffed them. The officers then transported the Moras to the worksite of Handyman Maintenance, Inc., where the officers were conducting a raid. The ACLU suit alleges the men were held there and denied food, water, or contact with the outside world for the next three hours. Neither was allowed to use the bathroom, although the older Mora has difficulty controlling his bladder due to his diabetes. He said he was finally allowed to urinate in a public parking lot.

The two men were eventually released later that day. They say they still don’t know why they were stopped, nor where they given a reason for being transported to the scene of a police raid that had nothing whatsoever to do with either men. Arpaio is also inflicted with a Sarah Palin type fondness for making claims and statement that have no basis in fact or even reside within the realm of possibility. As an example, Arpaio spent over $10,000 in tax payer money to have Arizona State University study recidivism in his jail system. ASU found that there was no change in the rate at which inmates returned to the jail. Just like the former Alaska Governor, Arpaio immediately discounted the University Study that he requested when it did not coincide with his dillusional perception on the matter.

Another claim is that Sheriff Joe has saved county tax payers millions of dollars because of his innovative programs. Then why can't he control his budget? Why was he $7 million dollars in the hole in 1999/2000/2001 and where did the money go? Why was Loretta Barkell put into the Finance Director with a title of Deputy Chief? Because the BOS put her there and told Chief Hendershott that if he got a handle on the budget he would get his raise.

Now Arpiao is fighting off rumors that he and the MCSO is under the microscope of the FBI. However, while the FBI will neither confirm nor deny any official investigation, multiple sources have reportedly been questioned about Sheriff Arpaio by the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), according to the Arizona Republic and the Phoenix Business Journal.

Arpaio is perhaps the most controversial sheriff in America. He is famous for rounding up local residents on suspicion of being in the country illegally and for his jails, where inmates live in outdoor tents and wear pink underwear, pink flip-flops, and pink handcuffs.

In addition to being under investigation for the last few months by the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) for possible civil rights violations, including racial profiling, Arpaio's office has also come under investigation by the Department of Labor (DOL) for allegedly withholding overtime pay from employees who worked more than 40 hours per week.

All of the current alleged infractions are civil offenses, not criminal, and a

letter from the DOJ to Arpaio in the spring says that the DOJ will help provide assistance to Arpaio to correct any infractions they find.

Because the DOJ inquiry is not a criminal investigation, some local Arpaio critics have complained that the DOJ does not have certain jurisdictional powers (e.g., subpoena, grand jury indictments). Many local opponents of Arpaio's immigration enforcement efforts accuse Arpaio of abusing the power of his office and want Arpaio to be investigated for alleged criminal wrongdoings.

Pablo Alvarado of the National Day Laborer Organizing Network (NDLON) told us a couple of months ago, "Above all, we are concerned for the safety of migrants, Latinos, and those who speak out in Arizona. Arpaio has shown a propensity to retaliate against his opponents."

Phoenix Mayor Phil Gordon expressed similar concerns Monday to the

Arizona Republic: "Anyone who raises an issue is subject to phone calls
from senior officials in his department, advising them that that's not a wise thing to do. If they continue comments that the sheriff doesn't agree with, people find themselves under criminal investigation or buried with Freedom of Information Act requests that would cost the taxpayer tens of thousands of dollars."

Complaints of civil rights violations -- national origin discrimination and illegal searches and seizures -- from local citizens and officials,

members of Congress, and others have been mounting over the last couple of years as "Sheriff Joe" ramped up immigration enforcement under the controversial 287(g) program, which allows certain local and state law enforcement agencies to engage in immigration enforcement.

Arpaio spokesperson Brian Lee says neither the Maricopa County Sheriff's Office (MCSO) nor Sheriff Arpaio have been questioned by the FBI, and neither has been made aware of any investigation by the FBI.