WASHINGTON (AP) -- A new book about "Deep Throat" by Washington Post reporter Bob Woodward says W. Mark Felt denied being the Watergate source during a 1976 grand jury appearance, according to USA Today.
The book, "The Story of Watergate's Deep Throat," says Felt hastily withdrew his denial when a Justice Department official reminded him he was under oath, according to the newspaper, which said it obtained a copy from a Virginia bookstore that mistakenly put copies out for sale.
...In the grand jury incident, Woodward wrote that Felt's actions enabled the Justice Department official who was questioning him to realize that he had been "Deep Throat."
A grand juror asked whether Felt was "Deep Throat" and Felt replied, "No."
The Justice Department official, Stanley Pottinger, offered to have the question and answer withdrawn as being outside the bounds of the investigation, after reminding Felt that he had sworn to tell the truth.
"Flushed," Woodward writes, "Felt very rapidly requested, 'Withdraw the question.'"
Because the question was withdrawn, technically Mark Felt didn't lie to the grand jury.
Technically speaking.
When asked by a grand juror whether he was "Deep Throat," Felt lied. He had sworn to tell the truth. He didn't.
Is that how a great American, a heroic figure, behaves?
No.
Well, maybe if you admire cowardly, spiteful liars, you could consider Felt a hero.
If Felt deserves a lofty place in American history, then the bar is set dreadfully low.
Friday, July 1, 2005
Gitmo or Chappaqua
AP reports:
SAN JUAN, Puerto Rico - Military authorities have previously disclosed some incidents of guard retaliation at Guantanamo Bay, which resulted in mostly minor disciplinary proceedings. What emerges from 278 pages of documents obtained by The Associated Press is the degree of defiance by the terrorism suspects at Guantanamo.
The prisoners banged on their cells to protest the heat. They doused guards with whatever liquid was handy — from spit to urine. Sometimes they struck their jailers, one swinging a steel chair at a military police officer.
And the American MPs at times retaliated with force — punches, pepper spray and a splash of cleaning fluid in the face, according to the newly released documents that detail military investigations and eyewitness accounts of alleged abuse.
...The documents, obtained under a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit filed by AP, are far from a comprehensive look at Guantanamo and do not provide full details about each incident.
Names and some other identifying details have been blacked out by military censors. Handwriting at times isn't legible and pages appear to be missing or out of sequence. In some cases, it is not possible to decipher who did what to whom. Disciplinary measures against the troops were either relatively minor or unclear in some reports.
The internal investigative reports do, however, provide a snapshot of life behind the wire at Guantanamo, depicting a tense, hostile and sometimes chaotic place.
What a load!
AP is digging through documents they obtained under a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit. What are they hoping to find? Evidence that Gitmo is a gulag?
Imagine that. A facility holding suspected TERRORISTS is a "tense, hostile and sometimes chaotic place."
Does that surprise you? Do you feel more informed now?
I always did picture Gitmo to be a little different from the place Martha Stewart did her time or the average Kindergarten classroom.
When I think of a tense, hostile, and chaotic environment, for some reason Chappaqua comes to mind.
Anyway, thank God for the Freedom of Information Act.
SAN JUAN, Puerto Rico - Military authorities have previously disclosed some incidents of guard retaliation at Guantanamo Bay, which resulted in mostly minor disciplinary proceedings. What emerges from 278 pages of documents obtained by The Associated Press is the degree of defiance by the terrorism suspects at Guantanamo.
The prisoners banged on their cells to protest the heat. They doused guards with whatever liquid was handy — from spit to urine. Sometimes they struck their jailers, one swinging a steel chair at a military police officer.
And the American MPs at times retaliated with force — punches, pepper spray and a splash of cleaning fluid in the face, according to the newly released documents that detail military investigations and eyewitness accounts of alleged abuse.
...The documents, obtained under a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit filed by AP, are far from a comprehensive look at Guantanamo and do not provide full details about each incident.
Names and some other identifying details have been blacked out by military censors. Handwriting at times isn't legible and pages appear to be missing or out of sequence. In some cases, it is not possible to decipher who did what to whom. Disciplinary measures against the troops were either relatively minor or unclear in some reports.
The internal investigative reports do, however, provide a snapshot of life behind the wire at Guantanamo, depicting a tense, hostile and sometimes chaotic place.
What a load!
AP is digging through documents they obtained under a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit. What are they hoping to find? Evidence that Gitmo is a gulag?
Imagine that. A facility holding suspected TERRORISTS is a "tense, hostile and sometimes chaotic place."
Does that surprise you? Do you feel more informed now?
I always did picture Gitmo to be a little different from the place Martha Stewart did her time or the average Kindergarten classroom.
When I think of a tense, hostile, and chaotic environment, for some reason Chappaqua comes to mind.
Anyway, thank God for the Freedom of Information Act.
Aruba: Situation Normal...
Joran Van Der Sloot, Satish Kalpoe, and Deepak Kalpoe were charged with Natalee Holloway's murder.
Over three weeks ago.
No, they haven't been charged yet.
Maybe on Monday.
What a despicable mess!
About two hours ago, the Associated Press QUOTED Aruba's Attorney General Karin/Caren Janssen. (Have you noticed AP can't decide how to spell her name?)
Now, there has been a retraction. AP is pointing out they did not get the story wrong, most likely wanting to make it known they didn't fabricate the original report as so many in the MSM do these days. The Attorney General did. Well, she didn't get it wrong either, according to government spokesman, Ruben Trapenberg. He chalks the confusion up to semantics.
ORANJESTAD, Aruba -- Aruba's chief government spokesman said Friday that three young men detained in the disappearance of an Alabama teenager have not been formally charged but could be as soon as Monday.
Earlier, Aruba's attorney general, Karin Janssen, told The Associated Press that the young men had been charged with murder since their arrest three weeks ago.
"The three have been charged with the murder of Natalee Holloway from the beginning" of their arrest 10 days after the young woman went missing May 30, she said in a recorded interview. "At the time, we didn't want to upset the family talking about murder while they searched."
The attorney general and other Aruban officials have said for weeks that no one has been charged in the 18-year-old's disappearance. Janssen said authorities also withheld information about the charges in order not to compromise their investigation. Authorities have said they have no physical evidence suggesting Holloway is dead.
The government spokesman, Ruben Trapenberg, contacted the AP following the English-language interview with Janssen.
"This is a question of semantics. It's been a problem since Day One," Trapenberg said. "The charging is a formal process that happens later on. It could happen as soon as Monday."
I HEARD the interview. This is NOT a question of semantics. She said they didn't want to upset the family so they did not make the charges public. I HEARD HER. Her explanation reveals this is not a semantics issue.
This is just another example of the Aruban government trying to cover up the way they've bungled the case. It's just another excuse.
Trapenberg did not clarify what charges could be filed against the three. They had been scheduled to go before a judge Monday to learn whether their detentions would be extended another 60 days. Under Dutch law that governs Aruba, a protectorate of the Netherlands, detainees can be held 116 days before being charged by a judge.
Janssen said 17-year-old Joran van der Sloot and two Surinamese brothers who are his friends have been charged since their arrest June 9 _ 10 days after Holloway disappeared.
All court hearings in the case have been closed to the public.
Police have been criticized for letting more than a week go by without detaining the three young men last seen with Holloway and for waiting 16 days after she went missing before searching van der Sloot's home.
"The stupidest thing to do is run and arrest them because an hour later they will go free and you have nothing," Janssen told the AP.
When asked if the young men would have had time to destroy evidence, Janssen acknowledged the possibility but said "it didn't happen in this case."
She said the prosecution was centering its case around e-mail and cell phone text messages written between the suspects the night Holloway disappeared. Janssen declined to offer further details about the messages, but said not having a body would make getting a murder conviction "more difficult but not impossible."
I feel so sorry for Natalee's family. The Aruban authorities have compounded the pain of this nightmare.
It's absolutely inexcusable.
Boycott Aruba.
Over three weeks ago.
No, they haven't been charged yet.
Maybe on Monday.
What a despicable mess!
About two hours ago, the Associated Press QUOTED Aruba's Attorney General Karin/Caren Janssen. (Have you noticed AP can't decide how to spell her name?)
Now, there has been a retraction. AP is pointing out they did not get the story wrong, most likely wanting to make it known they didn't fabricate the original report as so many in the MSM do these days. The Attorney General did. Well, she didn't get it wrong either, according to government spokesman, Ruben Trapenberg. He chalks the confusion up to semantics.
ORANJESTAD, Aruba -- Aruba's chief government spokesman said Friday that three young men detained in the disappearance of an Alabama teenager have not been formally charged but could be as soon as Monday.
Earlier, Aruba's attorney general, Karin Janssen, told The Associated Press that the young men had been charged with murder since their arrest three weeks ago.
"The three have been charged with the murder of Natalee Holloway from the beginning" of their arrest 10 days after the young woman went missing May 30, she said in a recorded interview. "At the time, we didn't want to upset the family talking about murder while they searched."
The attorney general and other Aruban officials have said for weeks that no one has been charged in the 18-year-old's disappearance. Janssen said authorities also withheld information about the charges in order not to compromise their investigation. Authorities have said they have no physical evidence suggesting Holloway is dead.
The government spokesman, Ruben Trapenberg, contacted the AP following the English-language interview with Janssen.
"This is a question of semantics. It's been a problem since Day One," Trapenberg said. "The charging is a formal process that happens later on. It could happen as soon as Monday."
I HEARD the interview. This is NOT a question of semantics. She said they didn't want to upset the family so they did not make the charges public. I HEARD HER. Her explanation reveals this is not a semantics issue.
This is just another example of the Aruban government trying to cover up the way they've bungled the case. It's just another excuse.
Trapenberg did not clarify what charges could be filed against the three. They had been scheduled to go before a judge Monday to learn whether their detentions would be extended another 60 days. Under Dutch law that governs Aruba, a protectorate of the Netherlands, detainees can be held 116 days before being charged by a judge.
Janssen said 17-year-old Joran van der Sloot and two Surinamese brothers who are his friends have been charged since their arrest June 9 _ 10 days after Holloway disappeared.
All court hearings in the case have been closed to the public.
Police have been criticized for letting more than a week go by without detaining the three young men last seen with Holloway and for waiting 16 days after she went missing before searching van der Sloot's home.
"The stupidest thing to do is run and arrest them because an hour later they will go free and you have nothing," Janssen told the AP.
When asked if the young men would have had time to destroy evidence, Janssen acknowledged the possibility but said "it didn't happen in this case."
She said the prosecution was centering its case around e-mail and cell phone text messages written between the suspects the night Holloway disappeared. Janssen declined to offer further details about the messages, but said not having a body would make getting a murder conviction "more difficult but not impossible."
I feel so sorry for Natalee's family. The Aruban authorities have compounded the pain of this nightmare.
It's absolutely inexcusable.
Boycott Aruba.
MURDER
Joran Van Der Sloot, Satish Kalpoe, and Deepak Kalpoe have been charged with Natalee Holloway's murder.
This really isn't a new development. They've been charged since June 9!
The Aruban authorities decided it would be better for Natalee's family if they didn't know.
What were they thinking?
ORANJESTAD, Aruba (AP) --Three young men detained in the disappearance of an Alabama teenager have been charged with murder since their arrest more than three weeks ago, Aruba's chief prosecutor told The Associated Press on Friday.
The charges were not announced at the time to protect the family of 18-year-old Natalee Holloway, said Attorney General Karin Janssen.
"The three have been charged with the murder of Natalee Holloway from the beginning" of their arrest 10 days after the young woman went missing May 30, she said.
Police have been criticized for letting more than a week go by without detaining the three young men last seen with Holloway and for waiting 16 days after she went missing before searching the home of one of them, a 17-year-old Dutch youth.
Ruben Trapenberg, spokesman for Prime Minister Nelson Oduber, defended the police work, saying the government has put 21 detectives on the case and exceeded the budget with overtime the past month.
Trapenberg also mentioned the 70 Dutch Marines on the island who helped in initial searches and were called back Thursday to comb the island again.
"They do not bungle cases," Trapenberg said in a telephone interview with The Associated Press. "Aruban police and prosecutors are professional forces that have been successful."
Prosecutors have an 89% conviction rate on the Dutch Caribbean island, he said. Violent crime is rare in the tourist haven.
Asked why two of three suspects were transported together, apparently giving them the opportunity to compare or arrange their stories, Trapenberg said that was done to secretly monitor what they might tell each other.
Late Thursday, CNN captured images of detainees Joran van der Sloot, 17, and 21-year-old Deepak Kalpoe handcuffed together, being put in a car to leave San Nicolas prison. It wasn't clear where they were being taken.
The third detained suspect is Satish Kalpoe, 18, the brother of Deepak.
The three were the last ones seen with Holloway the night she disappeared. Police questioned the three that same day but did not detain them until June 9. Two other people, including van der Sloot's father, Paul, an island judicial official, were detained and released.
"One of the techniques is that after hearing separate stories and getting nowhere, prosecutors will have suspects confront each other," said Trapenberg. "The U.S. system might be different, but this technique has worked in the past here."
Trapenberg also said that police initially did not have any cause to hold the young men.
"Because of a lack of evidence of any crime, they opted for different tactical and monitoring techniques," Trapenberg said. "If they had arrested them immediately, they would never have collected evidence."
Natalee's mother, Beth Holloway Twitty, has repeatedly criticized investigators, saying that if she did not get answers soon she would believe they were protecting someone — probably Joran van der Sloot because of his father's position.
"Prosecutors couldn't even attempt a cover-up because they know better than anyone that this case is under a microscope," Trapenberg said.
Aruba also has welcomed foreign rescue groups like Texas EquuSearch and allowed the FBI to help in the investigation, Trapenberg said.
"If an Aruban girl is lost in the U.S., are they going to let Aruban police investigate there?" Trapenberg asked.
That's a stupid question.
Why would Aruban police need to investigate in the U.S. if an Aruban girl was missing in America?
U.S. authorities wouldn't release suspects to give them time to clean up after themselves and dispose of evidence.
Moreover, if a person is charged, it's not kept from the public.
According to the Attorney General, the charges were not announced at the time to protect the family of 18-year-old Natalee Holloway. How in hell did that protect the family? That is absolutely ridiculous.
Janssen rationalized, "At the time, we didn't want to upset the [Holloway] family talking about murder while they searched."
AP writes, "Janssen, who has said several times in the past three weeks that no one was charged in the case, said they also kept the information quiet in order not to compromise their investigation. Authorities have said they have no physical evidence suggesting Holloway is dead."
For weeks, Aruban authorities let the family and everyone who cares about Natalee hold out hope she'd be found alive. What was that about?
They charged the three with murder on June 9; but they kept that information from the family to protect them.
I'm speechless.
Brian Williams--Potential Al Jazeera Anchor
I purposely don't watch the NBC Nightly News to spare myself nonsensical garbage. So, I missed this disgusting exchange between Brian Williams and Andrea Mitchell on last night's broadcast.
WorldNetDaily posted:
NBC anchor compares Founders to terrorists
Brian Williams equates 1st U.S. leaders to Iran president-elect
In his newscast tonight, "NBC Nightly News" anchor Brian Williams compared America's first presidents to the president-elect of Iran, alleged hostage-taker Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, saying they were "certainly revolutionaries and might have been called terrorists by the British crown."
At least six of the Americans held at the U.S. embassy in Tehran as hostages for 444 days claim Ahmadinejad was one of the leaders of the captors, having recognized him on television reports.
Williams' comment came in a question to reporter Andrea Mitchell.
At the end of Mitchell's report, Williams asked, "What would it all matter if proven true? Someone brought up today the first several U.S. presidents were certainly revolutionaries and might have been called 'terrorists' by the British crown, after all."
Do Williams and Mitchell consider George Washinton, John Adams, and Thomas Jefferson terrorists?
Did they kidnap people and torture them?
Did our first presidents blow up innocent men, women, and children in the name of their cause, independence?
Did Washington, Adams, and Jefferson don hoods and cut off the heads of innocent civilians as they begged for mercy?
Really--what is wrong with these people? Were they products of the American public school system? Have they no sense of history, and decency, whatsoever?
If the British crown had called our founding fathers "terrorists," they would not have been using the term in its modern sense. For Williams to make any connection between our first presidents and terrorists is absolutely sickening.
This reminds me of the Michael Moore "freedom fighter" label for the Iraqi insurgents. Of course, everyone knows Moore is an opportunistic, egomaniacal, bloated buffoon. You have to dismiss anything he says.
The anchor of a network news broadcast should have some credibility to be effective. It appears that Brian Williams, anchor of NBC Nightly News, is willing to trade in his credibility to cement his place among the loons of the left.
WorldNetDaily posted:
NBC anchor compares Founders to terrorists
Brian Williams equates 1st U.S. leaders to Iran president-elect
In his newscast tonight, "NBC Nightly News" anchor Brian Williams compared America's first presidents to the president-elect of Iran, alleged hostage-taker Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, saying they were "certainly revolutionaries and might have been called terrorists by the British crown."
At least six of the Americans held at the U.S. embassy in Tehran as hostages for 444 days claim Ahmadinejad was one of the leaders of the captors, having recognized him on television reports.
Williams' comment came in a question to reporter Andrea Mitchell.
At the end of Mitchell's report, Williams asked, "What would it all matter if proven true? Someone brought up today the first several U.S. presidents were certainly revolutionaries and might have been called 'terrorists' by the British crown, after all."
Do Williams and Mitchell consider George Washinton, John Adams, and Thomas Jefferson terrorists?
Did they kidnap people and torture them?
Did our first presidents blow up innocent men, women, and children in the name of their cause, independence?
Did Washington, Adams, and Jefferson don hoods and cut off the heads of innocent civilians as they begged for mercy?
Really--what is wrong with these people? Were they products of the American public school system? Have they no sense of history, and decency, whatsoever?
If the British crown had called our founding fathers "terrorists," they would not have been using the term in its modern sense. For Williams to make any connection between our first presidents and terrorists is absolutely sickening.
This reminds me of the Michael Moore "freedom fighter" label for the Iraqi insurgents. Of course, everyone knows Moore is an opportunistic, egomaniacal, bloated buffoon. You have to dismiss anything he says.
The anchor of a network news broadcast should have some credibility to be effective. It appears that Brian Williams, anchor of NBC Nightly News, is willing to trade in his credibility to cement his place among the loons of the left.
SCOTUS VACANCY
If you thought the tone in Washington was bad now, it's about to take a nosedive.
The battle to replace Sandra Day O'Connor will be an unprecedented mud-slinging, dirty mess.
Here we are on Friday, going into the long 4th of July weekend. Washington was about to close down for a few days. Instead, the scramble to lobby for an ideologically acceptable replacement will begin by different interest groups.
I can hear the phones ringing off the hook already. Voice mail is probably full and email boxes are getting stuffed.
What makes O'Connor's seat more critical than the one held by Rehnquist is that she often served as the swing vote in many decisions. She was unpredictable, sometimes siding with conservatives, and other times planting herself on the liberal side of the fence.
That is precisely what makes her retirement more dramatic in terms of the future of the Supreme Court.
Since Rehnquist was solidly conservative, Dems could allow a conservative to replace him. That wouldn't change the balance of the court.
O'Connor stepping aside is an entirely different matter. Because the liberals depended on her pro-abortion votes, they will demand that her replacement be a moderate, sympathetic to the left's ideology. Although the Supreme Court is still steadfastly pro-abortion and Roe v. Wade is in no danger of being over-turned, the left will not give an inch on that issue.
In other words, get out the litmus paper.
The significance of O'Connor's retirement is enormous. With her departure, President Bush has the opportunity to transform the Supreme Court in a way that would not have been the case had Rehnquist been the one to go.
The battle to replace Sandra Day O'Connor will be an unprecedented mud-slinging, dirty mess.
Here we are on Friday, going into the long 4th of July weekend. Washington was about to close down for a few days. Instead, the scramble to lobby for an ideologically acceptable replacement will begin by different interest groups.
I can hear the phones ringing off the hook already. Voice mail is probably full and email boxes are getting stuffed.
What makes O'Connor's seat more critical than the one held by Rehnquist is that she often served as the swing vote in many decisions. She was unpredictable, sometimes siding with conservatives, and other times planting herself on the liberal side of the fence.
That is precisely what makes her retirement more dramatic in terms of the future of the Supreme Court.
Since Rehnquist was solidly conservative, Dems could allow a conservative to replace him. That wouldn't change the balance of the court.
O'Connor stepping aside is an entirely different matter. Because the liberals depended on her pro-abortion votes, they will demand that her replacement be a moderate, sympathetic to the left's ideology. Although the Supreme Court is still steadfastly pro-abortion and Roe v. Wade is in no danger of being over-turned, the left will not give an inch on that issue.
In other words, get out the litmus paper.
The significance of O'Connor's retirement is enormous. With her departure, President Bush has the opportunity to transform the Supreme Court in a way that would not have been the case had Rehnquist been the one to go.
Moreover, it can be assumed that Rehnquist will be stepping down, too.
John Paul Stevens can't last much longer either.
It's possible that Bush will have three vacancies to fill before his term comes to an end--the Dems' worst nightmare.
It's going to get real ugly, real fast.
O'CONNOR STEPS DOWN FROM THE BENCH
Although Sandra Day O'Connor's name had been bandied about as possibly creating a vacancy on the Supreme Court, Chief Justice William Rehnquist was expected to be the first to go.
AP reports:
WASHINGTON -- Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, the first woman appointed to the Supreme Court and a key swing vote on issues such as abortion and the death penalty, said Friday she is retiring.
O'Connor, 75, said she expects to leave before the start of the court's next term in October, or whenever the Senate confirms her successor. There was no immediate word from the White House on who might be nominated to replace O'Connor.
It's been 11 years since the last opening on the court, one of the longest uninterrupted stretches in history. O'Connor's decision gives Bush his first opportunity to appoint a justice.
O'Connor's letter to President Bush
"This is to inform you of my decision to retire from my position as an associate justice of the Supreme Court of the United States, effective upon the nomination and confirmation of my successor. It has been a great privilege indeed to have served as a member of the court for 24 terms. I will leave it with enormous respect for the integrity of the court and its role under our constitutional structure."
AP reports:
WASHINGTON -- Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, the first woman appointed to the Supreme Court and a key swing vote on issues such as abortion and the death penalty, said Friday she is retiring.
O'Connor, 75, said she expects to leave before the start of the court's next term in October, or whenever the Senate confirms her successor. There was no immediate word from the White House on who might be nominated to replace O'Connor.
It's been 11 years since the last opening on the court, one of the longest uninterrupted stretches in history. O'Connor's decision gives Bush his first opportunity to appoint a justice.
O'Connor's letter to President Bush
"This is to inform you of my decision to retire from my position as an associate justice of the Supreme Court of the United States, effective upon the nomination and confirmation of my successor. It has been a great privilege indeed to have served as a member of the court for 24 terms. I will leave it with enormous respect for the integrity of the court and its role under our constitutional structure."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)