MAINSTREAM MEDIA WHERE ART THOU?
On Wednesday, April 23, during a House Judiciary Committee hearing, Congressman Robert Wexler had the following exchange with FBI Director Robert Mueller (see transcript below).
It is important that mainstream media bring Director Mueller's responses to the attention of the public. His answers, or rather one answer repeated over and over, that he "adhered to our protocols" is evasive, non-responsive, and unacceptable. The people and agencies in Washington are public servants but seem to think they have no accountability to that public.
According to the preamble of the code of ethics for professional journalists:
Members of the Society of Professional Journalists believe that public enlightenment is the forerunner of justice and the foundation of democracy. The duty of the journalist is to further those ends by seeking truth and providing a fair and comprehensive account of events and issues.If the media is to live up to its own professional code, then journalists are obligated to hold these public servants accountable for their actions or lack of action by bringing this information into the arena of public discussion.
We need to write, call and email journalists asking them to do their part by bringing this transcript to the attention of the public as a way to start and sustain public discussion. Director Mueller and other public servants must be held accountable and not allowed to avoid and sidestep Congressional oversight by giving non-answers, or using "national security" and "executive privilege" as excuses for not responding at all.
(TRANSCRIPT:)
Robert Wexler: Thank you Mr. Chairman. Mr. Director, in January of 2006, the New York Times reported that the NSA wireless wiretapping program had produced thousands of leads each month that the FBI had to track down, but that no Al-Qaeda networks were discovered. During a July 17, 2007 briefing, FBI deputy director John Pistole indicated that the FBI was not aware of any Al-Qaeda sleeper cells operating in the United States. In August of 2007 Congress passed the Protect America Act, giving the intelligence community greater access to electronic communications coming into and out of the United States. I have two questions in this regard.
RW: Has the FBI found any sleeper cells yet? One…
RW: Two. Has the NSA’s wireless wiretapping programs either before the Protect America Act or after led to the prosecution and conviction of any terrorists in the United States?
Robert Mueller: Well, as to your first question as to whether we have found affiliates or, as you would call them, cells of Al-Qaeda in the United States, yes we have. Again, I cannot get into it in public session, but I would say yes we have. With regard to the relationship of a particular case or individual to the terrorist surveillance program, again that is something that would have to be covered in a closed session.
RW: Alright, Mr. Director. An LA Times article from October, 2007 quotes one senior federal enforcement official as saying quote “the CIA determined they were going to torture people, and we made the decision not to be involved” end quote. The article goes on to say that some FBI officials went to you and that you quote “pulled many of the agents back from playing even a supporting role in the investigations to avoid exposing them to legal jeopardy” end quote.
RW: My question Mr. Director, I congratulate you for pulling the FBI agents back, but why did you not take more substantial steps to stop the interrogation techniques that your own FBI agents were telling you were illegal? Why did you not initiate criminal investigations when your agents told you the CIA and the Department of Defense were engaging in illegal interrogation techniques, and rather than simply pulling your agents out, shouldn't’t you have directed them to prevent any illegal interrogations from taking place?
RM: I can go so far sir as to tell you that a protocol in the FBI is not to use coercion in any of our interrogations or our questioning and we have abided by our protocol.
RW: I appreciate that. What is the protocol say when the FBI knows that the CIA is engaging or the Department of Defense is engaging in an illegal technique? What does the protocol say in that circumstance?
RM: We would bring it up to appropriate authorities and determine whether the techniques were legal or illegal.
RW: Did you bring it up to appropriate authorities?
RM: All I can tell you is that we followed our own protocols.
RW: So you can’t tell us whether you brought it; when your own FBI agents came to you and said the CIA is doing something illegal which caused you to say don’t you get involved; you can’t tell us whether you then went to whatever authority?
RM: I’ll tell you we followed our own protocols.
RW: And what was the result?
RM: We followed our own protocols. We followed our protocols. We did not use coercion. We did not participate in any instance where coercion was used to my knowledge.
RW: Did the CIA use techniques that were illegal?
RM: I can’t comment on what has been done by another agency and under what authorities the other agency may have taken actions.
RW: Why can’t you comment on the actions of another agency?
RM: I leave that up to the other agency to answer questions with regard to the actions taken by that agency and the legal authorities that may apply to them.
RW: Are you the chief legal law enforcement agency in the United States?
RM: I am the Director of the FBI.
RW: And you do not have authority with respect to any other governmental agency in the United States? Is that what you’re saying?
RM: My authority is given to me to investigate. Yes we do.
RW: Did somebody take away that authority with respect to the CIA?
RM: Nobody has taken away the authority. I can tell you what our protocol was, and how we followed that protocol.
RW: Did anybody take away the authority with respect to the Department of Defense?
RM: I’m not certain what you mean.
RW: Your authority to investigate an illegal torture technique.
RM: There has to be a legal basis for us to investigate, and generally that legal basis is given to us by the Department of Justice. Any interpretations of the laws given to us by the Department of Justice….
(talking over each other)
RW: But apparently your own agents made a determination that the actions by the CIA and the Department of Defense were illegal, so much so that you authorized, ordered, your agents not to participate. But that’s it.
RM: I’ve told you what our protocol was, and I’ve indicated that we’ve adhered to our protocol throughout.
RW: My time is up. Thank you very much Mr. Director.
Comments
Geez Trish, another example of government unaccountability. With Gonzales we had the "I don't recall, know or remember" defense. Now with Mueller we have the "We followed our protocol ad nauseam" defense.
It's a toss up as to which is ultimately worse -- that the government can continually get away with evasiveness and lying to the Congress, that Congress does little about it, or that the media doesn't go with REAL news instead of the processed sensationalist garbage that finally reaches us. It's interesting how readily the media is intimidated with the words "national security." That is akin to claiming the "divine right of kings" makes what I (if I was a monarch) do above reproach.
I'm not sure what the protocols of Waxman's committee are, but it seems Mueller should have been held in contempt for obviously refusing to answer direct questions. His statement made it rather obvious that he and the FBI allowed other government agencies to continue with illegal actions, while they just sat by, distanced themselves and otherwise did nothing. I wonder what FBI protocols state about not holding law breakers accountable, whether or not they are government agencies?
It will be interesting to see if Harriet Miers is held in contempt for not answering a subpoena to appear before Congress to testify about the firing of U.S. attorneys. This, regardless of the fact that the Idiot in Chief told her not to comply.
I did find it interesting that Lorita Doan, the Director of GSA, was FINALLY forced to resign due to her participation in, and violation of the Hatch Act. She had appeared before Waxman's committee almost a year ago. Perhaps there is "some" justice?
As for the media, I can't add much to what you already know. They have become as irresponsible as they are incompetent. There are a few in their ranks that seem to recognize newsworthy when they see it, but not many. How sick are most of us with all the sensationalist crap we have been watching on cable news the last many months in regards to the Democratic primary? Instead of the hard questions being asked or answered, we are constantly bombarded with "imagined" scandals and candidate bashing.
If you haven't read it already, I would highly recommend you get hold of a copy of "A People's History of the United States," by Howard Zinn. Zinn tells a story we don't get in most classrooms. I for one am tired of the white washing of every facet of history and perception that is fed to us by the powers that be. That "divine right of kings" has merely been replaced with the "divine right of money and power!"
The media seems to hold no one any more accountable than the Congress does. Makes one wonder who the corporations don't own?
Posted by: Stephen | May 3, 2008 08:41 AM
On April 24 I sent a letter to Jerry O’Lenyn at KNVN with the transcript of the Wexler-Mueller exchange and asked him to report on it. I have watched his 5 PM news every day since and… surprise! He has said nary a word about it.
I am so disgusted with the MSM that I am having a hard time watching any of the news broadcasts. I gave up on NBC when they withdrew Kucinich’s invitation to their debate and on ABC with their farce of a debate in Pennsylvania. CBS news with Katie Couric is a joke, MSNBC is just NBC on steroids, and CNN has become so enraptured with its loudmouth look-at-me pundits that what passes for news is hardly worth the bother. BBC, Bill Moyers, and Democracy Now (which I record sometimes on PBS at midnight) are the only sources I have found for real news on TV. If there is a single professional journalist left on the establishment news, I sure don’t know who it is.
Unfortunately, there are still too many people who get their only news from MSM broadcasts and therefore have no idea about what is really going on in our country and abroad. And that is just the way the corporations and their buddies in the White House want it.
Harriet Miers and Josh Bolton were both found in contempt of Congress in February for refusing to testify. That apparently put the ball in the court of the District of Columbia’s U.S. Attorney and I haven’t been able to find anything current about the status of the contempt charges.
Reports at the time stated, “If the fight comes to a head without a compromise having been reached, it could pit Congress’s power to hold White officials in contempt against the president’s right to assert executive privilege.” (The Hill, 02-14-08). According to John Dean in a FindLaw article on 07-13-07, the White House wants the fight because they are confident that the politicized Justice Department and federal judiciary will come down on the side of executive privilege and thus weaken Congressional oversight powers.
Guess we’ll have to wait and see how this one plays out. Eight months and counting.
Posted by: Trish | May 3, 2008 12:06 PM