- Two for the price of One -
First up: The invaluable Heny Waxman on the Scalia-Cheney recusal (or lack thereof). I know I've linked to this before, but not as the main course - and it's so delicious a second helping is hard to resist. Plus, Kos is so congested most of us miss the majority of the Diary content anyway.
Link to a PDF file:
...We make this request because it appears that Justice Antonin Scalia is following a different standard than the lower courts in deciding recusal questions. The federal statute requiring a judge to recuse himself "in any proceedings where his impartiality might reasonably be questioned" applies to Supreme Court justices and other federal judges alike. Yet Justice Scalia's decision not to recuse himself in
In re: Cheney appears to conflict with the recusal standards articulated by the Eighth Circuit Court of appeals in
United States v. Tucker, a similar case involving a federal judge who was friends with President Clinton and First Lady Hillary Clinton.
We do not believe that one standard should apply to judges who are friends of the Clintons and another standard should apply to judges who are friends of Mr. Cheney.
...Justice Scalia has stated, "I do not think my impartiality could reasonably be questioned." We want to make it clear in this letter that we are not questioning the impartiality or integrity of Justice Scalia. In fact, it may be that Justice Scalia has reached the correct conclusion and that Independent Counsel Starr and the Tucker court reached the wrong one. But we do believe that public trust in the Supreme Court could erode if recusal decisions appear arbitrary...
I suppose further erosion of public trust in the Felonious Five is theoretically possible, but I think we're pretty much down to the bedrock already.
Tying the whole matter back to the Clinton witch hunt is just beautiful.
Now, the second course - a blast from the past.
From the Houston Chronicle:
Has Rumsfeld Done An About-Face?
By James M. Carter
The Halliburton Corp. has come under a good deal of fire lately for its role in rebuilding postwar Iraq. It and its subsidiary company, Kellogg, Brown & Root, have been awarded contracts worth many billions for the reconstruction of that nation's infrastructure, much of which was torn up during the invasion and subsequent war. Those "no bid" contracts have seemed to some, such as Rep. Henry Waxman, D-Calif., part and parcel of the kind of cozy relationships between officials in the Bush administration and private corporations. It seems that a few corporate fat cats are benefiting greatly from these relationships at taxpayer expense, and no one within the government is willing to speak on behalf of millions of Americans who are increasingly concerned that something here may be awry.
But, hold on. Someone in the current administration did speak out, years ago. This person was highly critical of the same kind of sweetheart deals being handed out now, and he demanded a full-scale investigation of the whole affair.
The year was 1966 and the place in the process of being rebuilt was Vietnam. The person was none other than Illinois Rep. Donald H. Rumsfeld. Rumsfeld sharply criticized the way in which the [Lyndon B.] Johnson administration awarded the multimillion-dollar construction contract to a private consortium, the RMK-BRJ, to turn Vietnam into a modern nation. Others in Congress also criticized the administration's handling of the war in Vietnam. Rumsfeld, however, went perhaps further than most when he charged the administration with letting contracts which are "illegal by statute." He urged investigation into the relationship between the private consortium and the Johnson administration, in particular the infamous "President's Club," to which Brown & Root , one of the principle Vietnam contractors, had given tens of thousands of dollars in campaign contributions.
Rumsfeld argued on behalf of serious inquiry into the whole affair saying, "under one contract, between the U.S. government and this combine [RMK-BRJ] it is officially estimated that obligations will reach at least $900 million by November 1967 ... Why this huge contract has not been and is not now being adequately audited is beyond me. The potential for waste and profiteering under such a contract is substantial."
So, surely Rumsfeld is now well positioned as the head of the Defense Department to know the details of the awarding of contracts in Iraq today. They are the same "cost-plus-award-fee" type that he found so repugnant back then. Yet, he seems strangely quiet on the subject, except to say that everything is on the up and up. What is the difference? Has the No. 1 man at the Pentagon, who has in the past led the call for investigation and full public disclosure into these very matters, suddenly done an about-face? The American people should want and deserve to know.
Carter is a history instructor at Houston Community College
The "Brown & Root" part makes the irony thick enough to sculpt.