Wikileaks releases what could be evidence of the murder of Reuters journalists as well as civilians in Iraq

WWW--This is a very big deal and gives some more context to possible harassment of Wikileaks by American military and/or intelligence personnel as well as of anyone trying to report the reality on the ground in American occupied Iraq and Afghanistan.

I don't even know how to put this into words, but I do recall this incident from July 12th, 2007 where Iraqi Reuters journalists Namir Noor-Eldeen and Saeed Chmagh were killed by "friendly fire"...only now it appears that the fire was quite intentional and anything-but-friendly. There also seems to be an element of bloodlust and cowardice on the part of the crew of the Apaches. Did they know the two were journalists? This is unclear, but there is mention in the communications transcript from the copters that seems to connotate that they knew they were "civilians."Is this yet another "isolated" event?

Recall that in early April 2003, three Al-Jazeera journalists were killed by "friendly fire," and also calls to mind the "accidental" shooting of hostage and Italian journalist Giuliana Sgrena who was fired on by American troops just outside of the Baghdad International Airport and nearly killed. One of her Italian intelligence agent rescuers--Nicola Calipari--died of his wounds. Sgrena worked for the Italian Communist paper, Il Manifesto. One might think you're life might be in danger as a correspondent if you're not towing the line for the Pentagon.

A separate site from the main Wikileaks home has been created for the release, possibly for security measures to prevent its hacking:

5th April 2010 10:44 EST WikiLeaks has released a classified US military video depicting the indiscriminate slaying of over a dozen people in the Iraqi suburb of New Baghdad -- including two Reuters news staff.

Reuters has been trying to obtain the video through the Freedom of Information Act, without success since the time of the attack. The video, shot from an Apache helicopter gun-site, clearly shows the unprovoked slaying of a wounded Reuters employee and his rescuers. Two young children involved in the rescue were also seriously wounded. (www.collateralmurder.com/index)

The military has been mostly silent on how the event occurred and how the slain died, but ruled in an inquiry that the rules of engagement at that time were observed. The whole story underscores the weakness of the FOIA as well, but whatever works, it's out now. Reuters demanded an inquiry and action in the aftermath in 2007, just as they've had to in obtaining the release of other Iraqi Reuters employees/journalists, from Iraqi prisons, and got very little from the Pentagon--at least not copies. They were shown the materials off-the-record. Criminals don't tend to indict themselves, especially when they're the ones in power.

There's no indication from any source of any combat or exchanges of fire immediately before the Apache helicopter gunner opened-fire on civilians and the two journalists, killing as many as eleven. One individual was viewed brandishing an RPG (soviet-designed rocket propelled grenade), but was seen after the event began and shots had already been fired. Two U.S. Army Apache helicopters were involved the 2007 incident with some ground forces nearby. Footage from one helicopter has been leaked to Wikileaks by a military whistleblower(s) and the activist site itself claims to have conducted interviews with other journalists, military personnel and other witnesses at the scene, including consulting with Reuters over the basic facts and timeline.

...WikiLeaks obtained this video as well as supporting documents from a number of military whistleblowers. WikiLeaks goes to great lengths to verify the authenticity of the information it receives. We have analyzed the information about this incident from a variety of source material. We have spoken to witnesses and journalists directly involved in the incident.

WikiLeaks wants to ensure that all the leaked information it receives gets the attention it deserves. In this particular case, some of the people killed were journalists that were simply doing their jobs: putting their lives at risk in order to report on war. Iraq is a very dangerous place for journalists: from 2003- 2009, 139 journalists were killed while doing their work. (ibid)

Wikileaks makes a fine point that occurred to me almost immediately: if we're seeing what we think we're seeing (and hearing), the event could even be part of a pattern of violence, harassment, and intimidation against members of the press in American war zones, especially considering that Reuters has had other incidents of harassment directed against their personnel in Iraq. A few of these journalists were arrested under flimsy pretenses and ferried off to the palatial Abu-Ghraib prison where God knows how they were treated. Now is a time of scoundrels. It hasn't ended with the national elections of 2008.

Wikileaks appears to have done their homework and have even included photographs, a timeline, documents, and even the transcript of the communications between the helicopters, also very telling when taken with the rules of engagement at the time and the 38 minute video. This exchange is most galling and not honorable behavior for soldiers of any army, of any nation:

...17:46 Well it's their fault for bringing their kids into a battle.

17:48 That's right. ...

18:29 I think they just drove over a body.

18:31 Hey hey!

18:32 Yeah!

18:37 Maybe it was just a visual illusion, but it looked like it.

18:41 Well, they're dead, so. ...

(http://www.collateralmurder.com/en/transcript.html)

After these comments, there were more shots fired by the crew of the main Apache helicopter and a missile was fired into a building filled with armed civilians. There's no indication that any shots had been fired at the military personnel at any point in the roughly 38 minute event. It should be noted that many Iraqis carry AK-47s into dangerous areas, which one can assume, is when occupying troops and militias are present. Johnny got his gun, was instilled with fear and trained to kill, and imbued with a hair-trigger mentality. This isn't how soldiers are supposed to behave, not at all. Yet, the Pentagon says that this was part of the rules of engagement at the time. Are they sure they want to stand by that one?

Contrary to popular belief, life isn't a videogame.

"BREAKING NEWS-LEAKED VIDEO FOOTAGE EXPOSES PENTAGON MURDER COVER-UP," The Elf Wax Times, 04.05.2010: http://www.elfwax.com/news/breaking-news-video-footage-to-expose-pentagon-murder-cover-up/

Wikileak's page on the 2007 slaughter: http://collateralmurder.com/en/download.html

Tyler Bass's blog: http://spectaclemonopolized.blogspot.com/

NYTimes article on original Baghdad attack in July 12, 2007
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/13/world/middleeast/13iraq.html

"The war on Wikileaks and why it matters," Salon.com, 03.27.2010: http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2010/03/27/wikileaks?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%253A+salon%252Fgreenwald+%2528Glenn+Greenwald%2529

http://www.collateralmurder.com/en/transcript.html

"U.S. Bombing Raid Kills Three Journalists in Bagdad," Fox News.com, 04.08.2003: http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,83503,00.html

More change today: The Obama administration releases more Bush II torture memos

ACLU.org--Once again, I have to say that I'm impressed by this release of the internal record and that it's a hard day for cynics and the terminally jaded (if they can even fathom the meaning of it intellectually). This couldn't be kept in the dark any longer, and the new administration's actions today--while not going nearly as far as most of us would like--is a good step forward towards accountability for the architects of post-9/11 terror policy.

Looking at some of these memos, it's clear that the Bush II administration was in panic mode after the attacks of September 11th, 2001. Torture? That's for the desperate.

But this release is not enough, and significantly more declassification is going to have to occur in the near future. The ACLU requested these documents over a year ago, and they only came to the rest of us through court filings:

In response to litigation filed by the American Civil Liberties Union under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), the Justice Department today released four secret memos used by the Bush administration to justify torture. The memos, produced by the Justice Department's Office of Legal Counsel (OLC), provided the legal framework for the CIA's use of waterboarding and other illegal interrogation methods that violate domestic and international law.

The ACLU has called for the Justice Department to appoint an independent prosecutor to investigate torture under the Bush administration.

"We have to look back before we can move forward as a nation. When crimes have been committed, the American legal system demands accountability. President Obama's assertion that there should not be prosecutions of government officials who may have committed crimes before a thorough investigation has been carried out is simply untenable. Enforcing the nation's laws should not be a political decision. These memos provide yet more incontrovertible evidence that Bush administration officials at the highest level of government authorized and gave legal blessings to acts of torture that violate domestic and international law," said Anthony D. Romero, Executive Director of the ACLU. ("Justice Department Releases Bush Administration Torture Memos," ACLU, 04.16.2009)

The stakes in maintaining our liberties couldn't be higher regarding state secrets. Today, the Obama administration made a much bigger step forward than most administrations ever would --even under the current circumstances--but many more will have to come. However, there is now more than enough material to justify substantial investigations into crimes committed under the color of authority under the Bush II administration.

The ACLU's site has the most complete PDF collection of the four key torture memos, authored by the Justice Department's OLC (Office of Legal Counsel) under the direction of the White House to give illegal acts of torture a sheen of legality:

A 18-page memo, dated August 1, 2002, from Jay Bybee, Assistant Attorney General, OLC, to John A. Rizzo, General Counsel CIA. [PDF]

A 46-page memo, dated May 10, 2005, from Steven Bradbury, Acting Assistant Attorney General, OLC, to John A. Rizzo, General Counsel CIA. [PDF]

A 20-page memo, dated May 10, 2005, from Steven Bradbury, Acting Assistant Attorney General, OLC, to John A. Rizzo, General Counsel CIA. [PDF]

A 40-page memo, dated May 30, 2005, from Steven Bradbury, Acting Assistant Attorney General, OLC, to John A. Rizzo, General Counsel CIA. [PDF] ("Abuse of Power: The Bush Administration's Secret Legal Memos," ACLU, 04.16.2009)

The New York Times is also offering an incomplete selection of the memos on its site. Accountability is coming.

"Abuse of Power: The Bush Administration's Secret Legal Memos," ACLU, 04.16.2009: http://www.aclu.org/safefree/general/olc_memos.html

Blag-o-mania! (a fuckin' satire)

"He [Lincoln] entered political life in one of those eras of delusive prosperity which so often precede great financial convulsions... . It was too much to expect of the Illinois Legislature that it should understand that the best thing it could do to forward this prosperous tendency of things was to do nothing.'' --Lincoln biographers John M. Hay and John G. Nicolay


"Fucking fuck is fucked! Fuck 'em, fuckity-fuck-fuck-fuck!" yelled the Governor of Illinois at the Lieutenant Governor and his svelte Chicago wife, Patti. He was jumping up-and-down on a stuffed-canine, a bizarre scene soon to be available on DVD and Blu-Ray™ with added bonus features. Fuck. His Azar's™ Big Boy look was showing today and he was sporting a pompadour that could double for a beaver-pelt coming in for reentry.

"Look, fucker," stated the governor, "Either fuckin' get those fuckin' assholes off of the Tribune's editorial board, or fuck it, fucker. And no, I don't wear a fucking wig you asshole." He was being more restrained than usual. Patti had no druthers spelling shit out, fuck me for stating it.

"Fuck this shit, I'm the fucker who wears the pants in this family...'hold up that fucking Cubs shit, fuck 'em!' Gimme the fuckin' phone Rod," she shrieked, grabbing it like an IRS agent collecting on a delinquent tax bill from a casino owner. Her gun was drawn as well and she nervously pressed the .45-automatic to her sweat-covered temple repeatedly as she yelled into the receiver.

Machievelli never saw "la chienne" coming...

"Nuthin', and I mean nuthin' goes on in this fuckin' one horse town of Chicago without my fuckin' say-so, y'hear asswipes?! No more "Mrs. O'Leary's cow jokes either--and when do we get the bathroom retiled?!" Even the governor was shuddering over that last part of her remark. Fuck. Meanwhile, Assistant U.S. Attorney [NAME REDACTED] was listening-in with his wife and kids after a prolonged porno...you don't want to know.

"Heh-heh, I'm going to have to take this off of speaker-phone guys--uh, hold on! Er, shit, um, ahhh fuck!" muttered the government prosectuor. "OK guys, outta here, me and your mother need to listen-in on some very intimate conversations. The Governor of Illinois and his wife are talking out-their-asses again, bye-bye, chop-chop!" He clapped his hands together vigorously as he said it, and the kids left--resigned--but not without leaving a listening device of their own in the room so that they could monitor things in their bedrooms.

"Mom and dad are fucked, [NAME REDACTED] it's that simple," said the pie-faced teenager as they walked down the hall.

"Fuckin'-A-straight," said his sister. "Why can't we listen-in on private conversations too? Why do they get to have all the fucking fun?" Fucking adults...are there any of them left these days?

U.S. Attorney Patrick J. Fitzgerald and his new bride were sitting down to a cup-o'-joe that morning: "Gosh-and-golly, darling, you have no idea how much emotional damage listening these wiretaps has done to my fragile eggshell mind--the language of these people. We never tawked like this in Flatbush--never!!!" He was becoming overexcited by it all, huffing and puffing away, a real sight, a bourgeois hoot, but that's the effect of Jesuit education for ya'.

"Now-now, dear," said his celeb-chasing law groupie wife, "The blood-pressure, remember, remember, oh my, oh my. You know this isn't going to help you with the 'personal problem' we've both been experiencing lately," she sighed, exhaling a very long time. An imp of the perverse snickered within the walls of their home, but got a little electrical-shock from the wiring.

"What the fuck was that sound?! ...'People now know that if you're part of a corrupt conduct, where one hand is taking care of the other and contracts are going to people, you don't have to say the word 'bribe' out loud... . And I think people need to understand we won't be afraid to take strong circumstantial cases into court,' " he exclaimed loudly at the breakfast table. He could feel his own sense of outrage in his now-swollen testicles. His wife wisely interved again.

"Patrick--listen to me: this is like that I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby prosecution, dear. Disclosure on it was, erm...premature." She warmly grasped his hand as she told him this, but it was the last thing she needed to say this morning. Timing is everything, especially when applying the "rhythm method." The Fitzgerald clan had a long history of premature ejaculation, the main reason the U.S. Attorney was sitting there arguing with his new wife at all. Hey, Irish doormen need a little piece occasionally, Jesus Christ.

"The conduct would make Lincoln roll over in his grave!" screamed the U.S. Attorney. This marital row wasn't going to blow over anytime soon. The nuclear option was considered and adopted by both sides that morning.

Wife Jennifer retorted, "Lincoln was questionable too--he was the most successful railroad lawyer of his day. He even owned land near Council Bluffs, Iowa, then pushed to create the Transcontinental Railroad through emergency legislation that he proposed to Congress, he wasn't so clean. Besides, he used to tell dirty jokes to visitors at the White House, and often!" She was becoming aroused, with that flushed look that's the same shade of a baboon's...you get the picture.

He was going to have to hit the books for a reply to that one, but he was qualified, determined, and dedicated to this job. He would spend long nights at the Chicago Public Library and the office as he always did. He would not suffer from premature ejaculation any longer, even though his self-confidence was currently flagging, if not looking a little droopy. He began reading his Kipling, just like Governor Blagojevich: No "If[s]" for this prosecutor, he was a man, my son.

"Fuck," said a mafia soldier listening-in on the Fitzgerald breakfast.

Later that day, the Fitzgeralds ate out at a local mob-owned bistro in Oak Park and bumped into the Blagos. The grub was good, although the U.S. Attorney swore (not literally, and not under oath) that he heard someone beating-the-shit out a busboy in the washroom. Fitzgerald looked across the room and saw a familiar face. The Governor of Illinois waved and the U.S. Attorney did likewise. "Fuck it," they all thought to themselves. Appearances are everything in Chicago, after all.

The ghost of Mike Royko grinned from his crevice in Chicago's Watertower, a structure once derided by no lesss a figure than Oscar Wilde.

"See, we can all get along, dear--we don't have to use such coarse language with people, and we can all act civilized in each other's presence even though he's investigating me, imperiling my very existence, and not just politically. I have more control than you, lady Macbeth." His wife seethed, and began eyeing the small, white phallic-shaped object jutting from her purse. "Yeah, I know dear--heh-heh--I know all-too-well." It was going to be a cold day in hell before...you know (starts with an "F").

[Ed., 01.04.2009--This reads like an episode of "Deadwood." I should have added the appellation, "cocksucker" and it would have fit.]

Federal District Judge Gladys Kessler: Unwilling Unitary Executrix?

"I know it's a sad day when a federal judge has to ask a DOJ attorney this, but I'm asking you -- why should I believe them?" --Federal District Judge Gladys Kessler, March 2nd, 2006. (Washington Post, March 3rd, 2006)

Washington D.C.--With the recent shuttering of any due process in the pretrial proceedings of Deborah Jeane Palfrey (labeled the 'DC Madam' by a preemptively biased press), a brief overview of Judge Kessler's past rulings and judicial behaviors is in order. It should be remembered that Kessler was appointed by President Bill Clinton in 1994.

In all fairness, her rulings run-the-gamut, but she shows a great deal of deference towards the executive branch in general in a number of key decisions. Her most questionable rulings relate to the release of sensitive government documents, and Palfrey's case is no exception. Ironically, Kessler has repeatedly argued for disclosure in the Bush administration's execution of arrests and detentions in the storied 'war on terror, virtually from its inception.

The Bush administration contends that it cannot protect national security and also meet a judge's deadline to reveal names of those held in the investigation of the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks. U.S. District Judge Gladys Kessler ruled Aug. 2 that the Justice Department has not proven the need for a blanket policy of secrecy about more than 1,000 people picked up since the jetliner attacks. She gave the government 15 days to provide the names. ('Bush administration condemns order to release detainee names,' AP, 08.05.2002)

Judge Kessler applied no enforcement 'teeth' in the ruling to 'allow for appeal' by the government (the DOJ). But by June 17th of 2003, the Bush administration successfully appealed the limp ruling, and even utilized an aspect of its original logic by homing-in on FOIA-provisions that pushed the appeals decision in their favor. By all appearances, Kessler showed them the way through the FOIA-loophole door. In early-April 2003, she ruled predictably to quash a request to allow the release of documents surrounding Clinton's 177 pardons his last day as president:

Then, Tuesday the Bush Justice Department won a victory in federal court. It persuaded U.S. District Judge Gladys Kessler to stymie a request from the watchdog group Judicial Watch to release a batch of documents relating to former President Clinton's 177 "midnight pardons" issued on his last day in office. The fact that the Bush administration would go to court to protect the secrecy of the Clinton administration seems to validate the charge by Judicial Watch chairman Larry Klayman that the action was politically motivated - to keep the Bush administration from having potentially embarrassing documents made public after the current president leaves office. ('Obsessive Secrecy/Bush Administration Plays Politics With,' The Colorado Springs Gazette, 04.07.2003)

But Kessler has also ruled in favor of America's unions, forcing an injunction against new financial filing rules that would have cost all of them $1 billion-per-year due to new filing regulations pushed by Bush's then Labor Secretary Elaine Chao. Kessler's ruling is likely due to her time during the 1970s as a low-level employee of the National Labor Relations Board, and she appears to understand the concept of the public interest, which is commendable. But she has a strange way of applying it in other areas of law, and in other cases.

District Judge Kessler has displayed a consistency in this area of the common good, and could be applying this understanding to her rulings over Palfrey's motions for discovery and the calling of particular individuals for testimony: 'Is the public being served by this?' appears to be her primary concern in the majority of her rulings. But Kessler has also been known for backtracking on some of her decisions and her about-face and credulity towards the prosecution in the Palfrey case is not entirely in-character for her. Night is day when it comes to the case of the so-called 'DC Madam.' Nonetheless, the Wednesday ruling's language canceling the November 28th hearing over whether to end the temporary restraining order in Palfrey's civil case against Paula Neble is instructive--Kessler's contends that she's showing judicial independence and also applying the federal trial procedures (presumably dictated by Congress).

The answers might be related to the particulars of the case--facts not allowed to be presented to the defendant at any point of pretrial proceedings--and there is the appearance that Judge Kessler may have already formulated opinions of her own on Palfrey's innocence or guilt a priori. [Ed., 08.28.2008-I no longer believe most of this. I think that Judge Kessler knew Palfrey was suicidal and was removed for this and other, darker reasons.] What's potentially disturbing is that Kessler has made statements condemning the treatment of Guantanamo Bay Naval Base prisoners, and even quashed motions by the government to continue stays (delays) on their motions for complaint hearings...but little resulted from any these criticisms coming from the bench in any substantial sense up to late-2006 and 2007.

Opinions are fine, but they don't accomplish much without enforcement teeth. The wheels of justice turn slowly in the chambers of Judge Kessler, yet she's facilitated this slowness in Palfrey's case while simultaneously complaining about it. There are other problems in her legal logic. The November 21st cancellation of the hearing that would have brought Senator David Vitter, Paula Neble, and others into the sunlight (being that best disinfectant) rests on some shaky contentions:

7. In granting the original request for a Temporary Restraining Order, the Court found that "it is apparent that Defendant is pursuing the Neble [underlined] case in order to obtain from those civil defendants discovery to which she would not be entitled in her criminal case." [Dkt. #12]. ('United States of America v. Deborah Jeane Palfrey, Defendant. Memorandum Order,' November 21st, 2007)

Yet Kessler allowed the hearing earlier this month, irregardless of this previous observation that she's selectively trotted-out in a new, but substantially similar context. There is no detailed summary of what evidence is and is not allowable under federal criminal trial procedure anywhere in the new order. According to what has already occurred in proceedings, it must mean that virtually no discovery is necessary under current federal law in a criminal trial. How can this be constitutional? Where was the assertiveness required for a genuine flexing of constitutional checks-and-balances?

In another case, we have a surprise turn: on October 9th of this year, her unsealed decision to block the transfer of Mohammed Rahman to his home country of Tunisia came in the form of an injunction--it was unprecedented. A week earlier, she blocked the transfer of an Afghani-detainee without a 30-day notice to the individual's lawyer. That's fairly aggressive, but there's no sign of this in Palfrey's proceedings. The Afghani detainee opinion seems to be a more important ruling than the one over Rahman, as it injects direct judicial supervision in a more substantial sense over the processing of foreign detainees and their access to legal representation in the so-called war on terror. ' “It is the only time a court has said the government does not have the unfettered right to do what they will with these people,” ' said an attorney for Rahman, Joshua W. Denbeaux. ('Judge Halts Transfer of Guantanamo Detainee,' New York Times, 10.10.2007) So why all the acquiescence in the pretrial proceedings of Ms. Palfrey?

You can't say Judge Kessler hasn't acted with reasonable independence against the Bush administration as she is directed to under the Constitution of the United States of America, but has it been aggressive enough overall, or has it all just been window-dressing? There are a gamut-of-opinions on this issue which cannot begin to be covered by the space and format of this site (and also thanks to Google's glitchy layout software), but this writer believes Kessler's constitutional vigilance simply lacks enough teeth. Federal Judges are only allowed to overrule the decisions and behavior (law or statutes, and administrative code and actions) of the other branches of our government (the legislative and executive) when there is a constitutional issue, but what could be more obvious than the lack of due process in Ms. Palfrey's pretrial proceedings?

An aside in Kessler's cancellation of the November 28th hearing: she doesn't contend at any point that she believes prosecution's witnesses are being 'harassed,' yet claims the right to continue what is now deemed a 'protective order.' It's just one example of many in the November 21st court order that contradicts other areas of the document, making for a painful read. Judge Kessler isn't wrong that the defendant is attempting to achieve discovery (the exchange of evidence and information between the plaintiff/prosecution and defendant), because she isn't getting any in either her civil or criminal proceedings. Kessler's take on it, however, is selective and appears forced. The fact is: Palfrey's not getting any discovery process, and Judge Kessler originally allowed the hearing to proceed.

She has now abruptly canceled it with a statement that is rife with legal gymnastics that would make anyone's head spin. According to my first year law textbook, Federal District Judge Gladys Kessler has more leverage in her interpretation of federal criminal trial procedure than she's letting-on. What happened before Wednesday of this week? Was it a dramatic ex parte (a decision where not all of the parties need be present) confrontation by the prosecution? What's going on here? Defendants are supposed to be able to avoid a legal ambush in court through genuine due process. By all appearances, this is not America.

THE DC MADAM & CANAL STREET MADAME CONNECTION?

Washington D.C./New Orleans--Maybe there were other reasons not to rebuild the big N.O.? In 2002 and 2004, and again now in 2007, Louisiana RSCC committeeman Vincent Bruno is crowing about Sen. David Vitter's extramarital affairs. Granted, Bruno has been known as an adversary of the Vitter's for a long-time within the GOP in Louisiana, and it has a personal-grudge quality to it, but it helps unseat Republicans, a worthwhile endeavor.

In 2002, state GOP official Vincent Bruno charged on talk radio that Vitter had engaged in an extramarital affair. Bruno told Christopher Tidmore, a political columnist for The Louisiana Weekly and a candidate for the state legislature, that Vitter had consorted for 11 months with a New Orleans prostitute who went by the name Wendy Cortez. Tidmore told The Hill that other Republicans were aware of the alleged affair, adding that former Gov. Mike Foster (R) had used the information to dissuade Vitter from running for governor in 2001. At the time, Vitter said marital issues kept him from running. (theHill.com, 07.11.2007)

Yes indeed, it was "marital issues" alright, and not the kind regarding homosexuals or gay marriage. Like half of America's heterosexual population, David has some problems in his marriage. It's been troubled since at least 1998, possibly much earlier.

It seems he wasn't getting what he wanted sexually at home, but then, why would his wife want to get intimate with her warder? No, there's little doubt that Vitter is a heterosexual, and those musings aren't going to lead to a better understanding of his own personal hypocrisies. Sometimes, a cigar is just a cigar, after all. He likes women.

Considering soon-to-be former Senator Vitter frequented the brothel of Canal Street's big time madam, Jeanette Maier, for as many as eleven months during the time of the FBI's investigation into her (really a mafia investigation that yielded no results, making the warrant claim dubious), it's likely that the Justice Department under John Ashcroft covered-up for him. It's unclear whether Vitter's name was found in Maier's "black book," along with everything else that was confiscated as evidence.

Is Senator Vitter in the FBI's phone logs from their own months-long surveillance of the Canal Street Madame's brothel? An FOIA might tell us, or an investigation by Congress. Who says Vitter stopped frequenting Maier's stable after 1999? He seemed undeterred by anything, and has continued to lie throughout this entire saga. He's not a credible witness to his own life, while ironically, his enemies can be trusted. Such is life.

And another game might be going-on, and serving a similar purpose--the pulling of articles from the internet. Besides Bruno, there's another man who has his own "axe to grind" with Senator Vitter.

In his March 26th, 2004 piece 'Congressman Denies Affair With Prostitute, Says Charges Are Politically Motivated,' journalist/politician Christopher Tidmore gives us a rundown of some of the facts and allegations surrounding the early-days of Vitter's sexual escapades. Strangely, it's no longer online at the original location, but a blogger at a Louisiana blog ("Blogueur") found the copy at Google's cache. It's also been republished at several (love that word) other sites:

In point of fact, Congressman Vitter had previously refused any comment on the charges. The story appeared in this newspaper just days after Vitter dropped out of the race for Governor in June of 2002. The Louisiana Weekly published allegations that Cortez, a known prostitute, claimed that she had an 11-month affair with Vitter, a state representative at the time. Vincent Bruno, secretary of the Republican Party of Jefferson Parish and a member of the RSCC, alleged that Congressman David Vitter had engaged in an extramarital affair. In what was a high-stakes political battle between some of the most prominent members of the Louisiana Republican Party, Bruno charged that a prostitute, who stated her name to be Wendy Cortez, allegedly confessed to him to having a paid sexual relationship with Vitter. Three separate and independent sources, including WDSU-TV reporter Richard Angelico, confirmed Bruno's allegation. Each had spoken to Cortez personally, and she recounted to them the details of her alleged affair with Vitter. (PoliticsLa.com, 03.26.2004)

But who says they had to be tipped-off by Cortez? The FBI was bugging the phones of Maier's bordello on Canal Street, in the French Quarter. Cortez was a subcontractor for Maier. FBI Special Agents could have conveyed the information to the RSCC's or RNC's hierarchy, irregardless of the legality of such an action. There might be more division within the national (and local) GOP than we ever imagined possible, never mind the rubber-stamp 109th Congress.

A very high-stakes game is being played in a puritanical context, which is why it doesn't really matter who's making the allegations or presenting the evidence. Regardless of motives, sundry politicos like Bruno have been spot-on in the accuracy of their claims. This is all that matters in downing hypocritical scum like Vitter. After he's gone, we can deal with the Brunos.

It should be noted here that Vincent Bruno has often been viewed as the spiritual advisor of one David Duke. Imagine how corrupt someone one is when they're hated by someone like Bruno (it could still just be personal). Someone in the press should be asking Mr. Bruno if there are other sources of information for his allegations.

What we appear to be learning is that Wendy Cortez is the connecting-link between the Canal Street Madame and "DC Madam" investigations, both dubious expenditures of federal funds at a time when terrorism is supposed to be a major-threat. Cortez felt threatened--she left New Orleans after the 2004 elections.

The corroborations are revealing, however, since it proves that Vitters was using an escort service in 2001. It's likely we'll find he did so into 2007. At the very least, a pattern of abuse of federal counterterrorism an anti-racketeering laws appears to be emerging here. Why such overkill with the escort services, brothels, and madams? Because they are a nexus of submerged political activity (see "Salon Kitty" piece) and blackmail, frequently unknown to the owners of such businesses.

What they didn't know was that the phones were bugged, and the FBI had recorded 5,000 calls. This is a recorded conversation of Tommie's describing prostitutes to prospective clients.

Tommie: I got one in that’s got the kind of boobs you like.
Customer: Oh really?
Tommie: Yeah, the cat girl.
Customer: What does she look like?
Tommie: She looks like a cat!!

For four months, 10 FBI agents took turns listening in the days before, during and after September 11, 2001. “They tapped my phone. I'm calling people in New York, crying,” says Monica. “I called everybody. Oh my God. We're being attacked! And they're taping phone conversations about a brothel?” Lawmakers wondered the same thing. The investigation was even ridiculed at a hearing on terrorism. “I realize it comes as an enormous revelation to the American public that there might have been prostitutes in New Orleans. I mean, who knew,” said Sen. Patrick Leahy. (CBSnews.com, 10.30.2004)

The FBI, Justice Department, the RSCC, and the RNC sure knew. Narrowing the focus of the investigations, and keeping the prominent "johns" protected and anonymous is their goal. It reeks of an unspoken national policy that spans several political epochs.

Jeane Palfrey might be the end to this arrangement, and it's even money that her prosecution is being expedited to protect prominent Republican office-holders (for now). Still want a job at Justice? Jeanette Maier might consider opening-up her little black book now that Jeane Palfrey has released her own records, though we might be disappointed in the outcome.

In a statement from the former madam's attorney, Vinnie Mosca says he has "absolutely no recollection of David Vitter's name ever appearing on any document, book, or list, or having any association with the Canal Street Brothel or Jeanette."He goes on to say, "Miss Maier mis-spoke." (KATC, 07.11.2007)

That's right, Maier's attorney has stated that Vitter's name isn't in it. The feds seized lots of other records, and it's doubtful Mosca has seen them all. Interestingly, Mosca told Maier to plead guilty and "cooperate with authorities." That's a very strange lawyer, that one. Ms. Maier might reconsider her representation--he might be drawing a government paycheck. Infiltrating the defense is an old tactic of U.S. Attorneys, particularly in antiradical cases. Do they use it elsewhere?

The Hill.com, yesterday: http://thehill.com/leading-the-news/vitter-hides-as-the-senate-gop-circles-its-wagons-2007-07-11.html

"Blagueur" (links to the cached PoliticsLa.com article): http://joefromla.blogspot.com/2007/07/article-from-2004-about-vitters-affair.html

KATC, on the Canal Street Madame's corroboration, 07.11.2007: http://www.katc.com/Global/story.asp?S=6772519

CBS News, 10.30.2004: http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/05/05/48hours/main552399.shtml