With Liberty and Justice for Some

“We should be focused on moving forward, not looking back.” This is the argument that politicians frequently make against investigation criminal activity of both those corporations that are “too large to fail” and of their own predecessors. This argument however, is not used for the weaker, less influential classes, who are supposed to be afforded equal protection or obligations under the rule of law. Yet the absurdity of this argument is that we can physically only ever investigate and bring to trial past actions. In With Liberty and Justice for Some, political commentator Glenn Greenwald tears apart the notion of equality under the rule of law piece by piece. From presidential pardons to corporate elites, Greenwald demonstrates how the powerful use their influence to escape consequences for their actions.

With Liberty and Justice for Some discusses both corporate sector and public sector violations of Federal law, from the citizen wiretapping scandal during the Bush administration to the violations of international treaties at Guantanamo Bay and corporate immunity in the 2008 financial crisis. Although I stay informed about current issues, I had little idea of the magnitude of literally criminal actions on behalf of those are the top of some of America’s largest corporations and in our government.

For much of the time while I was reading this book, I kept questioning myself, wondering whether I was being naïve for being so shocked and angry at what I was reading. For feeling justified in questioning these actions. I also wondered whether I was just thinking out of turn, questioning institutions about which some would say I have no business speaking. One friend said I sounded like an angry housewife. Which, maybe I do. Except that of the two of us, I’m the one with a permanent job. But then I thought to myself, should it really be naïve to expect that the rule of law applies equally to all citizens, and that punishments are supposed to fit the crime? So rather than writing an impassioned, angry blog entry about how the world is a mess, I thought I’d just provide a list of issues that Greenwald presents in his book. Don’t just take my word for it, I’ve conducted some additional research to find resources for his arguments, as he surprisingly does not include a bibliography in his book.

1) The Origins of Elite Immunity

a. Greenwald argues that one of the monumental moments in the shift of how the rule of law is applied was President Ford’s pardon of Richard Nixon. In his pardon speech, Ford argued that “ugly passions would be aroused. And our people would again be polarized. And the credibility of our free institutions of government would be challenged at home and abroad.” What had happened was that despite clear violations of law and even obstruction of justice in seeking to inhibit the investigations, Ford chose to excuse Nixon for suffering appropriate consequences for his actions. Correctly, Greenwald questions this line of reasoning, as the fact that an issue incites passion as a justification for lack of action is ridiculous. Furthermore, credibility of government is far more questionable when the ruler is given the power and uses it to violate rules of law and forgive criminal activity, creating a precedent for future violations of law sans repercussion.

2) Iran-Contra (1986)

a. The Reagan Administration’s sale of arms to Iran in large part funded the Contras, which were a CIA-backed rebel group fighting to overthrow the Nicaraguan government. What is criminal about this activity was that in 1982, Congress passed into law the Boland Amendment, which banned any government assistance to the Contras for the purpose of overthrowing the government. This law was in fact signed into existence by Reagan himself. And when the International Court of Justice found the US guilty of illegally attempting to overthrow the Nicaraguan government and ordered the US to pay compensation to Nicaragua, the Reagan administration used the US’s seat on the Security Council to veto UN efforts to enforce the judgment. Multiple Reagan aids were pardoned for all crimes by George H.W. Bush, including Defense Secretary Caspar Weinberger, who had deliberately obstructed justice by both lying to the court and neglecting to turn over evidence as required by law. His actions are likely to have inhibited the entire investigation and prevented any impeachment of Reagan from occurring according to Lawrence Walsh, an independent court-appointed investigator.

b. The elite immunity continued under Clinton, when he reneged on campaign promises to investigate Iran-Contra as well as Iraqgate, where well-documented allegations claimed that both the Reagan and Bush administrations secretly and illegally supplied Saddam Hussein (yes, that one) with money, weapons technology, training, military intelligence, and nuclear components in an attempt to help him in Iraq’s war with Iran.

c. Also note what happened with the Scooter Libby case and pardon by Bush II.

3) The Citizen Wire-tapping Scandal

a. The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act was the result of the discovery by the US Senate Church Committee’s investigation in the 1970s that Federal spying on American citizens had occurred dating back to World War II for purely political purposes, including an attempt by the FBI at developing a blackmail campaign against Martin Luther King, Jr. FISA specific outlines prison sentences of up to 5 years for violations of the Act, as well as $10,000 fines per offense. President George Bush went on television and said flat out that he violated this act, and would do so again, yet has never been brought to trial for his actions. Further, the major telecom corporations had initially refused to participate because they felt that the violations of the law were absolutely clear. The Federal government responded by threatening not to give lucrative contracts to these firms in the future if they refused to participate. What is important to note is that all telecoms involved in the criminal activity successful lobbied for retroactive immunity. The private citizens who sued the telecoms were defended by the Electronic Frontiers Foundation, a nonprofit firm. On the other hand, the telecoms spent tens of millions of dollars on lobbying fees (in the first quarter of 2008, Verizon spent $4.8 million, AT&T spent $5.2 million, and Comcast spent $2.6 million). What research needs to be completed would be how these funds were divided among causes, although it is likely given the concentration of these expenditures and the timing that they were mostly if not entirely dedicated to the FISA violations.

4) The links between private sector and Federal government

a. See Michael McConnell. The former director of national intelligence, now VP at Booz Allen. While at Booz he chaired the Intelligence and National Security Alliance, which was the primary business association of NSA and CIA contractors devoted to expanding the privatization of government intelligence (Booz Allen is one of the nation’s largest intelligence contractors). PS. McConnell also was a champion for the retroactive immunity of the telecoms.

5) Individual Elite Immunity

a. See the case of Martin Joel Erzinger, a hedge fund manager at Morgan Stanley Smith Barney, perpetrator of a hit-and-run causing spinal cord injuries, bleeding in the brain, and damage to the knee and scapula of a bicyclist. The district attorney did not charge him with any felonies, arguing that “Felony convictions have some pretty serious job implications for someone in Mr. Erzinger’s profession.”

6) The Financial Crisis

a. See “The Quiet Coup,” by Simon Johnson, former chief economist of the IMF and economic professor at MIT.

b. Timothy Geithner. What is interesting about this case is the intimacy he maintained with Wall Street’s elites while in office would likely be unethical by most corporate standards. He has met more often with the CEO of Goldman Sachs than with Congressional leaders. During his first five months in office, Geithner had more calendar entries for meetings with executives from firms including JPMorgan Chase, Morgan Stanley, and Blackrock more often than with the heads of regional Federal Reserve Banks.

c. Angelo Mozilo. Fined $67 million, of the over half billion in income he made while presiding over the fraud. His e-mail records had him flat out stating “In all my years in the business, I have never seen a more toxic product.” Yet he promoted these subprime packages to the public while he was the CEO of Countrywide. Assuming these entries resulted in actual meetings, that would mean he did in fact meet more often with members of industry than those who oversee it.

d. JP Morgan’s bribery case in Jefferson County, Alabama, where JPMorgan executives were caught on record saying that they needed to “pay of people” in the county, ultimately winning them $3 billion in contracts in toxic assets. The settlement of $722 million was paid mostly by JPMorgan’s forgiveness of debt that the county would have owed for these “services.”

e. Peter Orzag, who went from working for the Obama administration as the director of the OMB during the planning of the bailout, to working as vice chairman of global banking at Citigroup.

The list goes on and on, but this post is already the longest I’ve ever written. The book also discusses issues such as the treatment of terrorism suspects and inequities with the standards the US holds foreign nations too in terms of prisoner treatment and corrupt officials while committing these same violations ourselves. Under Obama, Bush’s torture regime has continued, and even expanded. And accountability has declined. In 2009, Obama officials threatened the British government that if it disclosed the conditions of torture that had occurred to one of its citizens at Guantanamo, the administration would not share intelligence regarding threats to British security. I’m not fully decided, but something of note is also the case of Thomas Drake, a whistleblower who leaked documents purporting to prove multibillion dollar waste occurring at NSA, and combined with the case of Bradley Manning is evidence of a larger trend in the persecution of those who expose government secrets. So yes, Obama has authorized indefinite detention for both foreigners and Americans, reneged on campaign promises to close Guantanamo Bay, and refused to hold accountable predecessors for criminal activity. Not to mention that his administration has opposed European legislation that will seek to impose charges for carbon dioxide emissions from airlines. But that’s a separate issue.

Things weren't always this way. Just take for example the trials following the Teapot Dome Scandal, Boss Tweed and Tammany Hall, and many others.

And you ask what Occupy Wall Street is about.

Up Next: Capitalism Hits the Fan