. . . if the US invades Iraq and seizes control and gets a law passed that, in essence, gives the multinationals at least 20% (via participation requirements) of Iraq’s known reserves . . .

Again, no specific link, sry . . . (get your Google on!)

Ballpark: the “law” would open two-thirds of Iraq’s oil fields to development by US/UK oil giants (”to the victors, the spoils”), and provides a 60%/40%-75%/25% (somewhere in that neighborhood) split of the profits — the short end for the Iraqis.

Go figure: some provisions of the law are “secret.”

[apologies if this is too OT]

. . . all the lawyers on the torture trip to GITMO

Google fodder:

Have not drilled down to a specific link or quote, but recall Phillipe Sands speaking of interviews with Diane Beaver (the lawyer at GITMO); her boss, Mike Dunlavey; and the commander of US SouthCom, General Hill.

From Democracy Now interview:

Sands: I’ve spoken to all three of them, and both Diane Beaver and Mike Dunlavey, who have largely been scapegoated by the administration, described to me the visit that Mr. Gonzales made, accompanied by Mr. Addington, who’s Vice President Cheney’s lawyer, and Jim Haynes, who is Rumsfeld’s lawyer.

The Green Light, by Phillipe Sands

Talks about the Tipton Three — British prisoners — said one thing, but later found that it was a false confession. How much more information was unreliable, and how delayed were we in obtaining solid information that could have been useful?

For crying out loud, when are the people who advocate this sort of thing going to wise up? Not only have we been committing crimes and destroying our reputation around the world, but we probably haven’t gotten any net benefit from it even in the narrow sense of getting useful information.

Preaching to the choir, I suppose, but this is infuriating.

I can’t recall it bc I didn’t know it. Really?

On the oil front, the truth is that most of the large fields (of interest to the big multinational oil companies) have been discovered. And as Saudi Arabi and Iran and Iraq and Venezuela went to controlling their oil reserves themselves through national companies, those oil companies have been left with the realization that they won’t be increasing, but rather depleting, reserves and control of reserves.

OTOH, if the US invades Iraq and seizes control and gets a law passed that, in essence, gives the multinationals at least 20% (via participation requirements) of Iraq’s known reserves, and that all happens without Exxon having to spend any money (getting things done on OPM – other people’s money – is a mantra of the oil and gas and other business fields), that’s a great speculation for them to push. Lots of upside and for them no down side. They aren’t worse off if the shot fails, and they are substantially better if it goest through. So the Exxon funded AEI went forth and promoted the war the same way other small oil and gas players promote a prospect, just using different props and propaganda.

Also, someone should be digging into the specifics of all the lawyers on the torture trip to GITMO.

The MSNBC and Goldsmith book accounts vary slightly it seems (I won’t be reading Goldsmith’s self-serving epistle, but from what I have seen quoated), but if you combine the lists you have (from the MSNBC story re: Fallon et al)

Gonzales (then WH counsel), Addington, Flanigan (no one seems too interested in him – despite his role in some of the more egregious memos as well – he’s got his nice corporate slot now), Haynes (maybe torture field trips were why he didn’t have time to respond to Bowman?), Thompson (who went on to be Gen Counsel at Pepsico after his efforts in signing off on the Arar torture rendition and the torture field trip to GITMO – a man whose absence from questioing lists is prominent by its absence and a man who, with Ashcroft, was being sued for participation in torture in a public lawsuit at the very time Clement was saying that the US didn’t do things like torture), Christopher Wray (this is an interesting and undelved link – he was a principal associate deputy ag at the time, but went on to take Chertoff’s slot heading Criminal Division at DOJ), and Yoo.

Per sailmaker, Goldsmith’s book give you the following crew on either the same trip or one within a day or so:

Goldsmith, in his book ‘The Terror Presidency” says that Addington, Philbin, Rizzo, Haynes, Alice Fisher, Goldsmith, along with several Pentagon lawyers went to Guantanemo, to the military brig in Charleston (Padilla), and Norfolk (Hamdi), on September 26, 2002. pages 99-101

Fisher ended up replacing Wray at Crim. So questions re: Chertoff should be inclusive of Fisher and Wray.

And btw, memos aside, after Hamdan came down with the rulings that techniques not authorized by Congress could not be authorized by the President and if the UCMJ deemed them criminal – they were criminal – each of those lawyers would seem to have knowingly agreed to step from their roles as advisors to become FACT WITNESSES on the crimes, at a minimum from the time Hamdan spelled out that they were crimes, due to their trip.

Now we aren’t talking Executive privilege or atty client privilege. We are talking fact witnesses to what they saw and heard (vis a vis abuse discussions) there. No privilege attaches to an attorney (or other individual) in his role as a fact witness. So they either show up and testify if subpoenaed on what they saw and heard – - or they admit that they were a part of the plan of torture/abuse and take the fifth.

Then the respect Deans and Corporations can deal with the issue of their profs and Gen Counsel taking the fifth on torture investigations. That’s not “memos”

fyi

IMO, there isn’t any need or desire for a statutorily spelled out necessity defense – what exists at law is sufficient and you don’t give out “safe harbors” for torture. That’s just depraved.