Bargain for Marcos : State Dept. Cable Hints He Would Lose Alleged Loot Over Fraud Case
-BLACKVAULT
OPEN
SOURCE US/1; ATTN: HST/2; ex-MP/1; IG/1
[ed.note:
“Tell those Motherf**kers I’m coming after them,” screamed Judge Abe
Sofaer to Los Angeles Times investigative reporter Bill Remple, who
immediately called to warn us. We hurriedly cleared out any supposedly ‘classified’ or SOURCE
SENSITIVE data, including all suspected narcotics paraphernalia, rusting
pornography film cans, and about 9,500 pages of documents, all told.
In less
than an hour, Golden Retrievers Bugsy, and Red Dog, brother DHM, and US/1 had
booked, er..vacated the premises. Quickly crossing state lines--at a minimum
hoping to cause delay and make any issuance of federal subpoenas/warrants cross-jurisdictional.
Washington Post Editor Ben Bradlee Burned in Effigy
Scandal Almost Sank Secret Cambodia War,
“They have the ROGER CHANNEL…” Assistant Secretary of
State for Intelligence (INR) Morton Abramowitz metaphorically bellowed in a TS/SCI/
(SAP-code-word)ROGER.CHANNEL cable the next day, Halloween.
But at 0730 the next morning, a telephonic check with observant
neighbors revealed no dramatic police type activity, and then US/1 called
Remple to say that “no DIPSEC or FBI special agents” had descended on his
Georgetown home as anticipated, though US/1 had had “all the semen forcibly
removed from [his] body.” Remple's laughter was a little too loud.
Judge Sofaer went on to become a much ‘maligned’ head of the US
Marshal’s WITSEC Program and later still as representative for LIBYAN money on
the Pan Am 103 TERROR case. Real estate records pulled at the time he was still
Chief Legal Counsel of the State Department revealed Sofaer to already be a
wealthy man.]
U.S.
Debates Plea Bargain for Marcos : State Dept. Cable Hints He Would Lose Alleged
Loot Over Fraud Case
October 11, 1988 WILLIAM
C. REMPEL and RONALD J. OSTROW | Times Staff Writers
The
State Department is pressuring federal prosecutors to allow former Philippine
President Ferdinand E. Marcos to negotiate a plea agreement before a possible
indictment on multimillion-dollar fraud charges in the United States, according
to an internal department cable obtained by The Times.
The
document, however, indicates that any plea agreement acceptable to U.S.
authorities would require the deposed dictator to forfeit hundreds of millions
of dollars in assets allegedly looted from the Philippine Treasury before he
was driven into exile in Hawaii in 1986. Such an agreement could allow Marcos
and his wife Imelda to avoid any possibility of terms in U.S. federal prisons.
'Seek
to Embarrass'
The
cable also expresses concern that an indictment may prompt a vindictive Marcos to "seek to involve and
embarrass" U.S. and Philippine officials by making allegations of improper
or illegal conduct, "however unfounded," in an attempt to
adversely affect relations with the current Philippine government. It did not
elaborate.
<Investigative
Reporters
<The
text of the document was made available to The Times on Monday by Washington-based
investigative reporters Scott Malone and Mark Perry, who said that they received it
anonymously in the mail. Malone has reported extensively on Marcos for
television and magazines. The authenticity of the cable was confirmed
independently by The Times.>
The
lengthy and detailed message was relayed from the State
Department's chief legal counsel, Abraham D. Sofaer, to other top
department officials, including U.S. Ambassador Nicholas
Platt in Manila, in a classified cable. The document reflects some of
the difficult internal Administration debate over legal and political conflicts
that have marked the criminal investigation of the former Philippine leader and
his wife, Imelda.
Indictment
Arguments
For
example, the State Department had argued to limit the indictment to alleged
criminal acts that occurred after Marcos fled to Honolulu in February, 1986.
But prosecutors on the staff of U.S. Atty. Rudolph
Giuliani in New York insisted that the only way to recover an allegedly
ill-gotten fortune in Manhattan real estate and fine art is to charge Marcos
with acts of fraud that began during his tenure as president of the Philippines
and continued after he came to Hawaii.
State
Department officials finally accepted the prosecutors' argument on condition
that the indictment be carefully drawn to emphasize post-revolution conduct and
that public statements by Justice Department officials, including Atty. Gen.
Dick Thornburgh, would "make clear that Marcos was being prosecuted
because of his illegal conduct after he came to the U.S. ," according to
the cable.
Also,
prosecutors and diplomatic advisers disagree over when to initiate plea
bargaining. The State Department wants to give Marcos "a last chance, prior to indictment," to reach
a settlement. But federal prosecutors prefer to indict first to gain added
leverage in negotiations with the ousted Philippine president.
'Stand
Firm'
"Justice
has presented no good reason why we should not continue to insist on offering
Mr. Marcos a chance to reach a voluntary plea agreement prior to
indictment," the cable said. "Sofaer
strongly believes that if we stand firm, we can work out a way of doing
this with Giuliani which would not harm Justice's prosecution interests and would give President (Reagan) a substantial degree of
protection from being criticized for allowing Marcos to be prosecuted
for prior activities."
In
one of several recommendations outlined in the cable, the State Department
said: "President Reagan should be advised of
the decision to indict (if one is made) and the charges, and thereby afforded
an opportunity to exercise his executive authority." This was apparently
intended to leave the White House with the option of vetoing an indictment.
Sources familiar with the investigation in New York have said
U.S. officials are concerned that Marcos may threaten to disclose politically
damaging information about his dealings with the federal government to pressure
the White House to block prosecution.
'Thoroughly
Discredited'
But Filipino
Ambassador Emmanuel Pelaez said: "In the Philippines, Mr. Marcos is so
thoroughly discredited that he has no credibility whatsoever. I do not know about the American government, but the
Philippine government has nothing to fear about anything Mr. Marcos could say.
I don't see how anything he says could harm U.S.-Philippine relations."
The cable also reveals that the State Department is concerned
that Marcos may be attempting to destabilize the current government of the Philippines.
It did not provide any details about such activities, but The Times has
reported that a separate federal grand jury in Hawaii is investigating
allegations that Marcos has attempted to aid anti-government forces in the
Philippines in violation of U.S. neutrality laws.
Investigative Reporters
The text of the document was made available to The Times on Monday by Washington-based investigative reporters Scott Malone and
Mark Perry, who said that they received it
anonymously in the mail. Malone has reported
extensively on Marcos for television and magazines. The authenticity of
the cable was confirmed independently by The Times.
The
cable makes a number of other significant findings about the State Department's
position on the Marcos case:
--
That the White House offer of safe haven in
Hawaii did not include any immunity in regard to U.S. laws and that "he
should be subject to prosecution for such violations."
--
That, before any indictment is issued, the government of the Philippines must
agree to a formal waiver of head-of-state immunity for Marcos and his wife.
-- That it is important to make the offer to plea bargain even
if Marcos does not accept it, indicating that the government is concerned about
setting a proper precedent on U.S. dealings with such dictators.
"Prosecution
of Mr. Marcos . . . could set a precedent (that) would have a negative impact
on our ability to influence other heads of state who may be similarly situated
to leave power," the cable said.
State Department officials initially opposed including in a
Marcos indictment charges based on actions he took while in office. The
opposition was based on grounds that he was invited to the United States and
that prosecuting him for such acts would undercut U.S. ability to pressure
other "similarly situated" heads of state to leave power.
Prosecutors argued that limiting the charges to alleged
obstruction of justice since entering the United States would bar indictment of
Marcos under the federal Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations (RICO)
statute. The charges under that statute would carry with them authority to seek
forfeiture of Marcos' New York real estate and other assets.
Justice
Department officials agree that prosecuting Marcos solely for activities before
he arrived in the United States would be improper, the cable said.
Outlines
of Compromise
As a result, outlines of a compromise appeared in the cable. The
Justice Department would make clearer in the indictment that Marcos is not
being charged solely for actions he took while still president. Thornburgh
"is also willing to make a public commitment to use his authority under
the RICO statute to compensate the victims (including principally the
government of the Philippines and U.S. mortgagors) out of any assets
recovered," it said.
"We
should accept Justice's conclusions on the question
of limiting the indictment," the State Department document said.
"Based on their assessment of the proposed prosecution and forfeiture
possibilities, it appears that limiting the
indictment would eliminate the chief benefit of prosecution--forfeiture of
assets--but would do little to avoid our other concerns."
The
Justice Department's "willingness to cast the indictment and any public statements
as resulting from Mr. Marcos' continuing wrongful activity while in the
U.S." clearly alleviates, but does not eliminate, a significant concern of
diplomatic officials.
The
cable notes that the department's concern is offset by assurances from the
attorney general that such prosecution is necessary to attempt "recovery
of wrongfully obtained assets."
'Exceeds
the Mortgages'
The cable said that Giuliani told Sofaer he had rechecked the
value of two of the four Marcos properties involved and that their value
"far exceeds the mortgages." Other Marcos properties and bank
accounts that prosecutors would seek to forfeit adds up to "a large
surplus" that could be recovered for the Philippine government.
While
citing the risk that prosecution could fail, the cable reported that Justice
Department officials have concluded "after extensive review that the
evidence is sufficient to prevail. (Giuliani has
'guaranteed' success.) We have no way of independently assessing this
question."
Petition
Rejected
In a
related development, a Philippine court in Manila rejected Monday a petition by
Marcos to return home and answer corruption charges. The court ruled that
Marcos' return was a political question beyond the reach of the court and
should be resolved by President Corazon Aquino.
Justice
Romeo Escareal issued the ruling a month before the court begins a pretrial
hearing on allegations that Marcos received
millions of dollars in kickbacks from Japanese companies during his
20-year rule. Marcos could challenge the ruling in the Philippine Supreme
Court.
Aquino has barred Marcos' return from exile in Hawaii, calling
him a threat to national security.
Also Monday, an army spokesman denied newspaper reports that
army dissidents backed by politicians loyal to Marcos planned to launch a coup
attempt in November.
[ED.NOTE: MARCOS WAS EVENTUALLY INDICTED OVER THE OBJECTIONS OF
THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES, WHICH WAS ALSO IS OFFICIAL IMMIGRATION
STATUS: “GUEST OF THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES. MARCOS DIED BEFORE HIS
TRIAL. HIS CO-CONSPIRATORS, IMELDA “WHERE’S MY SHOES” MARCOS AND SAUDI ARMS
DEALER ADNAN “WHERE’S THE IRANIAN’S TOW MISSILES” KHOSSOGGI, WERE BOTH
ACQUITTED.”
Three
Months after the above LA Times article, SECSTATE George SCHULTZ WROTE ONE OF
HIS LAST OFFICIAL MEMOS:
[Information contained in BKNT E-mail is considered Attorney-Client and Attorney Work Product privileged, copyrighted and confidential. Views that may be expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect those of any government, agency, or news organization.]
Labels: Abe
Sofaer, Adnan
Khassoggi, Bangkok
Post, Bo
Jones, David
Ignatius, FBI,
Ferdinand
Marcos, Imelda
Marcos, Mark
Perry, Roger
Channel, Scott
Malone, Washington
Post, Williiam
Remple
---------------------------
22 December 2012
WP: CIA complains about depictions in Osama bin Laden movie ‘Zero Dark Thirty’
- OPEN
SOURCE
VS/[redacted];
US/1;
ATTN:
HST/2 SFTT/2; NSNS/2
“David
Ignatius, Chief of Station" - VS/[redacted]
Saturday, December 22, 2012
By Greg
Miller
The CIA on Friday said that a Hollywood
movie portraying the hunt for Osama bin Laden “departs from reality” in
significant ways, and emphasized that despite assistance it provided to the
filmmakers, the agency had no control over the final product.
|
In an unusual letter
to CIA employees, acting Director Michael Morell said that the highly
anticipated film, “Zero Dark Thirty,” leads viewers to believe that a “few
individuals” were behind the hunt for the al-Qaeda leader, instead of the
“hundreds of officers” who were involved over the course of a decade. He also
rejected the film’s depiction of the CIA’s interrogation program — and the
implication that it helped extract valuable information from detainees…
[Information
contained in BKNT E-mail is considered Attorney-Client and Attorney Work
Product privileged, copyrighted and confidential. Views that may be expressed
are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect those of any
government, agency, or news organization.]