Comments (29)

Tom wrote on January 10, 2008 10:49 AM:

Rodriguez is a little fish - give him immunity and work your way up the chain.

Billy Pilgrim wrote on January 10, 2008 10:53 AM:

NO IMMUNITY!!! Let him repeatedly plead the fifth so the historians and the world can see the true criminality of this Bush administration.

RB-Chicago wrote on January 10, 2008 11:05 AM:

PUT HIM IN JAIL..

EdNSted wrote on January 10, 2008 11:05 AM:

By all means! Give him immunity. Then permit him to have the most incredibly faulty memory since Alberto "I Don't Recall" Gonzales. Then issue a strongly worded memo and drop the investigation. Then point out to the media just how well you've done your job. Oversight and accountability are such a quaint concepts these days.

Just how many times do you have to go down this road before you realize it always takes you to the same destination?

.

Slim wrote on January 10, 2008 11:15 AM:

Wait guys - I am having trouble finding the location of this tactic in the Ollie North Playbook...

Does anyone know which chapter it is featured in? Is it, "Crime doesn't pay, but it doesn't cost anything either." or "How to befuddle congress, and pick up trashy women." ?

I'm so confused.

Fermi paradox wrote on January 10, 2008 11:36 AM:

Waterboard him.

NewPlan wrote on January 10, 2008 11:40 AM:

Time for congress to change the federal pay and retirement structure. When ANYONE refuses to testify before congress for ANY reason, their pay/retirement/federal employment benefits of ANY SORT stops PERIOD.

Ferimi paradox wrote on January 10, 2008 11:44 AM:

After waterboarding him, put the video on YouTube.

brian wrote on January 10, 2008 11:50 AM:

Does anyone believe the 'tapes were destroyed' before being copied ?

Why do you believe this story ? Who is promoting the story ?

It is amazing how well this tactic has worked.

There are certainly copies of the tapes.

Ask for copies of the tapes.

centerpunch wrote on January 10, 2008 12:08 PM:

Give him the immunity-- Bush will just pardon him if he is prosecuted on evidence (never). Once he is immune, he can still be charged for contempt if his is found to be untruthfull.

Or: Make it known that the first person, and ONLY the first person to come forward with actionable testimony, will be granted immunity-- the rest will be prosecuted.

(...what am I thinking. let's just bend over and get it over with, already.)

What's for lunch?

Dee Illuminati wrote on January 10, 2008 12:19 PM:

IPSO FACTO and "I told you so." What I find disturbing is the notion of some posting here that those whom object against torture, object against habeas corpus being denied defendants, suddenly want to see the 5th amendment rights denied 'anybody.' And that would include Jose Rodriguez.

That would include: Lt. Col. Steven L. Jordan, that would include any American anywhere where the domicile of US law was applicable, or where the actions of US citizens were involved.

How can it be that you 'situationaly' apply the rule of law? That 'situational' application of the law is a 'superceeding' of the rule of law, and precisely what instigated this embarrasment and debacle in the first place.

"If you can keep your wits about you while all others are losing theirs, and blaming you. . . . The world will be yours and everything in it, what's more, you'll be a man, my son." - Rudyard Kipling

It has been repeatedly said that there are no Nelson Mandela's in troubled areas around the globe, and the reason that statement is made is that the same principles that applied when he was jailed were in effect when he was empowered to become the jailer.

The specific reason that this applicable is that there was a 'truth and reconcilliation' commission. And the process of that societal narrative as important as a narrative imposed by say the international war crimes tribunnal or Nuremburg. It is an affirmation that the rule of law is the basis for all of our conduct, business, civic, international, and religous.

How is it that those whom express a desire for revenge and situational due process of law are any different that John Yoo who proclaimed that deviation from the rule of law was acceptable?

The mob rule response of revenge and situational law, 'the ticking timebomb' argument outside the discussion of jury nullification, is the providence of those whom we disagree with, those whom refuse to join the civillized world, those who refuse to engage in responsible, predictable, and consistent fashion: like Kim Jong-il and Idi Amin.

So you want a lynching huh? I mean the same group that opposes the torture. the denial of due process needs a lynching huh?

Consisteny of principles, meeting the behavior of leadership in the world, being the leader in international law and business, precludes these lynchings and instead advocates transparency and reliable conduct in a manner to engage and communicate instead of isolate.

Some of these responses are BS and frankly the same level of intellect that created the issue.

Somebody oughta tell liberals what liberals are all about, tell em the truth about themselves, speak the truth to shame them, and inquire how the lynching response is any different than the initial response that created this problem?

When you consistently apply the rule of law, you consistently apply sound judgement.

When you suggest that the 5th amendment of one American can be superceeded, you suggest that the coercion of confession is applicable to all.

Some of these responses suggest that the people here seem to miss the issues, and that low hanging fruit is the norm.

You remind me of wild eyed chickens frightened and with a angry look based on the size of your craniums and inability to reason and keep your head.

Not the material of leadership.

Torture Is Wrong wrote on January 10, 2008 12:33 PM:

Dee, you're right. I'm sure they were just joking about waterboarding. The first thing that popped into my mind after reading the article was that I should comment that he should be renditioned--but only as a joke, of course.

Don't you think there's something wrong with the system if people can get away with this?

Charge him with obstruction of a criminal investigation, if possible. That should get him talking.

moondancer wrote on January 10, 2008 12:33 PM:

Not being a lawyer, the proffer had better be compelling to get immunity. I don't think this is the guy to hang, but in the same sense, after hearing the useless testimony of Goodling, I'd rather have her convicted than cooperating.

Dee Illuminati wrote on January 10, 2008 1:22 PM:

Torture Is Wrong,

Let us move on as a society, set the basis for rule of law in the business realm, civic realm, and the religous realm.

Let the hearings proceed and as a society repudiate this insanity and reclaim our rightful position as the world leader in international law, business law, secular law, and civic law.

Our society needs the narrative on an ongoing basis, similar to the 911 commission, to move forward, repudiate the abnomally of polciy, regain leadership, and put these acts behind us in a manner that communicates to the world that they can expect and will receive transparency and reliable conduct from the US in all of our actions.

The truth and reconcilliation hearings in South Africa didn't heal or solve every dillema, but it did communicate that South Africa intended to stay open for business and could be approached in a civil and responsible manner.

Let us as a society make the same statement.

Trust me, if there is a 'ticking bomb scenario' you can relly on really intelligent people to do the right thing, based on the high bar of jury nullification, to address a problem.

Let's stop pretending for political purposes only that abridging the rule of law is a benefit to society, when we all know that it is not.

We have many challenges as a nation, live in an inter-connected world, and need to lead, follow, or get out of the way.

In respect to facilitating what is really needed, we need to make clear the rules of engagement and establish a set of expectations that the world recognizes as policy, and it cannot be arbitrary, we gain assets when we are the clear alternative to tyranny and arbitrary justice.

caso wrote on January 10, 2008 1:33 PM:

If he has a reward in heaven (the GOP version), then once granted immunity he will accept responsibility for *everything.* Kind of like ol' Col North. If he is PO'd about his suspicious trajectory toward the oncoming bus wheels (following the paths of so very many others), then he might actually give up some names. Which do you think is likelier?

mo2 wrote on January 10, 2008 1:33 PM:

No immunity and issue more subpoenas to scare those agents who are so worried about paying legal fees. Let them all know that immunity is "off the table."

Which is sad because they are being made scapegoats. But the question of whether the US accepts torture as a policy is no subject to play "goodling" with. Gonzales' DOJ ruined immunity pleas for everyone else who enabled Bush/Cheney. And since the DOJ is trying to screw the CIA now, it is a good time to explain to the CIA that the DOJ is to blame for their not being granted immunity.

Maybe that will help those poor CIA agents avoid spending their college savings on lawyers.

Slim wrote on January 10, 2008 1:42 PM:

'Let them all know that immunity is "off the table."'

There's a slogan for the '08 Democrats. I'd vote for that ticket in a heartbeat.

Can we sink any lower as a country, or is this just a bump on the way down?

JMOHR wrote on January 10, 2008 2:04 PM:

Do you think that there is anything Congress can or will learn from this individual? Do you really think that it is possible to build a case against a fascist president who will have his lackeys ignore subpoenas, hide and destroy documentation and otherwise ignore the rule of law? Do you really think that with Republican members of Congress who subvert the rule of law for partisan gain would ever support the impeachment of Cheney (President) or Bush (VP)?

DO NOT MAKE ME LAUGH. IT MAY BE TIME FOR STERNER ACTION FROM THE PEOPLE.

Anonymous wrote on January 10, 2008 2:07 PM:

Look like the man who's allegedly admitted to participating in war crimes doesn't quite undertand: Unless he cooperates, the ICC and war crimres prosecutors could prosecute him.

Also, if he believe waterboarding is "OK", then let's use it to find out what he wont discuss.

SadButTrue wrote on January 10, 2008 3:07 PM:

Let's have the criminal courts apply the principal of spoliation vigorously in all these kind of cases. Spoliation, you say? I'd never heard this legal term for destroying evidence either before Jonathan Turley dropped it a while back on Countdown. Wikipedia says this about it:

"The finder of fact can review all evidence uncovered in as strong a light as possible against the spoliator and in favor of the opposing party. The theory of the spoliation inference is that when a party destroys evidence, it may be reasonable to infer that the party had consciousness of guilt or other motivation to avoid the evidence."

I posted about this on my blog if you want to check it out.

moondancer wrote on January 10, 2008 3:11 PM:

I don't think there is a lot of mystery here. It comes down to what can be proved and what will be allowed to proceed.
I guess the investigation will proceed until bush puppet Mukasey says OK thats far enough.

Anonymous wrote on January 10, 2008 3:46 PM:

moondancer wrote on January 10, 2008 12:33 PM

Good reminder on Goodling's useless testimony.

If he won't testify unles given immunity, let DoJ conduct it's review; and Congress can talk to _other_ witnesses. There's no reason to play his game. Make him wait. There are likely other sources of information that can fill in the dots.

There are other sources of information:
- CIA personnel have gone to the EU/ European Commission;
- there is electronic data aabout discussions and meetings which Congress can review _before_ they grant immunity;
- Others have traveled to GTMO to review prisoner abuses issues, [ Marion Spike Bowan ]
- Congress has other data which the publi cneeds to review _before_ Congress is given teh go ahead of, "Yes, we agree that Rodriguez is the only source."
- Also, when there were abuse reports at GTMO, there were e-mails with redacted Army units. These were connected with the Miltary Police. Congress can ask -- before it gets information from Rodriguez -- for the CIA information inside DoD; and the other CIa _reviews_ done on the DoD data: There's a crossflow of information. Congress can, first before it grants immunity, ask for cia names/agents of those not invovlved, but who can provide other sources of inforamtion, going outside Rodriguez.

Time for Congress to revisit the information it's been given

Quite intersting to make a claim that he's "seen a tape" but will only tawlk about it if granted immunity. His assertion, without immunity given, is a basis to broadly conduct a criminal investigatino into the alleged events on the tape. Let Rodriguez sit on ice for a while while Congress -- in secret -- reviews other lines of evidence. Congress knows where to find Rodrigues; they've waited this long to do nothing about impeachment -- doing nothing about this CIA tape wouldn't be a new problem.

Yes, it's infuriating, but don't Reward Rodriguez: He allegedly failed to do what he should have done long ago: reported the war crimres. If he was "really concerned" he wouldn've taken action then. His disclosures now appear linked to concerns that he was under investigation; or he thought "his knowledge" of that tape was becoming an issue.

- What else was going on that would Prompt Rodriquez now -- after this long being silent -- to spill the beans? Let _that pressure_ build, and do not reward Rodriguez. His statement appears to be on an artificial timeline.

Joshua wrote on January 10, 2008 4:17 PM:

If the guy is begging for immunity its clearly not a witch hunt.

I say give him immunity if you're willing to go all the way, and that includes the OVP and EOP if necessary. Considering these Democrats, I doubt they are.

Anonymous wrote on January 10, 2008 4:28 PM:

Is Rodriguez' request for immunity:

A. Intended to block him providing all evidence, even for the _civil_ trial?

B. Related to him learning through other sources, that he was a target of the _civil_ litigation; and he's hoping to throw the issue behind a firewall of a congressional investigation?

C. Absolute for both civil/criminal; or is it narrowly only for criminal matters, and leaves open use of that data for _civil_ cases?

Dee Illuminati wrote on January 10, 2008 5:31 PM:

As much as one would like to dispute the circumstances, the response by the Inspector General to Jane Harman is at the essence of the dispute and the asertion of responsibility.

Now Congress might find problems with congressional oversight of CIA, but the IG pretty flatly stated that it was on acting authorization of the executive branch, that the decision was made.

And when you look back at the issue more broadly, the decision to use advanced interrogation techniques was made at the executive level and approved by legal counsel to the whitehouse, or so it is claimed.

Focusing on Rodriguez with immunity, allows our system of justice to correctly ask the questions surrounding the larger policy decisions.

I at least would hope to see John Yoo undergo disbarment. I say allow John to take the fifth! Not Rodriguez.

I mean get a grip folks, do you really think that you can just quit CIA if you find a policy repugnant? Do you think that that response is even made more difficult if that is the decision within that organizational culture?

Lt. Cmdr. Charles Swift knows the costs, he at least has his reputation and career in tact, can practice civillian law, but what of CIA?

Do you imagine that leaving the craddle to grave trust over what Cheney described as a 'policy dispute' is as easy? Do you imagine as a matter of principle that financially you can just quit?

No I'm not making the 'malicous obedience' argument, just pointing out the facts. And also pointing out that the message was VERY CLEAR, that punishment was metted out to those whom didn't want to follow the policy.

There was a sentiment after 911 that there was going to be some pay-back, and that sentiment was sold an promoted in media and by our leaders. If you advocated a rational approach, you were a pussy! If you didn't bandwagon the Iraq intel you were a Pussy! Men wanted to see combat, Real men wanted to see combat in Iran! There wasn't good enough targets in Afghanstan anyway.

So take a good look what happened to Eric K. Shineski, what happened to former Ambassador Joseph C. Wilson, and 'other' examples of disagreement. General Pace fervently disagreed, saying that any US service member had an obligation to intervene if he or she witnesses inhumane treatment.

There is no question in hindsight that many of these policy decisions, and the obstinance behind them were wrong, recall the dismay after tight elections the 'day after' Rumsfeld's resignation.

So before you make assumptions lets hear what Rodriguez has to say if he is offered immunity, with the understanding that if he commits perjury that similar to GONZO history can bite him in the ass.

The question I would like to ask is: "When if ever did you think on balance that torture was a bad policy decision and why?"

But spoliation, adjudication of GITMO detainees, and pending litigation will have to wait until such time as a nation we can have a disourse on coercion of testimony, and I'm aware that justice delayed is justice denied, but as imperfect as that stands, it seems to me that we are starting to return to the rule of law as a nation.

Lets hear Rodriguez speak for himself, under oath, and with immunity.

Bob wrote on January 10, 2008 8:16 PM:

Congress should not give anyone immunity unless Justice starts to whitewash everything. I have a hard time believing that they destroyed the tapes without someone of importance in the White House giving them the OK. Harriet Miers said no, but who said yes? What did the President or Vice-President know and when did they know it?

On the other hand, I do hate cover-ups and crooks as much as the next TPM poster, but I couldn't give a rats ass if they waterboarded some genuine al Qaida guys. Renditioning and detaining truly innocent people is a much worse offense, so why isn't that being investigated? Is kidnapping legal now?

Anonymous wrote on January 10, 2008 9:19 PM:

Dee Illuminati wrote on January 10, 2008 5:31 PM

Dee I,

You raise many excellent points, and your comments are coherent, hard hitting, and well written. Yet, after reflection, we diverge on one point: the JAGs in 2001 -- going forward -- well communicated to the DOJ-DoD that there were war crimes issues in re prisoner treatment. Specifically, the JAGs mentioned _civilians_ could be prosecuted. It would appear _from the outset_ it was well known the Geneva Conventions applied, _regardless_ their detention point, who held them, or other details.

My concern is Rodriguez has waited this long -- in 2007/8 timeframe, fully 6 years after the JAGs first raised their concerns -- and he wants to provide "truthful information" only on condition of immunity.

- Where was Rodriguez when DoJ-DoD were discussing the POW status under Geneva? He appears to have been in a position to know of the requirements. Despite this, it appears he well knew of the JAG's concerns with POW treatment relative to Geneva; and despite the apparently _foreseeable_ ICC-interest in these areas -- as teh JAGs well raised -- he appears to have assented to an order to destroy the tape.

He does not appear to be in a position to negotiate anything. He either cooperates with the inquiry -- about the _contents of the tape (alleged torture), which DOJ is _not_, repeat NOT focusing on now -- or we find other sources of evidence. But itappears, with what little we know, it's premature to offer Rodriquez immunity.

there are too many lines of evidence that "should" exist explaining:
- How does the "order' to destroy the tapes -- on the supposed basis of "there is no further inquiry, and the tapes are not needed -- square with the 2001-goig-forward-JAG-concern that the issues of Prisoner treatment would be an ICC issue?
- How do we explain OVP's non-compliance with 32 CFR 2800 rewiring OVP to retain data, subject of federal law _despite_ the JAG's documented concerns to DOJ OLC, which OVP legal counsel would be involved?
- Why was Addington concerned the movement of prisoners from Eastern Europe would be an admission that the original treatment was not lawful?
- what of the EU-EC _criminal_ investigation into the rendition effort?
- Who, after time, will surface, and substantially provide _more_ information that Rodriguez is not able to produce?
- What kinds of evidence do _foreign powers_ -- which have an interest to secret war crimes evidence -- have that will provide the US and ICC with _other, larger_ lines of evidence that Rodriguez doesn't know about?
- What information technologies could exist or be created that would help squeeze more evidence, above and beyond that available now?
- Other questions related to evidence We the People have not been allowed to see, but has been provided in secret, but could open new doors for the grand jury and war crimes prosecutors.

One man surfaces, claims he saw a tape, was supposedly related to its destruction, and he wants _immunity_?!? No. We need to _exhaust_ the other lines of evidence. CIA agents _are_ disclosing to the EU/EC details of rendition flights. Surely, there are others who have seen these tapes. Why offer immunity until we have _exhausted_ all options?

there is no statute of limitations. This Congress, despite allegations of war crimes, has done nothing in re impeachment. Who is going to argue the opposite: "That we need to _rush_?" Get real. Alleged war crimes by the _President_ are getting a yawn; it defies reason to _rush_ an investigation of a single CIA agent.

We need to find out who else knows, who else was involved, and what _other agents_ can tell us _before_ we get back to Rodriguez. There's no guarantee he has anything of value; but there is a guarantee that if we rush something without exhausting other lines of evidence, we'll be repeating the errors decided in re Iraq WMD: It's an illusory timeline; war crimes do not have a statute of limitation.

Time for Congress to respect the principle of _no statute of limitations_ for these issues: No need to grant immunity; no rushing; and exhaust all other lines of evidence. There is no rush. The only one who appears to benefit by rushing -- for unknown reasons -- is Rodriguez. Let him wait. there is not need to rush; there are other lines of evidence; and the "other people" involved can be induced to disclose things that may contradict what Rodriguez has disclosed. Time to subject all of Rodriguez' statements to examination; there should not be any grant of immunity; and Congress cannot credibly argue any grant of immunity would be something that services the interests of justice, nor the Geneva conventions.

The question the ICC may consider: Was it irresponsible to have granted immunity for crimes which the US alone does not have absolute jurisdiction; and even if there is immunity, does this prevent the ICC from adjudicating crimes against those in Congress who appear to grant immunity as if they have a pardon power.

Again, there is no statute of limitations for these alleged war crimes. There is no need to rush. It's time for the legal leadership to step forward, do as was done at Nuremberg, and outline a larger plan to adjudicate these alleged war crimes before war crimes tribunals. Rodriguez should not be rewarded with immunity, especially as there has been no leadership in Congress to pressure anyone to appoint a _single_ leader to review these legal issues. Rodriguez appears to have appointed himself that leader and is asking everyone -- before any facts are known outside his control -- to not hold him accountable. It's too early to make a decision. We don't have to make a decision.

We the People do not have a reason to settle. The facts are not known. And We the People have not been informed what we're asked to "settle"; nor do we have the power to immunize absolutely issues of _international_ war crimes, and alleged evidence destruction in re Geneva violations. It's time to broaden the review to examine other creative lines of evidence that would help guide war crimes prosecutors. Where there is no statute of limitations, and the congress shows marginal interest in _Presidential_ crimes, there is little to support any assertion that things "must" be rushed; or, conversely, that "not rushing" will be a bad signal. No, that is a problem for the Congress to wrestle with, not for the public to worry about. This is a problem _Congress_, the _Courts_, and Executive branch have created for themselves. If they do grant immunity, and there are _other_ lines of evidence, the public needs to discuss _Constitutional restraints_ that will prohibit the US members of Congress from granting immunity in re war crimes issues; and ensure _all_ who take the oath know: IF you engage in war crimes, you cannot rely on any trickery or bargaining to sidestep your _oath of office_ obligations to fully respect Geneva.

A grant of immunity, at this stage, for Rodriguez should be a wakeup call for Americans: Without being "concerned" with impeachable offenses, the Congress has voted to rush, ignored the lessons of Goodling's apparent uselessness, and acted in a reckless manner. We the People would have a reasonable basis to en masse openly discuss a new method to oversee this reckless government, and formally present in a solemn ceremony a new Constitution. Immunity raises the reasonable issue of loss of US government legitimacy: Unwillingness to respect Geneva; defiance of Geneva; and a failure to respect the JAGs concerns from 2001 related to Geneva. The Congress might as well abrogate Geneva.

Geneva is important: If the US refuses to fully enforce it -- and withhold a grant of immunity now -- _other_ combatants may do the same as depicted on the tape: Detain, without charge, Americans; and accuse them, without evidence, of illegal activity; and punish them, without trial, using torture. This is the principle of retalation and reciprocity. Immunity will say, "We in Congress are willing to expose _all_ Americans to that consequence because we would rather immunize _one_ alleged war criminal than defend _all_ Americans from _lawful_ reciprocal acts under Geneva. That is not acceptable. If that happens, real change means an open, immediate public discussion to rewrite this failed system of governance, and recast it as something that respects the Rule of law, not the dealing of one who is alleged to have an artificial timeline to advance his personal interests. We the People are sovereign; Rodriguez is not our master. He will wait. The broader investigation needs to continue.

Rocker5150 wrote on January 12, 2008 7:36 PM:

What they should do is bring in Seymour Hersh so he can testify about the sodomization of children in front of their mothers that was on videos he saw with his own eyes. Where are THOSE tapes? Of course whoever filmed them would be guilty of producing child pornography, and the participants would face incredibly serious charges, so I doubt they will ever find their way out of the vault. I don't know which one of these sick, depraved, pieces of filth ordered such behavior, but my money says that Rodriguez knows all about it.

Denversands wrote on January 21, 2008 3:23 PM:

There seems to be a lot of government employees, elected or hired, refusing to testify about their governmental activities with claims of protecting themselves from self-incrimination and/or demanding immunity from prosecution for their testimony…testimony which only covers their activities performed for the government. How is it that these folks get into government and do not understand that we the people need them to be responsible for their actions and when something wrong to admit it and accept the consequence?

Jose Rodriguez, you are a government employee and you set a damnable example of reprehensible behavior for your children and family by this request for immunity over your actions in this case. What is more important in this situation Jose Rodriquez is not your 5th amendment right against self-incrimination for you are an individual working for us in our government. A government that is supposed to be transparent in its function and operation. And so setup that when something goes wrong with it we can find out the true extent of the problem and rectify the situation so good governance and trust be quickly restored.

I have a hard time trusting any level of government local, state or federal when guys like you work for it and successfully use the constitution to shield my right to know “what are you are up to”?

Maybe a change to the 5th amendment would be in order to prevent those in government from shielding their activities from any legal inquiry, grand jury, or congressional investigation. It could take the form as the following in quotes:

…nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself "unless he is an elected official or governmental employee for any criminal case involving his governmental activities",…

As one can plainly see this change only applies to their “governmental activities” . Any other non-governmental activities are still guide by the prohibition against self-incrimination.

Being this is an election year and various candidates are answering questions at rallies a good one to ask would be:

Mr or Ms. XXXXXX if you were called before any legal inquiry, grand jury or congressional investigation can you tell us right now that you would never invoke your 5th amendment right against self-incrimination when asked to testify about any of your governmental activities?

Another question could be a variation of the first and meant to apply to their employees:

Mr or Ms. XXXXXX would you tell your personally appointed federal staff that they can only work for you if they never invoke their 5th amendment right against self-incrimination when asked about any activities they performed for you?

It would be refreshing to have those in government to be interested in protecting the institutions of a democracy more than trying to protect their bottoms. If they can’t protect their bottoms via the 5th then maybe we would get a better government staffed with efficient accountable officials.