So, Bill Frist, Harry Reid, pull together a bipartisan panel made up of your toughest, most skeptical prosecutional-minded members, hire a couple of junkyard dog lawyers to act as GOP and Dem counsels, and let the long overdue hearings begin.

Subpoena everyone who had anything to do with those meetings, including secretaries who transcribed the original minutes. Oh, and when you call oil industry execs back, put them under oath this time. Because they lied last time when they said they had no idea...

(Washington Post, May 2005) A White House document shows that executives from big oil companies met with Vice President Cheney's energy task force in 2001 -- something long suspected by environmentalists but denied as recently as last week by industry officials testifying before Congress ...The document, obtained this week by The Washington Post, shows that officials from Exxon Mobil Corp., Conoco (before its merger with Phillips), Shell Oil Co. and BP America Inc. met in the White House complex with the Cheney aides who were developing a national energy policy, parts of which became law and parts of which are still being debated.

I mean really guys -- if not now, when?

Almost everyone else except Congress has tried to get this information out of the administration. The non-partisan Government Accountability Office (GAO) filed suit in April 2002 seeking access to the records of Cheney's energy task force. But one of those "liberal activist federal judges" dismissed the suit. The Sierra Club carried its fight for those records all the way to the US Supreme Court, which in 2004 voted 7-2 to uphold "a paramount necessity of protecting the executive branch from vexatious litigation."

But just to make sure no one got lucky in court, the administration built a wide moat around all things it feels are none of our damn business; including whatever deals Cheney made in 2001 with energy company CEOs.

"WASHINGTON - As the Bush administration has dramatically accelerated the classification of information as 'top secret' or 'confidential,' one office is refusing to report on its annual activity in classifying documents: the office of Vice President Dick Cheney ... A standing executive order, strengthened by President Bush in 2003, requires all agencies and 'any other entity within the executive branch' to provide an annual accounting of their classification of documents. More than 80 agencies have collectively reported to the National Archives that they made 15.6 million decisions in 2004 to classify information, nearly double the number in 2001, but Cheney continues to insist he is exempt. (Full Story)

It's not as though we don't have good reason to suspect skullduggery was afoot at those meeting -- skullduggery that has now been allowed to manifest itself in the form of war, economic hardship for average Americans and record profits for the Big Energy folk who attended the meetings. Over the past four years we have learned little about what happened at those meetings, but what little we have learned startles even those of us who thought we had seen it all:

"Documents turned over in the summer of 2003 by the Commerce Department as a result of the Sierra Club's and Judicial Watch's Freedom of Information Act lawsuit, concerning the activities of the Cheney Energy Task Force, contain a map of Iraqi oilfields, pipelines, refineries and terminals, as well as two charts detailing Iraqi oil and gas projects, and 'Foreign Suitors for Iraqi Oilfield Contracts.' The documents, dated March 2001, also feature maps of Saudi Arabian and United Arab Emirates oilfields, pipelines, refineries and tanker terminals. There are supporting charts with details of the major oil and gas development projects in each country that provide information on the project's costs, capacity, oil company and status or completion date." (Full Text)

So, did Cheney and oil company executives lick their chops over Iraqi oil less than two years before we attacked over non-existent WMD? When the administration brushed off questions about Cheney's meetings by telling us they concerned "securing America's energy future," was this the plan they cooked up? To overthrow Saddam, set up a puppet government and pump, pump, pump? If so, that plan has gone terribly wrong.

So, shouldn't Congress find out? If not now, when?

Well, let me correct myself. Not everything went wrong for everyone; just 2,800 American kids who died and tens of thousands of Iraqis who died. Now American motorists are getting the shaft. But look who came out smelling like a rose. By disrupting oil supplies from Iraq, the world's third largest producer, and destabilizing the entire oil producing region, and now by threatening Iran, oil companies with oil assets in the Gulf, Alaska and other regions, have seen the price of their oil skyrocket. Clearly a seat at those energy task force meetings was a seat worth having -- worth billions.

"Last week, Exxon Mobil (the majority owner of Imperial Oil (AKA 'Esso') announced its first-quarter profits had risen 14 per cent to $8.4 billion over the same period last year. That followed similar announcements by Conoco/Phillips and Chevron, the next two largest U.S. integrated oil companies. Chevron's profits jumped 50 per cent to $4 billion while Conoco/Phillips saw its profits climb 13 per cent to $3.3 billion."

A citizen would think that such obscene profits, at the very time real wages of working Americans are falling, the cost of heating and cooling their homes rises every month and transportation costs soar, would provide Congress with some backbone.

Senators, this is where the proverbial rubber hits the road. Investigate. Not just Big Oil, but Big Dick as well. Inquiring minds want to know. We are waiting and we are watching. If not now, when?

The May 19, 2004 Defense Intelligence Agency document was among more than 100,000 pages of files turned over by the government to the ACLU under court order as part of a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit.

The DIA inspector general's office document, marked "secret," described an interview in which an officer, whose name was redacted, expressed "knowledge of incidents relating to Iraq prison situation."

It was written three weeks after the first pictures of U.S. forces abusing detainees at Abu Ghraib -- including beating them, stacking naked men in a pyramid and menacing them with snarling dogs -- became public in April 2004.

The officer, who headed a team of three to four interrogators, described a 35-page document detailing "rules of engagement" for interrogators questioning prisoners in Iraq.

"The people were encourage (sic) to go to the outer limits to get information from the detainees by people who wanted the information," the document stated.

'BREAK THE DETAINEES'

It said Sanchez saw a "desperate need" to get intelligence from the prisoners, adding that "HQ (headquarters) wanted the interrogators to break the detainees."

The document did not mention individual interrogation techniques, nor did it link Sanchez to any specific abuses

Sanchez served for about a year as the top commander in Iraq beginning in June 2003, and was in the post during the worst of the abuse at Abu Ghraib. Sanchez currently serves in Germany as commander of the U.S. Army's 5th Corps.

Pentagon officials said the Army takes seriously issues related to detainee abuse.

"The goal has been to examine allegations of detainee abuse or potential reports of detainee abuse, thoroughly investigate them and, if appropriate, handle them through judicial or nonjudicial punishment if substantiated," said Army spokesman Paul Boyce.

Nearly all the U.S. service members who have faced criminal charges for detainee abuse have been low ranking.

"The documents that have been released under the Freedom of Information Act make very clear that senior military officials and civilian leaders should be held accountable for what took place," Jaffer said.

Jaffer also pointed to an April 2, 2004, document -- coming weeks before the Abu Ghraib pictures brought the issue of prisoner abuse to the attention of the world -- detailing 62 military investigations of detainee abuse and death cases.

A previously released September 14, 2003, memo from Sanchez showed that he authorized the potential use of interrogation tactics more harsh than accepted Army practice, including using guard dogs to exploit "Arab fear of dogs."

That memo also allowed for "stress positions," in which a prisoner is placed in potentially painful bodily positions to try to get him to talk.

It said that while Washington has sought to blame abuses that have recently come to light on "aberrant soldiers and lack of oversight," much ill-treatment stemmed from officially sanctioned interrogation procedures and techniques.

"The U.S. government is not only failing to take steps to eradicate torture, it is actually creating a climate in which torture and other ill-treatment can flourish," said Amnesty International USA Senior Deputy Director-General Curt Goering.

The U.N. committee, whose experts carry out periodic reviews of countries signatory to the U.N. Convention against Torture, is scheduled to begin consideration of the United States on Friday. The last U.S. review was in 2000.

It said in November it was seeking U.S. answers to questions including whether Washington operated secret detention centers abroad and whether President George W. Bush had the power to absolve anyone from criminal responsibility in torture cases.

The committee also wanted to know whether a December 2004 memorandum from the U.S. Attorney General's office, reserving torture for "extreme" acts of cruelty, was compatible with the global convention barring all forms of cruel, inhumane or degrading treatment.

UNTIL THE END

In its own submission to the committee, published late last year, Washington justified the holding of thousands of foreign terrorism suspects in detention centers abroad, including Guantanamo Bay in Cuba, on the grounds that it was fighting a war that was still not over.

"Like other wars, when they start, we do not know when they will end. Still, we may detain combatants until the end of the war," it said.

Two former CIA officials told ABC News that Foggo oversaw contracts involving at least one of the companies accused of paying bribes to Congressman Randall "Duke" Cunningham. The story was first reported by Newsweek magazine.

Friendship With Defense Contractor

The California Republican has pleaded guilty after admitting he accepted $2.4 million in bribes in exchange for arranging defense contracts. He was sentenced today to eight years and four months in prison for corruption. Federal law enforcement officials said Cunningham is cooperating and the investigation is continuing.

As executive director of the CIA, Foggo oversees the administration of the giant spy agency. He was appointed to the post by CIA Director Porter Goss after working as a midlevel procurement supervisor, according to former CIA officials.

While based in Frankfurt, Germany, he oversaw and approved contracts for CIA operations in Iraq.

Foggo is a longtime friend of Brent Wilkes, referred to as co-conspirator No. 1 in government documents filed in the Cunningham investigation. The two played high school football and were in each other's weddings.

According to government documents, Wilkes gave Cunningham $630,000 in cash and gifts in exchange for help in getting government contracts.

Wilkes was the founder of ADSC Inc, in 1995. Under Wilkes, the company obtained more than $95 million in government contracts.

Officials say they could not describe the CIA contracts in question because some of them were classified secret.

'Bribe Menu'

Cunningham is involved in what prosecutors call a corruption case with no parallel in the long history of the U.S. Congress. He actually priced the illegal services he provided.

Prices came in the form of a "bribe menu" that detailed how much it would cost contractors to essentially order multimillion-dollar government contracts, according to documents submitted by federal prosecutors for today's sentencing hearing.

"The length, breadth and depth of Cunningham's crimes," the sentencing memorandum states, "are unprecedented for a sitting member of Congress."

Prosecutors will ask federal Judge Larry Burns to impose the statutory maximum sentence of 10 years in prison.

The sentencing memorandum includes the California Republican's "bribery menu" on one of his congressional note cards, "starkly framed" under the seal of the United States Congress.

The card shows an escalating scale for bribes, starting at $140,000 and a luxury yacht for a $16 million Defense Department contract. Each additional $1 million in contract value required a $50,000 bribe.

The rate dropped to $25,000 per additional million once the contract went above $20 million.

At one point Cunningham was living on a yacht named after him, "The Dukester," docked near Capitol Hill, courtesy of a defense company president.

It was Mitchell Wade, another defense contractor who has acknowledged bribing Cunningham, and who is cooperating with investigators, who reportedly told prosecutors about Shirlington's relationship with Wilkes and the latter's alleged pimping scheme. (Wilkes's attorney denies the charge.)

Since my report, Shirlington's role in the case has been covered by national media including the San Diego Union-Tribune, whose reporting on the Cunningham case is indispensable, the New York Times, and the Washington Post, as well as by bloggers Jason Vest at POGO and Laura Rozen at War and Piece. I reported that Shirlington had won a $21.2 million contract from DHS last year, and the Post found a second contract from the agency, worth $3.8 million, awarded in 2004. Vest found yet another contract for Shirlington: $342,555 from the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. And Rozen unearthed a number of interesting finds, including an old Atlanta Journal Constitution article on poker parties that were apparently sponsored by Wilkes.

I've learned more about the Shirlington affair from a source familiar with the company's $21.2 million DHS contract for limousine and bus service. At DHS, the limousines operated by Shirlington are reserved for the most senior agency officials: undersecretaries, senior staff, and senior political appointees. (Department Secretary Michael Chertoff has a separate transport detail.) DHS plebes take a Shirlington bus to travel between the agency's facilities in and around Washington and Virginia; a bus will also drop employees at a Metro stop on the Red Line.

My source told me that under its multi-year, sole-source contract, Shirlington has office space in at least two locations: at the DHS building in upper northwest Washington near American University and at a downtown facility of the General Services Administration, a federal procurement agency. For DHS, Shirlington provides buses, and bus drivers, as well as limousine drivers for GSA-owned limousines.

Shirlington's president, Christopher D. Baker, has a criminal rap sheet that runs from 1979 to 1989. Cab drivers in the Washington area have told me that it would be all but impossible for a man with Baker's past to obtain a license to drive a taxi here, because applying for a license requires the provision of a criminal report and a set of fingerprints cleared by the FBI. Even a string of traffic tickets can lead to the suspension of a taxi license. In fact, being hired to drive a limousine under Shirlington's DHS contract requires a security clearance, which Baker, given his criminal record, would not be able to obtain. Yet Baker had no problem winning a sole-source contract from the DHS that has his company ferrying around town the most senior government officials charged with protecting the country from a terrorist attack. (Neither DHS nor Baker's attorney returned calls seeking comment.)

All of this raises questions. We know that, a few years after his last brush with the law, Baker was retained as Wilkes's exclusive limousine provider. So how did Wilkes and Baker start working together? Did Baker have any other political contacts that helped him win the contracts? And, if so, who?

I'll keep digging . . .