George Bush announced yesterday that he is nominating David H. Laufman to be Inspector General of the Department of Defense. It is a major job even in small times, and for the DoD these are colossal times. So who is this man? The White House provides little more than a skeletal CV:
Mr. Laufman currently serves as Assistant United States Attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia. Prior to this, he served as Chief of Staff for the Office of the Deputy Attorney General at the Department of Justice. Earlier in his career, he served as Investigative Counsel for the House Ethics Committee. Mr. Laufman received his bachelor’s degree from the University of Pennsylvania and his JD from Georgetown University.
You will search in vain for any connection to the military, or any service in an Inspector General’s office. Laufman’s career as an attorney is neither very long nor particularly distinguished; he has no apparent expertise in contract or military law. Why, then, is he the nominee? I’m puzzled, and not in a good way.
It appears that Laufman served as CoS for Larry D. Thompson before he stepped down as Deputy Attorney General in late 2003. I doubt that Laufman’s work as Chief of Staff to Thompson contributed very much to his current nomination to become the chief watchdog of the DoD.
However from the perspective of Bush Co., Laufman has distinguished himself since late 2003 as Assistant U.S. Attorney for Eastern Virginia. For one thing, he served in that capacity under Paul McNulty, who subsequently was appointed Deputy U.S. Attorney General. Never underestimate the force of cronyism in this White House.
Also, Laufman prosecuted a series of cases against members of a putative eastern-Virginia terrorist ring. And in doing so, he proved to be a heavy-handed prosecutor.
Laufman was one of the prosecutors of Randall Royer and Ibrahim Al-Hamdi. These were the feared network of “paintball” terrorists. As Tim Davis has said, in prosecuting actual terrorists
the government’s record is less than stellar. Any successful prosecution is welcome.
Royer and Hamdi were sentenced to 20 years and 15 years in prison.
And it’s not just that Laufman helped to get convictions and heavy sentences in cases where the grounds for prosecution were ambiguous. More significantly for his stock value in Bush Co., I think, was that he gave no quarter to the accused. He also prosecuted Ahmed Omar Abu Ali, convicted of plotting to assasinate Bush. This was the recent graduate of an Islamic high-school who was picked up and held in Saudi Arabia for nearly two years. The evidence for the rather improbable sounding plot was Abu Ali’s confession, allegedly extracted under torture before he was shipped back to the U.S.
In an effort to document his torture allegations which have been strongly denied by government lawyers — attorney Ashraf Nubani filed a motion yesterday asking that Abu Ali be examined by a physician and a psychologist. Court papers said witnesses have seen scars on Abu Ali’s back that are consistent with whippings.
Nubani criticized prosecution efforts to delay the trial until October. Assistant U.S. Attorney David H. Laufman argued the extra time is needed because the case is complex and might require testimony from witnesses who live overseas.
But Nubani said the FBI has had plenty of time to compile its case. FBI agents had full access to Abu Ali during the 20 months he was in Saudi custody, he said.
“The government has not had a case,” Nubani said. “They want time to concoct a case.”
While in jail in the U.S., Abu Ali was prevented from talking to his family except in the presence of FBI agents. He was convicted and sentenced to 30 years in jail.
The heavy sentences Laufman obtained were based on federal sentencing guidelines. The true brilliance of Laufman, from the perspective of Bush Co., is demonstrated by his willingness to argue one day for heavy penalties under sentencing guidelines, and the next day to argue for heavy penalties against the sentencing guidelines.
A federal judge in Alexandria yesterday rejected the government’s second attempt to obtain a long prison sentence for a local financier tied to a terrorist leader, sentencing the man instead to 13 months and one day in prison.
Soliman S. Biheiri, 52, is one of two people convicted as a result of a three-year federal investigation into local financing of terrorism. Prosecutors indicted him twice on charges tangentially related to terrorism. Both times, they asked U.S. District Judge T.S. Ellis III to impose sentences of at least five to 10 years. Each time, Ellis refused….
Prosecutors argued that Biheiri’s lie obstructed their probe of Islamic groups in Northern Virginia being investigated for links to terror. They wanted a five-year term rather than a sentence of eight to 14 months for lying.
On the witness stand, though, Internal Revenue Service agent Mary Balberchak acknowledged that she and Customs agent David Kane already had information about Biheiri’s links to Marzook when they interviewed Biheiri — but that they had forgotten it. Because the government knew about the financial tie between Biheiri and Marzook, “it is not able to carry its burden that there was an actual obstruction of justice,” Ellis said.
At the start of his trial in October, Biheiri pleaded guilty to one count of passport fraud. That count — like the count of lying to a federal agent, on which a jury convicted him — calls for jail time of eight to 14 months, according to federal sentencing guidelines.
But the passport charge carried a possible maximum sentence of 10 years. And after Wednesday’s landmark Supreme Court ruling declaring that sentencing guidelines no longer were mandatory, Assistant U.S. Attorney David H. Laufman invited Ellis to ignore the guidelines, saying, “The shackles are off this court.”
But Ellis declined, saying that the Supreme Court suggested that the sentencing guidelines still should be considered in devising sentences and that he thought they were appropriate in Biheiri’s case.
So here on display are the qualities that perhaps impressed George Bush. Laufman tried to railroad the defendant on a charge of obstruction of justice, though the government already had known the very thing it tried to get the defendant to admit. And the moment the opportunity presented itself, Laufman tried to convince the judge to ignore federal sentencing guidelines so as to hammer the defendant over a relatively minor offense.
Disingenous and ruthless; qualities that investors in Bush Co. look for. But competence, qualification, and principle? Maybe not so much. I’ve poked around a good deal in David Laufman’s career, and for the life of me I cannot imagine how he might possibly be qualified to serve as Inspector General of the Department of Defense. Or does the Office of the IG plan to devote its attention to overseeing the interrogation techniques employed on prisoners? In that sense alone, perhaps, Laufman can claim to be an expert in “national security matters.”
Crossposted at Inconvenient News and Daily Kos.
