Story Comments
Posted by: mesodude 7 months, 4 weeks ago
This page is a permanent archive of the comment below and its replies.
To view this comment in the context of the full discussion for the story, use this link.
-

mesodude7 months, 4 weeks ago
-

nostalgia7 months, 4 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Be careful what you ask for
Reply
Witch hunts often come back to haunt you
Democratic complicity in Bush's torture regimen
The Washington Post reports today that the Bush administration, beginning in 2002, repeatedly briefed leading Congressional Democrats on the Senate and House Intelligence Committees -- including, at various times, Jay Rockefeller, Nancy Pelosi, and Jane Harman -- regarding the CIA's "enhanced interrogation methods," including details about waterboarding and other torture measures. With one exception (Harman, who vaguely claims to have sent a letter to the CIA), these lawmakers not only failed to object to these policies, but affirmatively supported them.
This information was almost certainly leaked to the Post by intelligence officials who are highly irritated -- understandably so -- from watching the manipulative spectacle whereby these Democrats now prance around as outraged victims of policies to which they deliberately acquiesced, when they weren't fully supporting them. Numerous liberal bloggers are already drawing the only conclusions that can be drawn, and expressing their outrage and horror at the Democratic Party leadership. Those sentiments are indisputably appropriate, and I just want to add a few more points to them.
Jay Rockefeller was one of the key Democrats briefed on the torture methods who never objected. But it's far worse than that. In September, 2006, Rockefeller was one of 12 Senate Democrats to vote in favor of the Military Commissions Act, one of the principal purposes of which was to explicitly authorize the CIA's "enhanced interrogation program" to proceed (even though it continues to be illegal under the Geneva Conventions). Thus, not only did Rockefeller remain silent when continuously briefed on illegal torture methods by the CIA, he then voted to legalize those methods by voting in favor of one of the most Draconian laws in modern American history. That law also retroactively immunized government officials from any liability for past lawbreaking.
The Democratic Party in Congress is largely controlled and led by those who have enabled and affirmatively supported the worst aspects of the Bush foreign policy and the most severe abuses of our country's political values.
And efforts to apologize for what these Congressional Democrats have done by claiming that they "were virtually helpless to respond," or suggesting that knowingly inconsequential expressions of private protest are somehow noble, are counter-productive. Why excuse or apologize for the profound failure of those who seek leadership positions on the Intelligence Committee -- who, after all, are being briefed precisely because they are expected to act when they learn of illegal behavior -- when they abdicate their responsibilities? That only encourages such malfeasance to continue.
http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2007/12/09/...-
-
-

nostalgia7 months, 4 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
How much advice do you think attorneys at the Justice Dept will be willing to give Obama if they think the next administration may go on a witch hunt and prosecute them for the advice?
Reply
We are descending to the level of third-world totalitarian banana-republic dictatorships
Are they going to look back this far?
But according to one former agent, Michael Scheuer, the extraordinary rendition programme that has so tainted the agency during the Bush administration actually began in the Clinton administration, when Panetta would, or should, have been fully aware of it.
Scheuer is a curious beast. An opponent of the Iraq War, he was the head of the CIA's get-bin-Laden unit from 1996 to 1999, and he should know what he is talking about. But he is very pro-rendition and was critical of the choice of Panetta on US networks today, mostly because he is an outsider. His claim that Clinton/Panetta started/knew about the outsourcing of torture was repeated by William Kristol and others.
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/alex_spillius/blog/20...-
-

willottica7 months, 4 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
How much advice do you think attorneys at the Justice Dept will be willing to give Obama if they think the next administration may go on a witch hunt and prosecute them for the advice?
Reply
Let's see, if he's looking for advice on how to break the law without it looking like he's breaking the law, or if he's looking for advice on how to bend the law as far as he can before it breaks, then I hope that they won't give him any advice.
A president shouldn't decide that he doesn't like a law and thus seek ways around it. If he doesn't like the law, he should challenge it outright.
-
-
-
-
People Who Liked This Comment (7)
People Who Didn't Like This Comment (2)
Submit a Story
Advertisement

loading ...
Post Reply
You are not signed in to Propeller.com. Please sign in to post a reply.