Two related articles at the Washington Times today. The first discusses Obama’s post-partisan blame-the-Republicans performance in his most recent presser:
President Obama said his prime-time press conference on Day 100 of his presidency was intended as a “look forward to … all of the hundreds of days to follow,” but it turned into more of a look back in anger, complete with finger-pointing.
Throughout his hourlong session in the White House East Room on Wednesday, the candidate who vowed a new post-partisan Washington, free from the rancorous bickering that often grinds the city to gridlock, ripped Republicans as the members of a do-nothing party of no.
He began at the top, calling his predecessor, the former head of the Republican Party, a torturer.
“Waterboarding was torture,” he said, making no exception for post-Sept. 11 circumstances and giving no credence to claims that the “enhanced interrogation techniques” authorized by George W. Bush saved Americans lives.
“We could have gotten this information in other ways,” Mr. Obama said, without adding that Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, the self-described planner of the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, was waterboarded 183 times before he divulged plans of a massive attack planned against Los Angeles.
The cerebral president, who most recently shook hands with America-hater Hugo Chavez of Venezuela and plans talks with nuke-happy Iranian leaders, was content to muse philosophically: “Could we have gotten that same information without resorting to these techniques?”
The second details a letter to the CIA by US House of Representatives Select Committee on Intelligence Chairman Silvestre Reyes, in which Reyes agrees with the President’s decision not to go after CIA employees who were relying on Bush administration legal guidance in using “harsh interrogation methods”:
The letter, which was sent Wednesday and made available to The Washington Times on Thursday, appeared to undercut remarks by House Speaker Nancy Pelosi that there was little Congress could do about harsh interrogations, including waterboarding. The Times reported last month that members of Congress, including Mrs. Pelosi, California Democrat, had been briefed on numerous occasions about the interrogation program for high-value detainees.
“One important lesson to me from the CIA’s interrogation operations involves congressional oversight,” wrote Mr. Reyes, Texas Democrat. “I’m going to examine closely ways in which we can change the law to make our own oversight of CIA more meaningful; I want to move from mere notification to real discussion. Good oversight can lead to a partnership, and that’s what I am looking to bring about.”
The letter both seeks to excuse Democrats who were briefed after Sept. 11, 2001, about interrogation techniques such as waterboarding and at the same time suggests that members of Congress cleared to receive highly classified material have a responsibility in the future to let their criticisms be known.
You can read the letter via a link in the article (pdf). As the reporters suggest, the interesting aspect of the letter is that it links Congressional oversight and the activities of the agents, while seeking to exonerate both parties. That probably was not what Reyes intended to do, but it could be that he felt he couldn’t count on his colleagues or the CIA to read between the lines of a subtler approach. In other words, he says in effect that Obama’s administration is going to push the investigation into “torture” as far as a framing that Congress bears no blame will allow, and that the CIA has a vested interest in seeing that it goes no further by keeping their mouths shut.
As usual, the transparency is purely accidental.
Somewhat unrelated: LA Times photoshops serial killer to appear black
More: Justice is blind. And possibly dumb. Deval Patrick for Supreme Court?
“The letter both seeks to excuse Democrats who were briefed after Sept. 11, 2001, about interrogation techniques such as waterboarding and at the same time suggests that members of Congress cleared to receive highly classified material have a responsibility in the future to let their criticisms be known.”
The Dems are squealing like stuck pigs because the reactionary left will throw them overboard if they don’t renounce these techniques, even though they worked, and also want the right to cut out the CIA entirely from the leak process and directly reveal such programs in the future.
I guess the Bill of Rights really is a suicide pact.
For the changiness!
With all the foot shuffling going on at the front of the caravan and the dog barking back there in the rear of the train surrounding these issues, the one most disturbing new fact that has come out is the revelation that President Obama reads Andrew Sullivan as a source, for the moral guidance.
What we do know, without a scintilla of doubt, is that Nancy Pelosi lied through her teeth in a pathetic attempt to cover her bony ass. She will throw as many intelligence officials under the bus as necessary to keep said ass draped.
I don’t get it, really. It’s a high-risk/low-reward proposition for Obama.
For all that “Bushitler made more terrorists and America less safe” rhetoric, there wasn’t a single significant terrorist attack on American interests outside of a theater of war for the remainder of his terms. Now, it appears that Obama wishes to dismantle a large portion of that apparatus that made this period possible. So that, what, MoveOn and CodePink will not think mean thoughts about him? What are they going to do in protest, vote Republican?
If, God forbid, this country is struck by another attack, the political hellstorm resulting from it could be all-consuming.
[the revelation that President Obama reads Andrew Sullivan as a source, for the moral guidance.]
He’s a reader! Of course, he’d want to consult the One True Conservative.
Very OT but has anyone seen this yet?
http://www.nypost.com/seven/05012009/news/regionalnews/paterson_burned_by_a_racial_fire_167078.htm
“Paterson, who is legally blind, claimed in a sworn deposition that he didn’t see well enough to have fired Maioriello because of his race. “
I don’t agree with President Obama on a lot of things, but you can do effective interrogation without torture or highly coercive methods.
Okay, Joe, but what did the CIA do to KSM to make him spill the beans about L.A.?
Hey Joe, can one effectively carry out justice by selectively choosing to demonize one’s political opposition as decision makers in these events, all the while ignoring the initiative and insistence of the field operatives that they be given permission to embark on an interrogation strategy involving the use of these harsh techniques?
I do not get this argument Joe. Just put yourself in the shoes of the terrorist for a second. Would you willingly part with information to the US government that would harm your cause or foil a terrorist plot you want to succeed? Would you turn traitor to your own people just because the evil infidel captures you and asks you nicely, or would that information have to be forced out of you?
It is not as if we are fighting “good men” who just need a shoulder to cry on and someone to sympathize with in order to turn them to our side. These are highly motivated individuals who view us as their enemy. To think that they will give up information without coercion is retarded IMHO.
Krauthammer today
Is US House of Representatives Select Committee on Intelligence Chairman Silvestre Reyes angling to be this millennium’s Frank Church?
Must the argument be about what did happen and how it might/could/maybe have happened differently (in the worst example of political Monday Morning Quarterbacking I can remember) Pink? Really?
One of the hallmarks of law is presumably its non-arbitrary character. How much more arbitrary can we get when an Executive changes and without process of legislation, simply declares that what had formerly been taken to be within the bounds of the law, as written, is now * * * * SURPRISE!!! * * * * a matter of the new executive’s “{absolute conviction”, outside the bounds?
Mr. Pink, read the Herrington interview. Were the Vietcong good men? Were the Soviets? There are ways to get information by carefully working someone over. The key to breaking a KSM without torture is his insufferable ego.
Obviously there might be a ticking bomb exception, but that is exceedingly rare.
The Deval Patrick story link is to not that story.
And contrary to what TV (and cops on TV) says, as a percentage of not-already-otherwise-imprisoned American men of serial-killing age, black guys are overrepresented among (known) serial killers. Don’t repeat that in mixed company. White people don’t like the sound of it.
The key to breaking KSM Joe, seems currently to be “Use your imagination”. Unicorns! Rainbow sprinkles! Farie dust!
14.Comment by Joe on 5/1 @ 8:10 am #
Obviously there might be a ticking bomb exception, but that is exceedingly rare.
So, you don’t think KSM was one of the rare exceptions? If not KSM, then who?
Well His Word is Law, all that existed before him was fundementally flawed. The old law is part of the stale ideological arguments of the past, the failed policies of the past 8 years. We must build the new Law not on sand, but on a firm foundation of His Word. Or some such bullshit I am getting lost following the trail of feces.
Monday morning QB is a good analogy for this bullshit though. Except on Monday morning the new Head Coach not only wants to declare the West Coast offense illegal and set up a side show of putting the wide recievers that ran the slant routes on trial, but wants the opposing team to have full access to the playbook in the process.
Actually Sdferr, do not place me with the unicorn crowd. Did you read the Herrington interview? If you want to disagree with me and say we should waterboard as public policy, fine. And obviously the lesser techniques are not torture.
I am also NOT for punishing the Bush Administration for what they did regarding interrogations after 9/11. I disagreed with many things Bush did, I know there was spill over from the CIA program (via Rumsfeld) that screwed up operations and the occupation in Iraq, but I also respect Bush for keeping this country from another attack. I am for refining what we do and do not do in interrogations. I assume torture works to some extent, I also know the most effective means of interrogation are done without torture. There was a German officer during WWII who managed to get the vital information out of Allied airmen (all who were patriots and not willing to give up such secrets) by simply talking with them and carefully working them till their guard fell. A skilled interrogator can get information out of the hardest case.
Waterboarding KSM did not shock my conscience.
Why not “place you with the unicorn crowd” Joe, at least to the extent that you are beavering away at a manifest fiction about “the key to breaking KSM”?
I am definately one person that shouldn’t be discussing waterboarding anyway. I’d happily waterboard every last foreign citizen captured that we had credible evidence they were a terrorist to stop one American from getting a splinter. And I would do it with a smile on my face. So I am very glad I am not the one making those decisions because mine would probably be very wrong.
You have to feel for the guys that made those calls in the months after 911. Now they have to put up with a bunch of pussies that know nothing about their jobs and are years removed from their decisions pointing fingers at them. Calling them torturers and putting their freakin faces up on the news. F@#@ ABC.
20.Comment by Joe on 5/1 @ 8:23 am #
Waterboarding KSM did not shock my conscience.
Is that an affirmative regarding appropriate use of waterboarding?
There is a compelling case for waterboarding KSM given what happened on 9/11. A president sometimes has to make difficult choices and waterboarding is one of those things you definitely do not want to do lightly. I would not say it is affirmatively okay, because 99.9% of the time it is not.
That remains to be seen as every word, every action, everything, can and will be redefined by political expediency. Moment to moment political expediency.
The rulebook is whatever O! imagines it to be every morning. Like the price of gold under FDR.
I don’t really care how someone feels about methods like waterboarding, the fact that what we do or don’t do is public knowledge is fucking pathetic. When bedwetters like Joe above talk about there being more effective methods the FACTS are that it is nothing but a lame platitude and that every person’s psychological makeup is different and because of that simply knowing our limits is a victory for these jihadist nutbags. I’m really amazed that there are otherwise serious people who aren’t smart enough to understand that, regardless of what the fruitcakes of the international left want to believe, the message sent to these cretins in treating them like schoolgirls is not that we are a shining beacon of humanity but that we are weak and lacking in resolve.
*I’d happily waterboard every last foreign citizen captured that we had credible evidence they were a terrorist to stop one American from getting a splinter*
Same here. Also, I’d be for waterboarding Sean penn, tim robbins, Hugo Chavez, Kim Johg Il and Mattttt Damonnnn.
Actually, I wouldn’t give Joe too much crap about this. We’d hate to end up like the left, where we stick it to anybody who disagrees on one point but generally agrees on alot of other things.
I can understand his side of it, I think- I just vehemently disagree with it.
The issue here, as far as I’m concerned about it, isn’t a question of parsing how the United States should interrogate al-Qaeda prisoners from here on out into the future. That is an important issue for another time.
The issue now is, how we are to judge the actions of the many civil servants acting on our behalf (and mostly outside our knowledge at the time) in the past? And the “new” judgment seems to be: they were “torturers”, acting outside the “ethical bounds” of the “American character” as defined by Barack Obama and his allies, hurting American war efforts against al-Qaeda rather than, as they thought they were doing, helping those war efforts, disserving American interests as opposed to advancing them.
Speaking only for myself, this is a highly offensive stance. It amounts, analogously (in D. Dennett’s metaphor), to watching a golfing partner miss a foot and a half putt, only to credit himself with making it, on the grounds that he “always makes those”. Only, he obviously doesn’t always make those. He just missed.
Did anyone believe that the United States wouldn’t suffer another attack after 9/11? We waterboarded 3 out of how many? I hope it met Joe’s upper limit of .1%?
I hope it met Joe’s upper limit of .1%
?!Arrrrggh!
Both Joe and Krauthammer make the point: An absolutist position vis a vis aggressive interrogations as “torture” puts an idealized philosophical position above human lives. As I argued on another thread the only way to be honest with said absolutist position is to be willing to potentially sacrifice any amount of American lives to maintain a moral high ground.
The last time I checked the Founders mentioned in the Declaration of Independence that The Creator endowed all men with “unalienable rights” which included “Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness.” The fact that “Life” comes first is not an accident, IMHO. Without life the other rights are rendered moot. The concept that there is no nuanced position on interrogation that doesn’t put the lives of at risk American citizens over an interpretation of American Political Ideals is simply ludicrous.
“The Constitution is not a suicide pact” is still an important concept. It’s been demonstrated that water boarding worked on KSM and that it took 183 times to get him to cough up the info about the second cell working on the LA attacks. I would prefer that someone else’s purely academic treatise on higher moral ground not put my family or any other Americans in jeopardy.
I’m particular that way.
That’s nice. Now go play outside while the adults talk.
I feel like a vagina even discussing this. It reminds me of the time CNN aired the video of some marines clearing a building where one marine ventilated a guy that was on the ground. The pussy little CNN anchors then sat in their comfortable chairs thousands of miles away from the incident sipping coffee and pontificated on how that was not right.
Who am I, with no on hands knowledge of the incidents in question and farrrrrrrr removed in time and from any of the repercussions and pressures of it, to pass judgment? I am sitting here in the comfort and safety of my tiny cubicle in Northern VA sipping coffee, safety in part provided by the interrogators in question. Who the F@#@ gives a crap about anyone’s opinion on this? If I was one of those interrogators I would go around slapping people. Seriously the only thing missing from this equation is people going up to these agents spitting on them and calling them baby killers.
I don’t really care how someone feels about methods like waterboarding, the fact that what we do or don’t do is public knowledge is fucking pathetic.
Right there! There it is!
When that fucking bleeding heart imbecile obama is willing to video tape every single fucking word he utters to every single fucking one of his crime partners, then we’ll talk about opening the lid on the stuff we do to keep the country safe. Waterboarding is out because it’s been outed. Now come up with some other fast, non-lethal, non-permanent-psychological-damaging method that works. Because as I said, waterboarding is out now and KSM was crowing like a fucking democrat after he sang like a pussy. TOTAL BULLSHIT!
I agree with Joe. We should not have water boarded these folks. We should have shot them.
So you have been golfing with former President Clinton. Or at least someone with his panache.
Most famous California serial killer? Not photoshopped.
(Can that be shown in Germany?)
What is the over/under on Obama apologizing to this Sheik on the anniversary of 911 this year? Or maybe I shouldn’t say 911 and just say manmade disaster.
Easy, Rob. Joe’s making his way through the question which is not cut and dried.
What Joe fails to mention in that statement is that KSM clearly communicated during his interrogation that ther was something coming, which was supported by the available evidence. Time being of the essence, he was treated to the board of water repeatedly over a short period of time and, eventually gave up the stuff.
I have no objection to the idea of strict guidelines and accountability for aggressive interrogations but that also has to be coupled with protections for those operating in good faith.
Worse, I think, al, is the loss of trust sure to follow in the mind of any thinking field officer (and many a desk jockey) who may be asked (or even, not asked, but simply forced by exigent circumstance) into the vague vicinity of the now unknown impermissible, who should therefore hesitate to act, naturally on guard for his own future, and hesitating, lose the moment of action and with it, many lives.
Does Obama really need to have private conversations? Where is the outrage?
Well, it was Dennett’s metaphor, geoffb, but let’s just say I’ve played with many people for whom the rules of golf are taken in as so much celery, consumed for its negative calories.
Has the ACLU ever been prosecuted or sued for causing permanent damage to someone?
My brain not in gear yet.
Your #41 very much agree. And it will hurt us and suck for a long time.
Where is Silvestre’s district, somewhere on the Tx Gulf Coast ‘tween Houston and C. Cristi, ‘ntit? I wonder how his constituents look on his ex-post waffling, or perhaps, whether they even hear of it?
The wit and wisdom of Silvestre Reyes circa December 2006.
That’s a timely reminder geoffb. Scary, but timely.
Harmon’s phone tap pal one of these?
Not, thinking on it. These guys were the objects of the conversation Harmon was having with someone else.
Sdferr,
Oh, the denizens of both DKos and Stormfront will NOT be happy with that. Not at all.
your deval link is doing that gmail thing I have to go to texas now
Thanks, hf, should be fixed now.
Sorry, but it is cut and dried.
o Unlawful combatant — not under protection of the laws of war
o Not a US citizen — not under the protection of US law
o Known terrorist planner, organizer, facilitator — enough intelligence to justify putting a slug through his skull even after his capture
o Time in custody short enough that he has current information
Thanks to his own actions, the guy has no protection beyond what we’re willing to give and has knowledge that could be used to stop the murders of US citizens and servicemen. I have no problem with forbidding real torture (blood, bones, burns, even bruises), but stress and fear? Go for it.
Andy McCarthy, invited to “…participate in the May 4 roundtable meeting the President’s Task Force on Detention Policy is convening with current and former prosecutors involved in international terrorism cases” declines, in part on grounds that “…it is dismayingly clear that, under your leadership, the Justice Department takes the position that a lawyer who in good faith offers legal advice to government policy makers—like the government lawyers who offered good faith advice on interrogation policy—may be subject to investigation and prosecution for the content of that advice, in addition to empty but professionally damaging accusations of ethical misconduct. Given that stance, any prudent lawyer would have to hesitate before offering advice to the government.”
I’d be for waterboarding Sean penn, tim robbins, Hugo Chavez, Kim Johg Il and Mattttt Damonnnn.
I’d be willing to spring for pay-per-view for any of those, actually.
As I asked in another thread, SBP, there was video of some number of these interrogations, someone destroyed that video (presumably CIA person/s), will they be found at some future date to have obstructed justice? Having to ask the question alone, kills.
Rubicon, Sdferr. Have any of these people ever heard of it?
It seems reasonable to think, SBP, that they have not.
Comment by bigbooner on 5/1 @ 9:11 am #
I agree with Joe. We should not have water boarded these folks. We should have shot them.
Ironically that is fine. I think we should kill al Qaeda every chance we get. Obviously a high value target like KSM is different. We should milk him for infomation and then decide whether we execute him or not depending on interrogation.
I have nothing but contempt for al Qaeda and I hope that their deceased breathren are burning in the depths of hell being cornholed with firey pokers for eternity. Call me naive and a lover of unicorns, but the United States of America should avoid torturing. There are exceptions, there are always limited exceptions that are done on a good faith basis, but it should be very limited.
Which was the Bush administration policy. Which is why there were arguments as to what constitutes torture.
If there was torture, it was done outside of policy and has faced investigation, trial, and where warranted, punishment.
That strikes me as a profound sort of moral confusion Joe.
Or that they cross it willingly, eagerly, without hesitation, or thought for the future, since they see that future as already written in stone. And their future demands that crossing be made.
Easy, man, in KSM’s case I agree with you, as well as the other two. I’m on board with the limited, strictly guidelined use of aggressive interrogation as needed. I also understand Joe’s concern that this not be a de facto easy way in less than really important circumstances because that would reflect badly on our National ideals.
As to the rest of your list as long as we can agree that that list in and of itself does not justify aggressive interrogation I’m on board with everything you listed.
Bottom line: I’ll paraphrase Hillary Clinton on abortion: “I want aggressive interrogation to be safe, legal and rare.” YMMV. And, no, I don’t have a moments palpitating heart of regret for the three asswipe terrorists who were water boarded.
Good point geoffb, damned good.
Tigerhawk goes off for a change!
well sort of….
McCarthy is doing what all should do now because of the crossing. Hell after the Libby thing I vowed to never, in any situation, willingly talk to a Federal agent without an attorney present, wouldn’t be prudent.
Geoff, I was thinking more in terms of the circumstances that prompted Caesar to cross the Rubicon.
The stripping of his consular immunity, I see.
Our intelligence services, nay the whole apparatus of government, has been stripped of any safety from political prosecution at a later date. Only power and the force associated with it is now any protection.
Now to take the librarian I married, to the library. Have to check this later.
Right.
And in case anyone of our moronic trolls try to misinterpret that:
I’m not suggesting that these particular officials would launch a civil war to avoid prosecution.
I’m simply pointing out that prosecuting government officials after they have left office has historically been a very bad idea. If you do that, sooner or later somebody is going to decide to roll those dice.
You’d think that, at a minimum, the Teleprompter Jesus administration would be worried about setting a precedent that could be used against them in the future.
Spoiled, pig-ignorant children that they are, I doubt the thought has ever crossed their minds. They won, after all. They have the power, therefore they will always have the power.
“but the United States of America should avoid torturing.”
See Joe, and I hear you but that’s the rub. A lot of people don’t think that waterboarding is torture. I don’t think we’d torture our own troops, so I don’t think waterboarding is torture, either. BTW, I strongly agree with killing them as much as possible. Though, attrition will take a very, very long time. These aren’t death fearing communists we’re fighting so that comparison is pretty poor, imo.
And when I say, “These aren’t death fearing communists we’re fighting”, I say that as someone who wasn’t for escalation in Iraq and as someone who would rather pack up and leave Afghanistan. But, to point out that to compare our battles with communists to our present (and future) battles with jihadists is silly because they are two entirely different kind of foes. One feared death. The other fears life.
Quote of the Day:
“I come in peace, I didn’t bring artillery. But I am pleading with you with tears in my eyes: If you fuck with me, I’ll kill you all.”
Marine General James Mattis, to Iraqi tribal leaders
So Don Rumsfeld gets pissed that George Tenent is interrogating prisoners with special enhanced techniques, so he and Gen. Miller tells the DoD that the “gloves are coming off”. A few months latter private interrrogation contractors are telling the night crew at Abu Ghraib to “tune up” detainees for interrogations the next day. The night crew is more than willing to do so and stupidly enough takes digital photographs of their homoerotic antics.
So did Don Rumsfeld approve Abu Graib, no. Did it happen as a result of his “taking off the gloves” policy and lack of proper control of this stuff, yeah, in part. He offered to resign twice over it.
Now what happened at Abu Graib was mostly not torture (although some of it was), but it was a terrible political blunder and a huge propaganda victory for Al Qaeda. Intended, no, but it was avoidable.
Joe: Hmph.
The only thing that made Abu Ghraib[*] a “terrible political blunder and a huge propaganda victory for al Qaeda” is the spin put on it by the Media, primarily the New York Times.
American military people misbehaved badly, in fact criminally.
They were reported immediately to the chain of command by other American military people of about equivalent rank. Right there you have eliminated 99% of the militaries in the world — I think we can assume Aussies would have done the same, but I can’t think of anybody else you could depend on for it, not even (maybe especially not) the Brits.
The report went up the chain of command at least as fast as anything else does, and when it came to them, the competent authorities launched an investigation.
The investigation employed experienced investigators who diligently dug into the matter, coming up with (the military equivalent of) indictments in roughly a quarter of the time an equivalent civilian investigation would have required. Those indictments included charges against the flag officer in charge of the mess.
The resulting trials were prompt and fair, and the guilty parties were punished, including the General in charge.
The investigation and trials were conducted in the middle of a media circus in which fingers were being pointed and accusations were being hurled very nearly at random. The investigators and military Courts ignored those irrelevant factors and brought the matter to a conclusion.
I maintained then, and maintain now, that if that “narrative” (which is absolutely true) had been the one taken up by the Press, the result would have been a net positive for the United States — it demonstrates that (1) We make no claim that every American soldier is purely angelic; (2) When we find incidents of misbehavior we investigate, try, convict, and punish the offenders, up to and including the senior officers involved where appropriate.
It’s all a matter of attitude.
Regards,
Ric
Oh, and [*]footnote:
The prison at Abu Ghraib was used by the Hussein Administration as a dumping ground and torture center for approximately twenty years. It is highly unlikely that there is a poor or middle-class Shi’ia resident of Baghdad who does not have a direct experience of conditions there under Saddam, or a close relative who has such experience. I, at least, have not tossed that down the memory hole, and I strongly recommend that you do not. It is a significant fact in the history of the Iraq Adventure.
Regards,
Ric
Joe, what’s your definition of torture? BTW, as usual Ric Locke nails it. The media hated the war (and the president) so they crafted the narrative the way they crafted it.
For the record, so to speak, neo-neocon linked through to a piece in the Guardian titled “The postwar photographs that British authorities tried to keep hidden” which is for the most part about a British run prison camp, Bad Nenndorf in Germany, circa 1945-1947. What’s of interest is the commanding officer, who was tried at court martial, though acquitted of culpability in the evils perpetrated in that camp during his command. If we can judge from the descriptions, men were starved to death there, among other evils, but he mustn’t have known. This fellow, Colonel Robin Stephens, is the very fellow Andrew Sullivan was on about when Obama was reading him and subsequently misquoting Churchill (making it up, more like) to the American people during his press conference the other night. Colonel Stephens is the famous non-torturer of Obama’s dreams.
please please let me get what i want
congressional hearings into torture….
over to you/star witness..
Don Rumsfield!
on c-span please
he’ll f*ck u up! bigtime..
bring it!
LA Times photoshops serial killer to appear black
I don’t get it….
[…] not. As Dan at Protein Wisdom noted, Obama signalled at the 100-day mark that true to Dem form, he wants it both ways … […]
Is it too late to nominate the Dems for a Profiles in Courage award?
Because it takes real guts to stand up and demand alleged criminals be prosecuted for a crime, when, if a crime actually was committed, you were one of the people supervising said criminals.
It’s like something out of a f***ing Batman film.
Amazing.
[…] in Congress were briefed multiple times about enhanced interrogation techniques. I wrote about it, here, and Jules Crittenden has a great round-up about it, […]