LHP!

Yoo know it!

Oh boy!

Loosehead!

I’m starting to think that irony is overrated. I’m getting far too much in my diet lately, that’s for sure…

How is it possible that a poorly-thought-out memo can lessen the CIA interrogators’ exposure? Aren’t they supposed to know what is and isn’t permissible?

Say it with me folks: John Yoo!

John Yoo!

I’d never thought of the actual terrorist getting off on a technicality aspect. These criminals are brilliant.

Yessssss…..

“Further–ah delicious, scrumptious irony of ironies–the destruction may have caused some nice slam-dunk criminal exposure. And the magnitude of the possible harm caused by the destruction of that evidence (I mean, sheez! Letting terrorists get off on a technicality YOU CREATED?) might even lead to all kinds of enhancement opportunities for a sentencing judge”

They can’t even torture and cover it up…boneheads….there must be a Goddess.

Strange that Myers had objected and apparently ratted out the Maladministration as EW pointed out, and, the Yoo memos were already rescinded so this should not apply…

Good faith reliance on advice of counsel should be an important factor, among others, to consider in assessing whether a person of ordinary sense and understanding would have known the practices to be unlawful.

Certainly Ironic….!

lhp!

torture is wrong

Yoo Hoo!!!???

What do you mean by enhancement opportunities, LHP?

Say it with me folks: John Yoo!

John Yoo!

John Yoo!

In Washington they are only afraid of two things: loss of power, and jail. This kind of idiocy could actually send them to prison, and they know it.

My pet theory of the moment? That when the CIA brass actually got to read the memos, they got that sinking feeling in their stomachs b/c the memos are so clearly unsupported by law, that they panicked and destroyed the tapes.

This is ONLY a THEORY

Beyond that, Mr. Durham, the prosecutor, has found 17 court orders in 21 lawsuits that required preservation of evidence, and he has said in court papers that his team is investigating whether the tapes’ destruction violated those orders.

And they thought no one would notice? I’m sorry, but the headline is an insult to dirt. I can’t come up with a comparison. Must be the dumbest action ever…

In Washington they are only afraid of two things: loss of power, and jail. This kind of idiocy could actually send them to prison, and they know it.

it’s time for us to show them that ’tis we who really DO have the power

and then we send them to jail.

Evening All :)
Dugg…

It makes you wonder where the tapes are? Have they been incinerated or have they been encased in cement and are now sitting on the bottom of the ocean?

Plausible, though, I think.

There’s a procedure for declassifying tapes. My guess is that they used it, and if so then it wouldn’t matter if those tapes were at the bottom of the sea – they’d be unreadable anyway.

Re: Enhancement Opportunites:

Under the federal Sentencing Guidelines there is a points system assigned to each of the acts for which you are being sentenced. Not just the crimes, but the underlying acts.

So, If I rob a bank spur of the moment, I don’t use a weapon (just my finger in my pocket, and no one gets hurt, I get a given score.

If I rob a bank by spending months getting the plans and figuring out a complicated method for breaking into the vault (length and complexity of planning), use a weapon, and when I am racing away in the getaway car I run over a little old lady and the boy scout who was helping her across the street, I get extra points or enhancements to my score.

The higher the score, the longer the prison term.

You mean they taped over them? Even that is creepy! ;-)

the headline is an insult to dirt

I’m eating dinner and you did not give me a spew alert. Just got sausage and peppers up my nose.

LOL

Maybe it’s downloaded porn!

I’m eating dinner and you did not give me a spew alert. Just got sausage and peppers up my nose.

so now you’ll have to get some milk up your nose then

Wow, all the usual suspects…

Congressional officials said that among the White House officials they intend to interview are David S. Addington, chief counsel for Vice President Dick Cheney, and former Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales. The list of current and former C.I.A. officials includes the former C.I.A. directors George J. Tenet and Porter J. Goss as well as several C.I.A. lawyers who gave legal advice about the tapes.

Little is known about the progress of the criminal investigation led by Mr. Durham. But his team has interviewed members of the Sept. 11 commission, including Philip D. Zelikow, the panel’s former executive director, as part of an inquiry into whether the C.I.A. broke the law by withholding the tapes from the commission.

Um, seriously, for anything that’s considered disposable anyway, the procedure usually ends with the complete destruction of the medium.

Sorry, I have a clean hanky for you.

gotcha. Thanks.

OT I am often critical of Mark Shields on the weekly wrap up that he and Brooks do on the NewsHour but for once he did wake up briefly. He called the ABC debate “offensive”. Of course, he couldn’t leave it just at that. He had to praise Gibson and Stephanopoulos for their past work but for Shields to notice the bias in the debate goes far in showing how deep that perception was in those who watched.

maybe the working title for the ‘principals’ re; viewing the tapes etc, was Movie nights….

The dam is breaking.

OT I am often critical of Mark Shields on the weekly wrap up that he and Brooks do on the NewsHour but for once he did wake up briefly. He called the ABC debate “offensive”. …

yeah, that was newsflash for me too
out of step with the rest of the MSM’s protecting-their-own way

Good gawd! It probably is! LOL

I’m sure Bobo reiterated his belief that they were excellent questions and a good debate, right? ;-)

My pet theory of the moment? That when the CIA brass actually got to read the memos, they got that sinking feeling in their stomachs b/c the memos are so clearly unsupported by law, that they panicked and destroyed the tapes.

This is ONLY a THEORY

So is evolution.

This whole thing has panic written all over it. I’m not a lawyer, but even I knew that when Yoo’s memo did not addressing Youngstown, something was rotten in Denmark, so to speak.

Career folks in any department have nightmares about being hung out to dry by the political appointees. Low level political appointees have even more nightmares about being hung out to dry by higher-level appointees. Given the way this whole scenario has played out, I’d be amazed if ANYONE at the CIA or anyone below the level of Assistant Secretary at the DOJ has been sleeping well.

I wonder what else the White House and their Members have done behind the backs of Americans? Has anyone looked at the original US Constitution to make sure they haven’t changed anything while we were sleeping or slipped in a completely new version?

Do we need anymore evidence that Bushco is NOT MAKING US SAFER?

Isn’t it ironic that State and DoD were left out of the infamous Principals’ Meeting…?

What do you mean, “left out”? Powell and Ashcroft were both there.

IIRC, Powell wasn’t there…!

All these guys doing CYA makes me wonder…do they remember what they are supposed to be doing, the goal of their job?
I wonder how many people are completely compromised?
What will they NOT do in order to save themselves, their careers?

Has anyone looked at the original US Constitution to make sure they haven’t changed anything while we were sleeping or slipped in a completely new version?

I bet they tell “jokes” like this at the National Archives.

Did everyone see that Clinton is not happy with her activist base?

Powell was there, CTuttle. I’ll find it.

OT, (of course)
Meanwhile, another big corp is quietly doing business…..bastards…

‘For the Dongria Kondh tribe of eastern India, the Niyamgiri Hills in which they have lived for thousands of years, are sacred. But now a mining company with its eye on rich mineral deposits is about to displace the entire tribe, and end their way of life for ever.’ By Peter Foster
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/ear…..ribe19.xml

I bet they tell “jokes” like this at the National Archives.

LOL!

LHP writes:

(I mean, sheez! Letting terrorists get off on a technicality YOU CREATED?)

But isn’t that usually the case? Aren’t many of the so-called “technicalities” that criminals get freed from due to some type of self-inflicted idiocy performed by Law Enforcement? Like trying to beat a confession out of someone? Or profiling? Or illegal search and seizure? Or any of the other areas where Law Enforcement performs short-cuts, over steps the bounds and it winds up costing them?

There were a couple of questions in that first segment that were legitimate given how new the developments were, but to spend so much time on such nonsense really was deplorable. I’m a bit surprised that Bobo didn’t catch on, actually.

I believe that was well covered last thread…

I wonder what they think when they see all the White-Out, erasure marks, or those little black specks & lines that appear from documents being copied & recopied over and over? Huh. I wonder. They could make jokes about it like you pointed out.

What I want to know is there any sort of tape/recording of the principal’s meeting.

The meeting where Ascroft said maybe we shouldn’t be talking about this in the WH.

Here it is.

At the time, the Principals Committee included Vice President Cheney, former National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and Secretary of State Colin Powell, as well as CIA Director George Tenet and Attorney General John Ashcroft.

From the WaPo…

The Post reported that the attendees at one or more of these sessions included then-presidential counsel Alberto R. Gonzales, then-Attorney General John D. Ashcroft, then-Defense Department general counsel William J. Haynes II, then-National Security Council legal adviser John B. Bellinger III, CIA counsel John A. Rizzo, and David S. Addington, then-counsel to Cheney.

The Post reported that the methods discussed included open-handed slapping, the threat of live burial and waterboarding. The threat of live burial was rejected, according to an official familiar with the meetings.

State Department officials and military lawyers were intentionally excluded from these deliberations, officials said.

State Department officials and military lawyers were intentionally excluded from these deliberations, officials said.

What I think happened was that Shrub/Cheney wanted to use torture, the military and CIA refused saying that they didn’t want to go to jail,

So, Addington/Cheney told Yoo to craft a memo that said torture was OK and that those who do torture at the President’s order are immune from prosecution.

Then the “principals” go back to the relevant agencies/military branch and say “we have a memo, it’s top secret and you can’t see it, but OLC says we can do this and you won’t be criminally liable. So, do it, or you will be found to be insubordinate”

If your are in the military insubordination can land you in the brig.

If you are CIA, insubordination can get you fired or maybe worse (I’ve never worked for the CIA, so I’m getting way ahead of my actual knowledge).

So, the poor smucks in CIA and DOD go ahead and do what they are told.
And make tapes to prove that they are not going beyond the rules established for “enhanced Interrogation Techniques”.

THEN- the memos come to light and they get to read them–and you have the sinking feeling in pit of stomach. Cause anybody reading them knows they are worthless

If you see Loo Hoo’s comment @ #54, it is obvious that there’s a disconnect on what the WaPo0 says it reported versus what ABC reported.

For myself, I’m somewhat inclined to believe that the ABC report may be the more accurate one.

I agree that Powell is a principal, but, he wasn’t present for the actual discussion…!

OMG, it is confusing. Well, we know Bush approved it.

But isn’t that usually the case? Aren’t many of the so-called “technicalities” that criminals get freed from due to some type of self-inflicted idiocy performed by Law Enforcement

Yes, but we have been asked to give up our civil rights, plunge the country in rillions of dollars of debt, end the lives of our children in a desert war–all becasue getting the terrorists was the ONLY priority of this asministration

If there is one thing that ought to be done with complete excellence–getting terrorists should be it.

Here’s what ABC reported (Charlie Gibson is in it…plug your nose):

http://youtube.com/watch?v=2NuHwXmGOE4

And RichardCA, I doubt there’s a recording of this meeting. If there is, it’s also been destroyed. I always thought that all meetings in the White House were transcribed and considered public property. Anyone know if this is true or not? Of course, this explains why the RNC servers were used by Rove & others over the years. Bastards.

Actually, I would give more credence to Wapo’s version as they go more in depth, and I seem to recall Wilkerson’s musing about Powell asking; WTF just happened ? I may be errant but Sand also mentioned that Powell was left in the dark too…!

Be helpful to know who the officials were, huh?

So, did they destroy the tapes because they know that these memos are so bad that they will not trigger the immunity provision of the Detainee Treatment Act?

just arrived, so forgive me if this has already been said, but when i read this bit… my first thought was to wonder if fisa immunity was needed for the same reasons – the memos are so bad they won’t protect anyone.

I’m a bit surprised that Bobo didn’t catch on, actually.

I can’t give him that much credit, that he’d possibly catch on.

.
Did you see his first take on the debate?
No Whining About the Media
just a tidbit

…Democrats, and especially Obama supporters, are going to jump all over ABC for the choice of topics: too many gaffe questions, not enough policy questions.

I understand the complaints, but I thought the questions were excellent…

sorry for the OT lhp

Let’s not forget too that the president sets the mission. He wanted to go into Iraq at any cost and he needed those around him to give him the ‘tough guy’ image he so longed for his whole life. Torture was the prescription.

It was almost like a dream come true for these assholes. Ever since Nixon, they yearned to have their own “Islam Karimov” (leader of Uzbekistan who likes to boil people alive for fun, games, and daily fun) running America.

I tend to not give credence to the WaPo0, especially since the time frame they claim they reported it is during the time when they were still pretty much in the tank even more than they are currently with the admin.

As always, YMMV.

I agree, but, the detail in which they go and the fact it’s detrimental to the Maladministration lends credibility to that article… I may be wrong, but, that’s the impression I’m left with…! 8-)

ot, sorta…

lhp, did you see this from mcjoan:

In a speech to the American Bar Association, Mueller asked the assembled defense lawyers for help in “creating a culture of integrity” by reporting evidence of wrongdoing by politicians and corporate executives alike.

“Anyone who follows the news these days and sees repeated references to corporate fraud and public corruption might think the nation is in the midst of a moral crisis,” Mueller told the defense attorneys. “Have we as a society become more corrupt? Or have we in the FBI simply become more adept at rooting out fraud and corruption?”

my first thought was to wonder if fisa immunity was needed for the same reasons – the memos are so bad they won’t protect anyone.

Yes, that is exactly why. The Judge in the AT&T case after examining the relevent Yoo memo in camera because it is still classified , said that no one in their right mind wuld have relied uon it.

Therefore, the memo does not give the Telcos the immunity one would normally expect. The question that I have is : Did the Telcos actually get to see the memos before they relied on them, or were they merely told that the memos said the president could do this and that they would be immune?

I believe the latter happend with the torture memos.

If Ashcroft (who was signing things without reading them) told telco execs that the OLC had issued memos which said they were protected–when Ashcroft did not know what the hell he was talking about

It would explain why Ashcroft, Comey and Goldsmith all support telco immunity. If they told the telcos it was OK prior to reading the memos and finding our that the memos were worthless, then the probblems of the telcos are on the shoulders of whoever told the telcos “we have a memo”

that makes a lot of sense… could be… thank you.

Oh my Freakin’ doG. Talk about not dealing with the plank in your own eye before talking about the splinter in your neighbor’s eye.

These are the classmates and frat brothers of the geniuses who have destroyed our financial system. They just picked a different avenue of corruption

From Sands’ article…

On January 25, Alberto Gonzales put his name to a memo to the president supporting Haynes and Rumsfeld over Powell and Taft. This memo, which is believed to have been written by Addington, presented a “new paradigm” and described Geneva’s “strict limitations on questioning of enemy prisoners” as “obsolete.” Addington was particularly distrustful of the military lawyers. “Don’t bring the Tjags into the process—they aren’t reliable,” he was once overheard to say.

great post LHP

all the White-Out, erasure marks, or those little black specks & lines that appear from documents being copied & recopied over and over?

… toothmarks around the frames of document display cases …

that was mcjoan’s point exactly.

“Don’t bring the Tjags into the process—they aren’t reliable,” he was once overheard to say.

I’ve got to tell you the JAG lawyers have consistently been the heros here. Standing up for the rule of law when it can destroy careers or even land you in the brig. These military lawyers have shown themselves to be true patriots.

1,816 DAYZ AND THE KILLIN’ GOEZ ON AND ON AND…

Citizen looseheadprop and the Firepup Freedom Fighters:

Let me see if I got this right: first they take these folks into custody, hold ‘em without charges, torture ‘em,then destroy the evidence of the interrogations and THEN charge ‘em to be brought before a kangaroo court. Do I have that right??!! What the fuck is this Cloud Cuckooland??!!

And we are sittin’ around wonderin’ if the Supreme Court will throw the whole thing out??!! What has happened to my country??!!

Thanx looseheadprop…I needed that.

KEEP THE FAITH AND PASS THE AMMUNITION WE GUNNA NEED IT BEFORE THIS IS ALL DONE!!

A moment of paranoia back then…

http://youtube.com/watch?v=kMA…..re=related

The CIA agents had minimal exposure for the torture interrogation techniques because, as I understand it, they refused to use them until they got a legal opinion stating that it was legal. A legal opinion from?

I just cannot believe that “legal opinion” gave them any protection at all, just as if they had a “legal opnion” which gave them permission to murder, the “opinion” would not stand up in court, nor would having been ordered to do it stand up

Thought no one would notice! What…no one reads a Court Order.

In Tx there is the urban myth that W was not admitted to the UT Law School. Likely the truth, supported, I think, by some comment by the Dean at the time. Not sure. Is there any reason to believe we would be any better off if he had actually had a legal education? Nahhhh…just something else to screw up. Maybe he can go to SMU when he goes back to Dallas. It deserves him to go along with his library.

Bah hahahahahaha! And the little yellow sticky notes that say, “Please destroy”, that didn’t get taken off en route.

Thanks.

That’s one way of putting it. Another phrase comes to mind, but I’d hate to knock Rahmy off that perch quite yet.

Maybe I should pass on to Mr. Mueller this little gem from the House Judiciary report on potential politically-motivated prosecutions:

Subsequently, a member of the jury revealed that “[t]he majority of the jury thought he was innocent,” and the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette editorialized that the case “added up to a big zero” and that it would be a “travesty” for the prosecution to continue and would “tarnish the integrity of the U.S. attorney’s office.” Indeed, on learning that a retrial was planned, the jury foreman wondered if the prosecution had any additional evidence that the jury had not seen, and stated that “as the case went on, my thoughts were this was being politically driven.” Other jurors apparently also had become concerned during trial that politics had played a role in the prosecution. And local alarm was only further heightened by news that the prosecution had dispatched FBI agents to visit members of the jury.

[emphasis mine, of course]

This was in connection with the Cyril Wrecht trial, in which a guy who was alleged to have committed the sort of fraud that’s usually dealt with in a disciplinary hearing was instead hauled off to Federal court.

Well under that theory they are all war criminals. Chiming in here with my latest call to action which is….

A facebook petition. Still getting started on this may be found here……….And…It’s got a poll for you!

Hope to get something done this weekend with the rest of my posse whose facebook group page is here so I can post a draft of the petition on my site and on facebook.

I have received email from deep inside Boalt indicating that the Dean and existing power structure intend to stand fast.

Anyone know how Yoo’s activities, if found to be violations of the Geneva Convention, would affect Boalt’s liabilities both legal and yes, fiscal to those by now numerous individuals who’ve been injured by our government’s’ actions.

That is, could Boalt be looking at some serious fiscal hits for harboring Yoo?

I’d never thought of the actual terrorist getting off on a technicality aspect. These criminals are brilliant.

Which ones? Get this…Bush and Cheney argued that Al Qaida would use the laws against us to commit their actions and walk away free. But if Bush and Cheney had adhgered TO THE LAW then the case for trying them would be an order of magnitude stronger.

It’s Bush ineptitude that may allow the terrorists to “walk free”.

I don’t have a link but it is my understanding that he went to Harvard for the MBA because UT Law would not admit him with his “Gentleman’s Cs” from Yale.

If he had gone to UT Law however, I’m sure he would have done just as good a job with a law degree as he has done with his MBA.

How many times have we heard the phrase “isn’t[aren’t] reliable” used to refer to people who haven’t forgotten their principles?

Please fix your typo sir.

Perris the Detainee Treatment Act, has a clause that says that if you are charged with a crime for doing these interrogations, the court can take into account whether you relied in good faith on legal advice.

The weird thing is, if the memos were so closely held that the actual interrogators were not allowed to read them, how were they to know the memos were laughable?

They only got the conclusions, not the reasoning. I would hate to be the judge who lands the first of these to go to trial.

I cite it at my #9 comment…! ;-)

Let me see if I got this right: first they take these folks into custody, hold ‘em without charges, torture ‘em,then destroy the evidence of the interrogations and THEN charge ‘em to be brought before a kangaroo court. Do I have that right??!!

And, as was pointed out on a thread I can’t find right now, in the range of 90% of the detainees were purchased. We had bounties out for Taliban and Al Qaeda types, as you will recall, and there were some enterprising folks who cashed in by grabbing people at random. Most of the people our government has tortured were innocent.

What if Bush & Cheney wanted the terrorists to go at some point (hey, always good to have the bad guys out there again so they can keep the fear going) and they purposely made it so they would be released on a technicality?

(Just thinking out loud here)

Dubya doesn’t have a law degree and ASFAIK never applied to go to a law school. His degree is an MBA…from Harvard.

Anyone know how Yoo’s activities, if found to be violations of the Geneva Convention, would affect Boalt’s liabilities both legal and yes, fiscal to those by now numerous individuals who’ve been injured by our government’s’ actions.

That is, could Boalt be looking at some serious fiscal hits for harboring Yoo?

I don’t understand. Why would Boalt Hall have fiscal liability for something Yoo wrote when he was working for the Gov’t?

Well, except for loss of donations from disgusted alums

#9

And didn’t some of them come via purchasing from Pakistan or something to that effect? If Americans knew they had purchased “terrorists” to make themselves look like they were on top of things, I wonder how the neocons who have supported the White House over the years would react? Probably no difference. LOL

A sorry ass scenario, no wonder they have to keep running them through the Kangaroo system until they get the findings they want…! 8-(

Your description fits what I’ve come to regard as one of their SOPs: set down any tawdry story on just enough seemingly vetted paper to be waved in front of people’s faces, then find someone with a dazzling surface of a resume to do the waving. What we now know they did with Powell at the UN, for months with the damn Niger forgeries, and quite likely with the telcoms and the interrogators, only in these two cases, since Americans were worried about jail they had to find shiny names to put on the papers for their audience as well. I’m sure people who have slept lately can come up with yet more examples.

KIM, how-dy! Make yourself at home.

Yes yes yes!!!!

I know. Should have put the /s.

I agree he did not go; I do think he applied. See #89. Thanks

A Beatles fan, eh? ;-)

Moyers is doing the debate story…just replayed the “audience turned on us.”

In Washington they are only afraid of two things: loss of power, and jail. This kind of idiocy could actually send them to prison, and they know it.

That is why it is so important that these indictments come down, the trials happen, and justice be done. “Letting bygones be bygones” will ruin everything– including the Constitution. This is not about revenge, it is about restoring the rule of law.

Bob in HI

Actually, #89 is mine, at least on my browser. cinnamonape will have to reload the page to see your comment.

Is it that the tapes make clear who the interrogators were? By face perhaps, for those who exposed theirs, but not by name. Intelligence “community” (love those euphemisms) or private contractor interrogators aren’t like British detectives who explicitly identify themselves on tape. That is, unless the tapes record “internal” conversations among interrogators before and/or after the questioning and torture sessions.

Or were their accompanying logs identifying who made the tapes, who is pictured in them, and who handled or watched them and when? As a control measure, to keep secure such highly classified intelligence materials, there would be such logs, no? That might prove embarrassing in, oh, say, an investigation for torture or war crimes, for perjury or for a related obstruction charge.

By analogy, Cheney has gone to considerable lengths just to destroy the Fourth Branch’s visitors’ logs, long maintained by the Secret Service and subject to disclosure under FOIA, because they’re evidence of who visited him (Abramoff?) and when. Just food for thought.

Yes, can anyone help me with a link to that comment earlier in the day? I can’t remember where I saw it and want to be sure to get a bookmark for the source of such important information.

Perris the Detainee Treatment Act, has a clause that says that if you area charged with a crime fo rdoing these inerrogations, the court can take into accountwhether you realied in good faith on legal advice.

I understand that but the cia has been trained in the history and ramifications of torture and the excuses that have failed in a court of law

I cannot believe anyone would think they acted on something they believed was a valid opinion

as you say, they weren’t allowed to see the opinion and could not have acted in good faith on it

“KIM, how-dy! Make yourself at home.”

Why thank you. I plan to. *putting on my fuzzy slippers* :-)

No the debate was just the introduction to compare its foolishness to the Iraq story this week.

I suspect that they know that if a real jury of normal people…like the ones that have twice thrown out the charges on the Liberty Six “Terrorists”…got hold of these cases they’d all have been released by now. If these cases ever end up under civilian review they will likely be declared mistrials…at least most of the legal foundations for the evidence and system will be seriously dismantled.

Hopefully that can also be started by a Congress not beholden to a criminal leadership.

We have the smartest, best informed commenters on the internet! And you are no exception

let’s be realistic here, according to this scenario, if the defense would stand then any despot could order any lawyer to write an opinion no matter how depraved and the person who acted on that opinion would be innocent

that is just not gonna fly

Those possible tape logs, of course, could have proven awkward, over and above any illegal, inhumane, or cruel unusual punishment recorded by those tapes.

As they say, a picture is worth a thousand words. Why quibble about an obstruction charge, which might never be brought or which you might beat, when a judge or jury viewing the tapes might convict you of illegal acts that carry a life sentence?

Did someone else make the same comment? Cool.

Here’s one article on it that links to a Salon piece about how one prisoner was sold to American forces so this Afghan could take a trip to GITMO:

http://dandelionsalad.wordpres…..ris-floyd/

One such act is in the concentration camp in Guanatanamo Bay: the slow, deliberate murder of an innocent man, who is being killed with the collusion of oath-breaking physicians. In an important piece at Salon.com, Candace Gorman tells the story of Abdul Hamid Al-Ghizzawi, who was forced to flee from his home by American bombing raids in the early days of the attack on Afghanistan, and was then sold to American forces by local bounty hunters in December 2001. He has never been charged with any crime; indeed, one of Bush’s own military panels declared that Al-Ghizzawi was not an “enemy combatant.” One of the officers on the panel testified, under oath, that the evidence against the purchased prisoner was “garbage.” But Al-Ghizzawi has been left to rot in Guantanamo, where he is now dying of liver disease, a condition that was allowed to deteriorate while medical officials helped hide his true condition from American courts. Gorman, who is acting as his attorney, takes up the story

Here’s an AP article about Pakistan selling the Bush Regime prisoners too:

http://www.commondreams.org/he…..531-10.htm

You’ll are the best posters on the net…! *g*

BTW- Eli’s upstairs with a new post….!

I can’t speak for the CIA, but I know that military personnel are briefed on these matters, and officers seem to get a pretty thorough background. Evan Wallach, who wrote this study on the legality of water torture and other forms of “enhanced interrogation”, did that sort of thing for many years. I’d be surprised if CIA operations types didn’t receive similar briefings.

Careful LHP … his head is already big enough to cover the Sun … *g*

((( CT )))

I’ve given up on Jim Lehrer’s Comfy Corner with Mark and Bobo. He gives them too much cred, never challenges their facts or arguments as long as they’re delivered in friendly tones. He doesn’t rein them in when they deliver canned talking points (so that they don’t break the chain letter-like character of their party propaganda, methods that Glennzilla’s latest book addresses in detail).

Bobo does most of the latter; Shields’ problem is mostly that his comments are weak tea for someone claiming to be a liberal or progressive, as if he’s used one bag for a dozen cups.

I found this report from Seton Hall. The Executive Summary:

Among the data revealed by this Report:

1. Fifty-five percent (55%) of the detainees are not determined to have committed any hostile acts against the United States or its coalition allies.

2. Only 8% of the detainees were characterized as al Qaeda fighters. Of the remaining detainees, 40% have no definitive connection with al Qaeda at all and 18% are have no definitive affiliation with either al Qaeda or the Taliban.

3. The Government has detained numerous persons based on mere affiliations with a large number of groups that in fact, are not on the Department of Homeland Security terrorist watchlist. Moreover, the nexus between such a detainee and such organizations varies considerably. Eight percent are detained because they are deemed “fighters for;” 30% considered “members of;” a large majority – 60% — are detained merely because they are “associated with” a group or groups the Government asserts are terrorist organizations. For 2% of the prisoners their nexus to any terrorist group is unidentified.

4. Only 5% of the detainees were captured by United States forces. 86% of the detainees were arrested by either Pakistan or the Northern Alliance and turned over to United States custody. This 86% of the detainees captured by Pakistan or the Northern Alliance were handed over to the United States at a time in which the United States offered large bounties for capture of suspected enemies.

5. Finally, the population of persons deemed not to be enemy combatants – mostly Uighers – are in fact accused of more serious allegations than a great many persons still deemed to be enemy combatants.

OMG … MSNBC found the anti- Obama to comment … oh wait, he’s a Repug … never mind …

What is so disgusting is most of them were BOUGHT/PURCHASED. What the hell! It’s so sick to me. The whole damn thing.

He’s been working for Boalt since ‘93.

But he was on a leave of absence and working for the Government when he wrote the memos.

“Did everyone see that Clinton is not happy with her activist base?”

I knew that. How smart is it to diss your party’s activist base *before* the convention? Her campaign continues to self-destruct.

Bob in HI

That is not my understanding.

and a very good one.

As someone pointed out here when the tape destruction story first broke, if they were afraid of the interrogators’ identities coming out, they could call over to the production folks at MTV and ask how they’ve been blurring out faces on their episodes of the RL.

Every excuse for destroying the tapes has failed to hold water. As Sherlock Holmes told us, “Once you eliminate the impossible, whatever is left – no matter how unlikely – must be the truth.”

I know it is highly unlikely that a Republican President and his staff would conspire to commit criminal acts, then destroy the evidence and deny the crimes. But it must be the truth. No other narrative explains the behavior of all involved.

And another thing, I know it’s been mentioned before. I keep seeing references to the tapes’ destruction. Has anyone asked to see, say, DVDs, video recordings, digital files, archive tapes, audio recordings, edit copies, backups, any recordings kept on computer hard drives, removable media, written transcriptions, still photographs, digital photographs, etc. etc, etc? I keep hoping and praying that there are still some stray snippets out there on someone’s laptop, and that these will make it to YouTube or wikileaks.org before the statute of limitations runs out.

So, did they destroy the tapes because they know that these memos are so bad that they will not trigger the immunity provision of the Detainee Treatment Act?

Are you referring to Section 1004 of the DTA, which reads:

SEC. 1004. PROTECTION OF UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT PERSONNEL ENGAGED IN AUTHORIZED INTERROGATIONS.

(a) Protection of United States Government Personnel- In any civil action or criminal prosecution against an officer, employee, member of the Armed Forces, or other agent of the United States Government who is a United States person, arising out of the officer, employee, member of the Armed Forces, or other agent’s engaging in specific operational practices, that involve detention and interrogation of aliens who the President or his designees have determined are believed to be engaged in or associated with international terrorist activity that poses a serious, continuing threat to the United States, its interests, or its allies, and that were officially authorized and determined to be lawful at the time that they were conducted, it shall be a defense that such officer, employee, member of the Armed Forces, or other agent did not know that the practices were unlawful and a person of ordinary sense and understanding would not know the practices were unlawful. Good faith reliance on advice of counsel should be an important factor, among others, to consider in assessing whether a person of ordinary sense and understanding would have known the practices to be unlawful.

If so, on Monday I understood you to completely dismiss that provision as “SOOO craptastic” that it would have no weight in court. Here’s the full exchange:

Me: http://firedoglake.com/2008/04…..nt-1388251

You: http://firedoglake.com/2008/04…..nt-1388290

Me: http://firedoglake.com/2008/04…..nt-1388395

You: http://firedoglake.com/2008/04…..nt-1388457

Me: http://firedoglake.com/2008/04…..nt-1389024

maybe they’ll all plead temporary insanity.you know, ptsd

IMPEACH NOW… THIS DOJ QILL NOT PROSECUTE THIS ADMINISTRATION

My pet theory of the moment? That when the CIA brass actually got to read the memos, they got that sinking feeling in their stomachs b/c the memos are so clearly unsupported by law, that they panicked and destroyed the tapes.

This is ONLY a THEORY

They say they destroyed the tapes. But knowing (by reputation, I have no personal first-hand knowledge) the way these guys seem to work, I’m dead sure they have a copy stashed away in a server someplace (presumably overseas). So they could be in deep trouble for claiming they destroyed the tapes when in fact they didn’t.

Oh the irony of it all.

It makes you wonder where the tapes are? Have they been incinerated or have they been encased in cement and are now sitting on the bottom of the ocean?

Since the “tapes” were presumably in digital form, whether the original physical tapes were destroyed or not is of no great importance as long as there is a digital copy of them someplace or other (except possibly for chain of custody issues).

“What I think happened was that Shrub/Cheney wanted to use torture, the military and CIA refused saying that they didn’t want to go to jail, “

*nods* I’ve experienced this before in the corporate world. Orders to make copies of one legitimate copy of Lotus software and to load the copies to lots and lots of pc’s. I asked the administration to provide a memo from the legal advisor attesting to the legality of the act requested. Of course the administration had not retained John Yoo nor could it control the Justice Department so I didn’t get the memo.

This is perhaps likely, but I think there’s another chance for them to come light. Someone at the CIA may have made copies to hold for insurance (or even blackmail) purposes…