Forums | MacLife

I'll say again what I said earlier in the thread--I am all for complete investigation, covering who was briefed on what, when, and who raised objections (or didn't).  I'm also for extending the investigation into extraordinary rendition under prior administrations. 

This ridiculous proposal was aimed at nothing but Pelosi (which is perfectly clear from reading the text of it).  It's a joke.  This needs to be an independent inquiry, outside of Congress.

Senator Bob Graham (D-FL) has actually kept records on what meetings he's been in that were so complete and immaculate that CIA has had to recant many of  their claim on what was said in when. I trust my former Governor (the original Mr. Dirty Jobs himself) more than the CIA.

JakeTheTall wrote:

What's his angle with keeping this up ?

Trying to define his legacy (as a Vice President, seems amusing) ?

Just stubborn and refusing to end an argument until everyone agrees with him ?

Positioning for a Presidential run in 2012 ?

9/11 9/11 9/11 ?

Trying to keep from getting indicted for high crimes and misdemeanors. And spending the rest of his life in a federal prison.

Interrogating Torture
Confronting a Different Kind of War

Program Overview

Hosts: Ray Suarez
Length: 51 minutes
Original Airdate: Jun 17, 2009

"Those who argued for these tactics were on the wrong side of the debate, and the wrong side of history. That's why we must leave these methods where they belong, in the past..."
– President Obama, speech at the National Archives, May 2009

The tactics in question, waterboarding and the CIA's other harsh interrogation methods, have come back from the past to haunt Washington yet again. President Obama let the skeletons out of the closet by releasing Bush Administration memos that detail the justification and use of these methods to grill suspected terrorists. This reignited the debate over how to define torture—and how far is too far when it comes to keeping Americans safe. Other democracies—from Israel to Britain—have wrestled with these questions when tackling their own terrorist threats.

Segment 1: Ray Suarez traces the history of the debate over the status and treatment of enemy combatants.

Featuring Jonathan Bush, Lecturer-in-Law at Columbia University's School of Law.

Segment 2: Ray Suarez looks back at the evolution of Israel's policy on the interrogation of Palestinian detainees.

Guests include Jessica Montell, Executive Director of B'Tselem, a human rights organization based in Jerusalem and Yehuda Shaffer, former Assistant Attorney General in Israel's Ministry of Defense.

Segment 3: Sean Carberry travels to Belfast and London, to look for lessons from the British experience of interrogating IRA militants during the conflict in Northern Ireland.

Guests include Colm Campbell, Professor of Law at the University of Ulster; Michael Culbert, Director of the Committee on Behalf of Political Ex-Prisoners; William Smith, Development Worker for the Ex-Prisoners Interpretive Center; Sean O'Callaghan, former member of the Irish Republican Army;and John Grieve, former London cop and Senior Research Fellow at Portsmouth University.

Segment 4: Ray Suarez moderates a discussion on the legality and efficacy of interrogation practices under the Bush Administration.

With David Luban, Professor of Law and Philosophy at Georgetown University and David Rivkin, Partner at Baker Hostetler, an international law firm.

Stream or podcast.

daemon wrote:

Podcast, pls.

Speaking of iTunesU...Gonzo gets gig @ Texas Tech Law.

Are you not seeing the orange 'Get the podcast' button on my link?

not seeing any orange.

Independent’s Day
Obama doesn't want to look back, but Attorney General Eric Holder may probe Bush-era torture anyway.

It's the morning after Independence Day, and Eric Holder Jr. is feeling the weight of history. The night before, he'd stood on the roof of the White House alongside the president of the United States, leaning over a railing to watch fireworks burst over the Mall, the monuments to Lincoln and Washington aglow at either end. "I was so struck by the fact that for the first time in history an African-American was presiding over this celebration of what our nation is all about," he says. Now, sitting at his kitchen table in jeans and a gray polo shirt, as his 11-year-old son, Buddy, dashes in and out of the room, Holder is reflecting on his own role. He doesn't dwell on the fact that he's the country's first black attorney general. He is focused instead on the tension that the best of his predecessors have confronted: how does one faithfully serve both the law and the president?

Alone among cabinet officers, attorneys general are partisan appointees expected to rise above partisanship. All struggle to find a happy medium between loyalty and independence. Few succeed. At one extreme looms Alberto Gonzales, who allowed the Justice Department to be run like Tammany Hall. At the other is Janet Reno, whose righteousness and folksy eccentricities marginalized her within the Clinton administration. Lean too far one way and you corrupt the office, too far the other way and you render yourself impotent. Mindful of history, Holder is trying to get the balance right. "You have the responsibility of enforcing the nation's laws, and you have to be seen as neutral, detached, and nonpartisan in that effort," Holder says. "But the reality of being A.G. is that I'm also part of the president's team. I want the president to succeed; I campaigned for him. I share his world view and values."

These are not just the philosophical musings of a new attorney general. Holder, 58, may be on the verge of asserting his independence in a profound way. Four knowledgeable sources tell NEWSWEEK that he is now leaning toward appointing a prosecutor to investigate the Bush administration's brutal interrogation practices, something the president has been reluctant to do. While no final decision has been made, an announcement could come in a matter of weeks, say these sources, who decline to be identified discussing a sensitive law-enforcement matter. Such a decision would roil the country, would likely plunge Washington into a new round of partisan warfare, and could even imperil Obama's domestic priorities, including health care and energy reform. Holder knows all this, and he has been wrestling with the question for months. "I hope that whatever decision I make would not have a negative impact on the president's agenda," he says. "But that can't be a part of my decision."

4 page article. My bold.

To make sure their names are vilified for all history as examples of everything we must never allow to happen again.  Then again, it didn't work with Nixon and that's within living memory.

Cap Weinberger 'needed' pardoning; but each time, the pardons came from a Pres of the same affiliation as the pardonee.

An investigation begun soon would not unlikely come to fruition within an Obama Presidency. Him pardoning Cheney, Gonzo et al seems less likely.

Nixon was pardoned. The nation "healed" and forgot.

Bat wrote:

These are not just the philosophical musings of a new attorney general. Holder, 58, may be on the verge of asserting his independence in a profound way. Four knowledgeable sources tell NEWSWEEK that he is now leaning toward appointing a prosecutor to investigate the Bush administration's brutal interrogation practices, something the president has been reluctant to do. While no final decision has been made, an announcement could come in a matter of weeks, say these sources, who decline to be identified discussing a sensitive law-enforcement matter. Such a decision would roil the country, would likely plunge Washington into a new round of partisan warfare, and could even imperil Obama's domestic priorities, including health care and energy reform. Holder knows all this, and he has been wrestling with the question for months. "I hope that whatever decision I make would not have a negative impact on the president's agenda," he says. "But that can't be a part of my decision."

4 page article. My bold.

Greenwald is dubious It's like reading tea leaves.

Bad law is still bad law, even if it applies to scumbags.

Or clowns.