Article

2007-12-07 Home Front: WoT

Archived material is restricted to Rantburg regulars and members. If you need access email fred.pruitt=at=gmail.com with your nick to be added to the members list. There is no charge to join Rantburg as a member.

Posted by Steve White 2007-12-07 00:00|| || Front Page|| [6 views ] Top

#1 "after President Bush authorized the use of harsh questioning methods." AP

An opinionated charge rather than impartial reporting.

Posted by www 2007-12-07 05:39|| 2007-12-07 05:39|| Front Page Top

#2 Brinkema. Another district court judge playing "Head of CIA".

We have got to end the tyrrany of the judicial branch.

No more "For Life" appointments anywhere. 4 years district, 8 years appeals, 16 years Supreme (Yes Stevens Im looking at YOU), can be renewed 5 times for District, 3 times appeals, once for Supreme.

This takes off the pressure from nomination at the lower courts by allowing "mistakes" to fade away, and judges to be judged by the executive (reappointment) and legislative (reappointment hearings) branches AFTER they begin serving.

Checks and balance y'all - term limits work for the Presidency, and are direly needed for the Congress (c.f. Ted Stevens R-Alaska, Ted Kennedy D-Mass), and we need them for Judges too.

Posted by OldSpook 2007-12-07 08:51|| 2007-12-07 08:51|| Front Page Top

#3 In 1913 the Constitution was amended, the 17th, to have Senators directly elected by the people. It's well past time that the 'confirmation' process for SCOUTS move out the Senate which has politicized the process beyond recovery and move it to popular confirmation with explicit term limits. Since the judiciary has set itself up as an exclusive branch accessible only to members of the fraternity [which it originally was not], its time their branch start to exercise their power through direct consent. They want to play with power to stick their fingers into the daily lives of the nation's citizenry, then it is time for them to face the citizens directly.

Posted by Procopius2k 2007-12-07 09:04|| 2007-12-07 09:04|| Front Page Top

#4 Should've saved them. Used them as inflight movies on the Ghost Jet...

Posted by tu3031 2007-12-07 10:05|| 2007-12-07 10:05|| Front Page Top

#5 No lifetime appointment for judges, and they are accountable to the people.

Also, I love how the CIA let congress know back in 2003 about the tapes and the intent to destroy them. And we are only hearing about it now during an ELECTION YEAR.

Posted by DarthVader">DarthVader 2007-12-07 10:18|| 2007-12-07 10:18|| Front Page Top

#6 It's hard to tell for sure, but it looks to me like the CIA lawyers crafted the responses to Congress' demands and questions to be 'legal' but to avoid giving certain information. The didn't specifically lie, but as lawyers do, they avoided actually answering the questions.
This could just be lawyers being lawyers, but more likely the CIA felt there were things in those videotapes that they did not want seen outside the CIA offices. Multiple possibilities:
1) To protect operatives identities, as they claimed (remember Plame!)
2) To prevent leakage to the enemy of clearly legal interrogation techniques (Congress wouldn't leak, would they?)
3) To prevent problems over use of techniques which were regarded as legal at the time but which might now be looked at as illegal (my preferred guess.)
4) To prevent prosecution over use of techniques which were clearly illegal even then.
In any of these cases, it is against the nation's interest for the debate to be carried out in the New York Times. Spies do our necessary dirty work for us - we do need to have oversight, but it should not be politically motivated or vindictive.

Posted by Glenmore">Glenmore 2007-12-07 13:02|| 2007-12-07 13:02|| Front Page Top

#7 aaditional idea:

we allknow how much more compelling and emotionally powerful visual images are. there is probably no way an average person can watch this kind of video and not feel some kind of sympathy for the jihadi. we need to prevent this kind of free propaganda footage from being leeked. even if totally legal and fully legit, the images are far too powerful a tool for our enemy if they would somehow end up in our living rooms.

Posted by Abu do you love 2007-12-07 15:36|| 2007-12-07 15:36|| Front Page Top

#8 Compare wid REDDIT > BBC - CIA tapes were [wilfully?] destroyed in order to PROTECT certain elements from criminal/legal prosecution??? Also from REDDIT > Destroyed CIA tapes may had implicated PAKIS, SAUDIS in 9-11 attacks???

Posted by JosephMendiola 2007-12-07 22:02|| 2007-12-07 22:02|| Front Page Top

23:46 Abdominal Snowman
23:43 Abdominal Snowman
23:29 rammer
23:04 Pappy
22:56 GK
22:26 JosephMendiola
22:24 Mike
22:19 Sgt. Mom
22:12 JosephMendiola
22:07 JosephMendiola
22:06 Frank G
22:02 JosephMendiola
21:59 JosephMendiola
21:44 Zhang Fei
21:40 Anonymoose
21:34 SteveS
21:33 Anonymoose
21:31 DMFD
21:29 Broadhead6
21:25 Broadhead6
21:18 M. Murcek
21:18 Broadhead6
21:16 DarthVader
21:16 Grunter