| Balkinization   |
|
Balkinization
|
Wednesday, April 09, 2008
Say It Ain't So, Colin
JB
ABC News reports that "In dozens of top-secret talks and meetings in the White House, the most senior Bush administration officials discussed and approved specific details of how high-value al Qaeda suspects would be interrogated by the Central Intelligence Agency."
Comments:
The question is no longer who knew and approved of the CIA interrogation program, but rather who did not? It appears that even the "squeamish" in the Executive and Congress signed off on the program.
Appalling. Again.
Supposing they imagined themselves to be Saving Civilization, what can their idea of civilization be?
So, Colin Powell was in the meetings where the interrogation methods were discussed and approved. How does this account square with Powell's later outrage over the torture (see his 9/13/06 letter to Sen. McCain)? If he had such concerns about the conduct at the time, why not take a forceful stand? Attempt to block the implementation, resign and draw media attention to the matter, etc.
I suppose this does explain the mystery as to why there wasn't a greater pushback from with State and others within the government. Up until know, we assumed that Yoo was able to implement all of these policies because of his friendship with Addington, Gonzales, and Haynes. But if Rice (and tacitly Powell) signed off as well, that would give the interrogation program almost complete cover. Absolutely amazing.
All of the above-named officials are criminals and all of them should be in jail.
I'm curious as to how Ashcroft, supposedly a deeply religious man, justified his part in this.
Having read the ABC article, I confess I'm worried on placing too much reliance on anonymous sources. I suspect this "principals group" had a fluctuating attendance and I suspect that the most egregious stuff might have been reserved for days when State was not in attendance. All the disclosed material suggests the Cheney/Rumsfeld Axis were pro and State was sidelined.
Saw that article in a comment on Greenwald's blog. Sick, sick, sick.
My comments on it (including Ashcroft's somber assessment) here. Who would ever have thought that Mr. "Cover up the tits of Ms. Liberty" Ashcroft would prove to be the least crazy (see also the hospital room incident) of the cabal..... Oh, and I'm guessing, based on this, that when Rice and her husband get it on, she's the "top".... Cheers,
It appears that even the "squeamish" in the Executive and Congress signed off on the program.
"[S]queamish" here is used in a relative way. Cheers,
Land:
But if Rice (and tacitly Powell) signed off as well, that would give the interrogation program almost complete cover. Powell was not Rice's boss. Powell has his own actions to answer for, but Rice was accountable only to herself and Dubya here. Say, anyone hear that the conservatives are drooling over the prospect of Rice as Veep candidate? Cheers,
The question is no longer who knew and approved of the CIA interrogation program, but rather who did not? It appears that even the "squeamish" in the Executive and Congress signed off on the program.
Must be an interesting life, waffling between "no evidence" and "too much evidence."
Further on
"The question is no longer who knew and approved of the CIA interrogation program, but rather who did not? It appears that even the 'squeamish' in the Executive and Congress signed off on the program." "That's old news." Which is dismissive of truth. Why remember the Alamo, Pearl Harbor, My Lai, 9/11, Abu Graib, etc? Just look forward, forget the past. What was Satchel Paige's advice? "Don't look back, they may be catching up to you." But this isn't a sport, or is it for some?
Having read the ABC article, I confess I'm worried on placing too much reliance on anonymous sources
Greenburg was praised on the "conservative" side of the fence for her Supreme Court reporting; I think she's pretty credible. Certainly, she could not afford for this story to blow up in her face, like the McCain lobbyist-or-girlfriend? story in the NYT. ABC also scooped the waterboarding of KSM -- they have connections somewhere.
More on sourcing -- speculation from Laura Rozen about John Kiriakou, who
had a window into who in the Principals' meetings signed off on what. And to be rankled by the White House and Congress tendency later to put responsibility for those decisions all on the CIA. Not entirely grammatical, but suggestive. Certainly, the trend of the article is to argue that CIA did "everything it could" to make sure it had cover ... if you leave out having its own counsel provide independent scrutiny of the relevant laws, that is.
'Oh, and I'm guessing, based on this, that when Rice and her husband get it on, she's the "top"....'
Rice has never married.
'Oh, and I'm guessing, based on this, that when Rice and her husband get it on, she's the "top"....'
Rice has never married. Condoleeza Rice at one point slipped and referred to George Bush as her "husband" before correcting herself. IOW, Arne is being sardonic here.
It is most revealing that the image of Condi as the "rational" counterweight to the OVP mob has been steadily eroding, not only from her disastrous role as NS Advisor, but also as SecState, where her "peace initiative" posturing vis-a-vis Israeli-Palistinian conflict is juxtaposed to the virulent anti-Hamas
Post a Comment
efforts of the Abrams/Drayton group, machinations to which she signed off. If we really had a vigourous press in the US, Rice's well-cultivated imagery should have long before been exposed as the fraud that she is...pathetic.
|
Books by Balkinization Bloggers
Jack M. Balkin, The Laws of Change: I Ching and the Philosophy of Life (2d Edition, Sybil Creek Press 2009)
Brian Z. Tamanaha, Beyond the Formalist-Realist Divide: The Role of Politics in Judging (Princeton University Press 2009)
Andrew Koppelman and Tobias Barrington Wolff, A Right to Discriminate?: How the Case of Boy Scouts of America v. James Dale Warped the Law of Free Association (Yale University Press 2009)
Jack M. Balkin and Reva B. Siegel, The Constitution in 2020 (Oxford University Press 2009)
Heather K. Gerken, The Democracy Index: Why Our Election System Is Failing and How to Fix It (Princeton University Press 2009)
Mary Dudziak, Exporting American Dreams: Thurgood Marshall's African Journey (Oxford University Press 2008) Neil Netanel, Copyright's Paradox (Oxford Univ. Press 2008)
David Luban, Legal Ethics and Human Dignity (Cambridge Univ. Press 2007) Ian Ayres, Super Crunchers: Why Thinking-By-Numbers is the New Way to be Smart (Bantam 2007)
Jack M. Balkin, James Grimmelmann, Eddan Katz, Nimrod Kozlovski, Shlomit Wagman and Tal Zarsky, eds., Cybercrime: Digital Cops in a Networked Environment (N.Y.U. Press 2007)
Jack M. Balkin and Beth Simone Noveck, The State of Play: Law, Games, and Virtual Worlds (N.Y.U. Press 2006)
Andrew Koppelman, Same Sex, Different States: When Same-Sex Marriages Cross State Lines (Yale University Press 2006)
Brian Tamanaha, Law as a Means to an End (Cambridge University Press 2006)
Sanford Levinson, Our Undemocratic Constitution (Oxford University Press 2006)
Mark Graber, Dred Scott and the Problem of Constitutional Evil (Cambridge University Press 2006)
Jack M. Balkin, ed., What Roe v. Wade Should Have Said (N.Y.U. Press 2005)
Sanford Levinson, ed., Torture: A Collection (Oxford University Press 2004) Balkin.com homepage Bibliography Conlaw.net Cultural Software Writings Opeds The Information Society Project BrownvBoard.com Useful Links Syllabi and Exams |