Please visit the new home of Majikthise at bigthink.com/blogs/focal-point.

« Bye bye, Bartlett | Main | Steve Gilliard, RIP (1966-2007) »

June 02, 2007

Senate seeks review of CIA interrogation methods

The Senate Select Committee on Intelligence is demanding a legal review of the CIA's detention and interrogation tactics as part of its version of the 2008 intelligence authorization bill.

I wonder if they can demand a similar legal workup on that new Doomsday plan the White House quietly signed into law last month.

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
https://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d8341c61e653ef00df351e783d8834

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Senate seeks review of CIA interrogation methods:

Comments

I read the article, but I don't get it. A legal review by whom?

Doomsday plan indeed.

The unclassified portion of his "homeland security-national security presidential directive" -- a special kind of executive order that can be kept secret --

Right. Crucial details of the plan will be distributed on a need-to-know basis only to those inside the Reich chancellery, Kremlin, White House.

James Carafano , a homeland security specialist at Heritage (Foundation), criticized the administration for failing to inform the public that the new policy was coming, and why it was changing.

He said the White House did not recognize that discussion of emergency governmental powers is "a very sensitive issue for a lot of people," adding that the lack of explanation is "appalling."

But White House spokesman Gordon Johndroe said that because of the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, the American public needs no explanation of such plans.

As long as cable TV service remains uninterrupted and People magazine arrives in the mail, we neither need nor want explanation.

IANAL, so I could have this all wrong but even while the Inspector General is exposing all kinds of doubts about DoD interrogation methods, the president has been tweaking the Uniform Code of Military Justice in ways that will increase the utility of questionably obtained evidence and questionably motivated witnesses in military tribunals. Where is Greenwald when I need him?

It also directs Townsend to consult National Security Adviser Stephen Hadley and Vice President Dick Cheney.

Oh great the inbred SOBs are putting Dick and Stephen Hadley in consulting spots. Hadley's the guy that Tommy Franks called "The stupidist guy on the f*ckin' planet. Both he and Dick are two big masterminds of dubya's Iraq clusterf*ck. This is gonna go about as smoothly as everything else these bumbling thugs put together. The only thing Republicans do well is funnel money to other Republicans..and..Ahh..oh, I hope someone's watching this big money pit VERY closely.

It also directs Townsend to consult National Security Adviser Stephen Hadley and Vice President Dick Cheney.

Oh great the inbred SOBs are putting Dick and Stephen Hadley in consulting spots. Hadley's the guy that Tommy Franks called "The stupidist guy on the f*ckin' planet. Both he and Dick are two big masterminds of dubya's Iraq clusterf*ck. This is gonna go about as smoothly as everything else these bumbling thugs put together. The only thing Republicans do well is funnel money to other Republicans..and..Ahh..oh, I hope someone's watching this big money pit VERY closely.

Damn. Sorry for the double.

At the same time, they might want to investigate why the Dems are turning out to by such hypocritical bastards. Leave the troops in Iraq and ramp up earmarks. Way to follow through on the wave of public sentiment that put you in Congress.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070603/ap_on_go_co/congress_pet_projects

I WOULD like to know who'll be doing the review...

I don't get what the point of this doomsday plan is. Seems ter me that this was all well worked out during the Cold War days. You'd think a "conservative" administration wouldn't be messin' 'round with precident. So just wait for this plan to be blamed on "liberals".

Anyhoo, I'm confused -- if it was so recently "signed into law", why didn't the Dems. do anything about the bill when it went through Congress. Unless this is one of those "laws" that really ain't a law but is some Presidential fiat. Remember the days when the GOP complained about the expansion of the executive branch (in terms of bureaucrats writing regulations instead of having things written into law by elected legislators): goes to show how yet another former GOP talking point was more about envy ("we wish we were 'legislating' by executive fiat"), projection and IOKIYARism than principle!

Hadley's the guy that Tommy Franks called "The stupidist guy on the f*ckin' planet.

IIRC, that honor actually went to Doug Feith. But given Hadley's role in the ongoing catastrophe that is this administration's foreign policy, it's probably safe to consider him a runner-up.

Oops. Corrected.

Hadley's the guy that Tommy Franks called "The stupidist guy on the f*ckin' planet.

IIRC, that honor actually went to Doug Feith. But given Hadley's role in the ongoing role in the catastrophe that is this administration's foreign policy, it's probably safe to consider him a runner-up.

OK, my correction was also incorrect. You get the gist.

The comments to this entry are closed.