[a href=”http://url.here”]linkable text[/a]

put the url in between the quotes
write the text you want to be linkable (article title is good choice)
replace the square with pointy brackets

Philippe Sands ”Publish and be Damned, Mr. Cheney.”

The URL uses a file label of ”dick-cheney-torture-fox-hannity.”

Enjoy.

Sands has a really remarkable piece in the Guardian literally calling Cheney out. I’ll try to make a linky … wish me luck.

Zellikow “I don’t know why they wanted to do it”

“all it shows is that they were presented with an argument that says your interpretation of the law appears to this one fellow to be unsound”

**** this sounds like an AW SHUCKS RACHEL THEY JUST WERE NOT SURE ABOUT WHAT THEY WERE DOING

Have you seen this one “Gitmo” Karpinksi is in it
http://www.linktv.org/programs/gitmo

Bob @ 9. I thought Zellikow was part of the group who ignored Richard Clarke’s warnings before 9/11. So am I understanding this that he wanted to create/find/cherry pick intelligence to connect Iraq with Al Queda but was not willing to go as far as redefining/rewriting the torture laws?

In the clip above why does Zellkow say that they (Bush administration) were not “obstructing justice” by trying to destroy all his memos?

What do you lawyer folk call destroying evidence?

#### I thought Feith visited Gitmo.

“Douglas Feith had a long-standing intellectual interest in Geneva, and for many years had opposed legal protections for terrorists under international law,” Sands wrote in his book. “He referred me to an article he had written in 1985, in The National Interest, setting out his basic view. Geneva provided incentives to play by the rules; those who chose not to follow the rules, he argued, shouldn’t be allowed to rely on them, or else the whole Geneva structure would collapse. The only way to protect Geneva, in other words, was sometimes to limit its scope. To uphold Geneva’s protections, you might have to cast them aside.”

As if that’s a defense!

He was instrumental in gutting Geneva protections in early 2002, and proudly retold his tricksy maneuvers to do so in Philippe Sands’ The Green Light.

Then Cheney sunk himself by coming on to pontificate about how ‘unfairly’ Obama was in releasing ‘only some’ memos. But Cheney failed to provide a single fact to back his claims, and as is his modus operandi he implied that it would all be clear if only Obama wasn’t sitting on info. Given Cheney’s credibility, probably not a very smart move, but I digress…

His supporters (and ‘Morning Joe’) were blathering the first part of the week about how torture had been effective, therefore no one could question deeds done, yadda, yadda. But even Joe seems to be catching on that maybe torture isn’t such a good policy…

But the past 36 hours or so, we’ve had some key pieces of info: Harman’s NSA news, which prompts the question: “And just who does this woman actually work for…?!”

Then the reiteration of “183 times” for waterboarding, which doesn’t even make any sense. If anything, it makes one realize that waterboarding couldn’t work — if it takes 183 times, then WTF are they thinking…?

Then the Karpinski interview today, which is stunning: why is it that Mr Five Deferrments and Mr AWOL were creating memos that sent US soldiers orders that put them in jail for following orders? She’s taking the bull by the horns! (Bless her.)

Then the news — eloquently explained by Suskind and another Maddow guest (a former interrogator) that the BushCheney procedures were NOT effective for gleaning info, but rather were used to elicit FALSE confessions.

Then, also today, Shepherd Smith’s obviously instinctive, deeply felt rejection of being smeared by, or associated with, torture. I think we all know how he feels… But I would never have expected his remarks.

I’d say the horse got out of the barn around 7 pm EST today.
Let’s see where it goes now…

If that were the case, add it to the number of military that Bush and Cheney have pissed on, and pissed off, and it sure is starting to look like a convergence of a Tipping Point of some kind.