That pattern continued hearing far more from Peggy that would take months to get into the MSm

“Guantanamo is more Kafka than Kafka.”

“But opportunistic locals, enticed by the $5,000 bounty that the U.S. had put on the heads of “Arab fighters,” kidnapped him and sold him to the Northern Alliance, an Afghan militia supported by the U.S., which, in turn, collected the lucrative reward from the Americans”

“Despite repeated claims by the Bush administration and its supporters in Congress that the vast majority of the detainees were “vicious killers” who had been “captured on the battlefield,” it turns out that only about 5 percent of the detainees were captured by U.S. forces. Most of the rest — 86 percent, according to a detailed study by Seton Hall University School of Law — were rounded up by the Northern Alliance or Pakistani security forces in exchange for the reward money, or because they were in the wrong place at the wrong time.”

“Aside from the 14 “high value” detainees who were brought to Guantanamo in September 2006, virtually all of the remaining 241 prisoners are being held because, as Hood put it, “nobody wants to be the one to sign the release papers.”

All based on bribed intel
Now we use the same intel to designate a “target” for the Predator drone
consequently bypassing the whole rendition program with all the legal problems. Aside from catching a few inocent civilians in the mix it’s a far cleaner approach
Is there a hole for me to get sick in?

Remember, in his public comments Goss doesn’t seem to dispute that. Nor does Pelosi, I don’t think.

Bob in HI

Like the Red Queen it was “Sentence First…Trial Later”. And Cheney was the one that jumped the gun on all of the requirements, I bet.

“Briefing on EITs including use of EITs on Abu Zubaydah, background on authorities, and a description of the particular EITs that had been employed.”

Just a bit of grammatical doubt about this. Why doesn’t it say

“Briefing on EITs including a description of the particular EITs that had been used on Abu Zubaydah; including background on authorities” ???

That would seem more concise, would it not? Why phrase it this other way? Why the shift from the ambiguous tense “use”…to the definitite past participle “USED”?

Why is the reference to authorities immediately following the potentially prospective action?

Remember as well that there could be two briefings, or perhaps a supplementary briefing for Goss. Perhaps the use of the CIA language reflects a composite of both those briefings…at one Pelosi was told about the authorities and “future actions” that might be taken? And note that the CIA explicitly states that the “full description of water boarding” (and perhaps the first), came at a briefing in 2003, which Pelosi was not in attendance at.

Was Goss the only one told about the past treatment of Zubaydah…and that this came before the “authorities” were issued?

Something about this wording seems very strange to me if the briefing was the same (and not a composite summary) and if Zubaydah’s past and prospective water boarding and other EITs were being presented clearly and forthrightly?

Furthermore, hasn’t it been the line that once they water boarded al Zubaydah they didn’t need to torture him any more? So why would they approach the Congress for additional EIT applications on someone that was “cooperating”?