Uhm, that’s not what the Constitution says. It says “probable cause,” not some imaginary middle level of government access to my affairs, as defined by a fearful CIA counterterrorism official. Understand “government of laws, not men” ? Why is Brennan’s opinion of when the government can interfere in my affairs more important than what the Constitution actually says?

But in late June Holder asked an aide for a copy of the CIA inspector general’s thick classified report on interrogation abuses. He cleared his schedule and, over two days, holed up alone in his Justice Depart ment office, immersed himself in what Dick Cheney once referred to as “the dark side.” He read the report twice, the first time as a lawyer, looking for evidence and instances of transgressions that might call for prosecution. The second time, he started to absorb what he was reading at a more emotional level. He was “shocked and saddened,” he told a friend, by what government servants were alleged to have done in America’s name. When he was done he stood at his window for a long time, staring at Constitution Avenue.

Newsweek article

He seems to have had something that was lacking in the previous administration…a conscience. It sounds like he may have to fend off Rahm to apoint a special prosecutor for EIT’s/torture, but more power to him.

Does anyone think that the political briefings made to the presidential candidates included a program so secret nobody else knew ( except Brennan of course ) We should ask McSame if he knew about this stuff. Otherwise, Brennan has either played Obama or has him by the short ones somehow.

Mr. Hoekstra said he believed Congress would not have approved of executing the plan. “Maybe on Sept. 12,” he said, but not later, when the fear of a wave of additional terrorist attacks began to diminish.

Where have we seen that excuse for secrecy before. Oh, yes. Why didn’t they go to Congress to get broader powers for FISA. Because they had decided that Congress would not give them what they needed, so they just went ahead without consulting or informing anyone who would disapprove. This seems to have been the SOP of the Bush WH for not following the law.

* a CIA “unit” brought to the program to Panetta’s attention – kind of an odd way to phrase that, isn’t it?

*Cheney directly ordered that the project be concealed from Congress by CIA – and he had that authority by virtue of …? Would have been a nice question for Shane to ask – was there a Presidential finding/directive etc. with the program that also delegated Presidential power over the program to Cheney?

*the program supposedly does not involve domestic intelligence activiies and supposedly does not involve the interrogation program

*the program was started by the counterterrrism center (if it kept running out of it, there’s another overlap with Brennan)shortly after 9/11

*planning and training for the program took place from shortly after 9/11 through pretty much now, although the program never became “fully operational”

Hmmm.

@12 – thanks for the link on the Holder piece. The really sad part of it is reading how Holder’s crew at DOJ was only belatedly realizing something that has been pretty evident for the last few years – something that is a direct result of year after year after year of the Dept of Justice defending torture and year after year after year of the complete denial that anyone we disappeared and tortured was anything other than Bin Laden’s soulmate. Coupled with a press that has eschewed torture for patriotism as the topics de jure.

Once they saw the memos, they apparently really believed that all it would take is releasing them to cause a groundswell of outrage that would require the appointment of a special prosecutor. They watched as the release created no ripples, anywhere. The editorializing in the piece, that:

“The memos had already received such public notoriety that the new details in them did not shock many people.”

falls very far short of the mark IMO. Years of acquiesence in, and promotion of, Executive branch crime by DOJ and the media have reshaped this country. That’s really the saddest aspect; it isn’t just the crimes against innocents and children that so many were so greedily happy to commit, it’s how remorselessly they were willing to reshape the values of a whole nation to protect themselves from the inconvenience of telling the truth about what they’ve done. The “patriots” that Obama wants to protect thought nothing of basically killing this nation and recreating it in a lesser image, for the great and glorious purpose of promoting torture.

I don’t know which is sadder – that DOJ has so relentlessly and remorselessly helped pursue the promotion of torture by the Sovereign as a state secret, torture done by patriots to save the nation, to the point that they have for years now been successfully reshaping the nation, or that the best and brightest at Holder’s DOJ would be surprised when given evidence of that success.

Even in this piece, the editorialized comment in the article is that if Holder does appoint a special prosecutor:

Such a decision would roil the country, would likely plunge Washington into a new round of partisan warfare, and could even imperil Obama’s domestic priorities, including health care and energy reform.

Oh please. Let see – abu ghraib prosecutions, did those “roil” the country and “plunge” DC into partisan divides? Hell, Democrats have the theoretic ability (that they will never in fact exercise) to actually accomplish something if they made a moderate effort is all it takes to promote partisan warfare.

And somehow it isn’t Blue Dogs and big pharma and Republicans and Lieberman and insurance companies etc. that are going to “imperil” (nice word choice for guys who shy away from calling freezing someone to death torture) Obama’s health care policies – it’s not even Obama himself, refusing to kick butt over the public option. It will all be Holder’s fault for seeking prosecution of torture. What a crock.

[BTW - from the Holder piece, I’m guessing EW will like the reference by Holder’s wife to “Rich’s conniving lawyers” - golly, who might she have meant?]

http://speaker.house.gov/newsr…..es?id=1266

I think she might have a collection of these letters somewhere not yet declassified as well as some declassified.