Comments on: Back to Breuer’s Claims about Future Investigations

By: Styve

Styve — Tue, 01 Sep 2009 17:37:09 +0000

I am reading Gellman’s book, “Angler”, and I believe that Stephan (#13) may be onto something… This Cheney scum is going to hell, hopefully with a pit stop in prison first. I don’t believe he would go to jail…he would kill himself first.

Reminds me of a protest sign I made in 2006…

IS BUSH’S BUNKER
MOMENT SOON?!

By: TheLurkingMod

TheLurkingMod — Tue, 01 Sep 2009 03:01:21 +0000

watertiger is upstairs!
Late Night: Craven and Bigoted is No Way to Go Through Life, Son.

By: R.H. Green

R.H. Green — Tue, 01 Sep 2009 02:59:32 +0000

I’ve been toying with a similar thought. Only in my dream, Durham found some data that called for expanding his mandate, took it to Holder who reluctantly agreed that it could be bad if it came out that he quashed the matter there. If Durham made him an offer he couldn’t refuse, Holder had to go to BO and spill the bad news. Thus the limited go ahead and thinking to derail things later. But as you suggest, these things can grow legs if not expertly pruned.

By: libbyliberal

libbyliberal — Tue, 01 Sep 2009 02:57:28 +0000

Glenn Greenwald:

Speaking of Mike Wallace’s boy, Andrew Sullivan says that, during his interview about torture with Dick Cheney today, he “sounded like a teenage girl interviewing the Jonas Brothers.” Andrew compiles the “questions” Wallace asked of Cheney and it’s hard to describe it any other way. He adds:

When future historians ask how the United States came not only to practice torture but to celebrate it and treat torturers as heroes, a special place in hell among the journalists who embraced and justified it should be reserved for Chris Wallace.

http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/

By: bmaz

bmaz — Tue, 01 Sep 2009 01:47:42 +0000

Oh, it could - If the DOJ leadership, especially Holder, wants it to. But therein lies the question because they have been very consistent in saying they would not do that.

By: floundericiousMI

floundericiousMI — Tue, 01 Sep 2009 01:34:56 +0000

Thanks bmaz and yes, I was talking about Durham although I couldn’t remember his name (blush)

How is that authority declared, circumscribed, etc. in writing? I guess my original question was procedural…how his power and jurisdiction is defined…

Anyways, it was just a stray thought before dinner…wondering if an investigation into CIA excesses that found evidence of agents being pushed by the white house to be aggressive could blow up into a big investigation of the white house

By: bmaz

bmaz — Tue, 01 Sep 2009 01:05:20 +0000

Assuming you are talking about Durham, of course he can be removed. He is not an independent prosecutor, and has no independent authority; he appears on the case only as a representative of the Attorney General and even in that capacity has only the authority specifically given him by the Attorney General.

By: floundericiousMI

floundericiousMI — Tue, 01 Sep 2009 00:57:06 +0000

Can a federal prosecutor be limited??

Once this investigation is under way, can the prosecutor actually be held back from pursuing the torture crimes to their fullest extent? How would that be enforced aside from a very messy public removal of the prosecutor?

By: WTFOver

WTFOver — Mon, 31 Aug 2009 23:46:03 +0000

CIA’s black sites, illuminated

The facilities were never meant to be ‘ordinary prisons,’ recently released documents reveal in meticulous detail.

http://www.latimes.com/news/na.....full.story

The secret overseas “black sites” where the CIA conducted the interrogations are empty now, if not already dismantled. They were never examined by a congressional committee, nor inspected by the international Red Cross.

“These papers may provide the only picture that history gets of what life was like in these facilities,” said Tom Malinowski, Washington director of Human Rights Watch.

The black sites not only imprisoned men but reduced them to a near helpless state. The aim, as outlined in one document, was to teach every detainee “to perceive and value his personal welfare, comfort and immediate needs more than the information he is protecting.”

By: perris

perris — Mon, 31 Aug 2009 23:41:31 +0000

you know what would go very nicely in the torture timeline?

the time when the Iraqi’s suspected torture, (when they realized we were still using abu graeb) and the time we were no longer welcome as liberators

I suspect they coincide almost to the week.

if that’s true that marks the time our policies begin recruiting exponentially insurgents against our cause, our government and our people

if so, imagine how that would play when a progressive points it out