El Cid said:

In such a case, the U.S. FPE is justified in overthrowing the election of those they oppose by any means permitted by the U.S. FPE -- i.e., economic subversion, covert funding and violent action, civil war, hiring terrorists to attack civilians, and on occasion direct invasion.

Several years ago I was reading up on the Niger Document caper and came across the obituary of one of the first CIA officers. His name was F. Mark Wyatt. The reason he drew my attention at the time of his death [July, 2006] is because CIA agents and Italian former spies were being charged with kidnapping at the time, in the case of the Imam Abu Omar.

I learned some interesting things:

He “played a significant role in the agency's first major cold war covert action, an operation to swing the Italian elections of 1948. […] The mission was to ensure the electoral victory of Italy's Christian Democrats over the Communist Party. […][He] helped deliver millions of dollars to the eventual victors […] The C.I.A.'s practice of buying political clout was repeated in every Italian election for the next 24 years, and the agency's political influence in Rome lasted a generation, declassified records show. […]”

Link at sig.

The reason the CIA/Italy connection was interesting in the Niger Documents caper was that the [faked] documents supposedly came out of the Niger Embassey in Rome, and were pushed by the government of Silvio Berliosconi.

With regard to the public's right to know:

"Liberty cannot be preserved without a general knowledge among the people, who have a right, from the frame of their nature, to knowledge, as their great Creator, who does nothing in vain, has given them understandings, and a desire to know; but besides this, they have a right, an indisputable, unalienable, indefeasible, divine right to that most dreaded and envied kind of knowledge; I mean, of the characters and conduct of their rulers.

May 7, 2004-CIA Office of Inspector General [John Helgerson] issues the report on its review of CIA “Counterterrorism, Detention and Interrogation Activities, September 2001-October 2003” [54] Jane Mayer says: “[Helgerson] was “called in by Cheney to discuss his tough report […] proving that Cheney knew even then of the allegations […] The report had been described as very disturbing and full of terrible descriptions of mistreatment.” Scott Horton: “it appears as a result of these [Helgerson/Cheney] meetings the IG’s report was simply shut down” [55] and “All the indicators are that the CIA’s inspector general found that the extraordinary renditions program was unlawful and he demanded accounting for it. […]Freeing up the inspector general to finish his review and render a final report would be an obvious next step.” [58] For Richard Clarke’s views on Rendition see [59]

This Is the CIA Inspector General Report:

http://www.aclu.org/torturefoia/released/052708/052708_Special_Review.pdf

Page 15 is totally blacked out except for a heading which says “Enhanced Interrogation Techniques” and the phrase [almost at the bottom] “the waterboard techniques”.

It makes one wonder what else is in that section if waterboarding is the only thing they could leave in. Many pages are the same, that is if they don’t say “Denied in Full”.

Sources at: http://www.webdsi.com/jebbie/tlpage40.html

Londonlad [I think...sorry if I'm wrong]posted this yesterday:

Top US lawyer warns of deaths at Guantánamo, 2/8/09

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/feb/08/binyam-mohamed-torture-guantanamo-bay/print

Lieutenant-Colonel Yvonne Bradley, an American military lawyer, will step through the grand entrance of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office in London tomorrow and demand the release of her client - a British resident who claims he was repeatedly tortured at the behest of US intelligence officials - from Guantánamo Bay. Bradley will also request the disclosure of 42 secret documents that allegedly chronicle not only how Binyam Mohamed was tortured, but may also corroborate claims that Britain was complicit in his treatment.[...]

And, ondelette, would you be so kind as to link to your blog again. I saw it for the first time this afternoon, but I guess I didn't save the link. Thanks so much!

kovie asked:

"[...] did Obama do this for what he viewed as necessary and unavoidable, even virtuous in a broader context (at least in his view) reasons [...]"

This is Bush and the Cheney-gang's reasoning for torture- -it was necessary to "keep the American people safe"- -Obama won't convince me with this reasoning any more than that gang did.

"[...] Bradley, an experienced US defence department attorney, has seen evidence given to her by the US and passed it to the Foreign Office. The US warned that if the evidence was released, it would stop sharing intelligence with Britain, thus causing damage to the UK's national security.

Bradley said she had no doubts Mohamed had been tortured. The case "has nothing to do with national security whatsoever", she said, adding that it was probably to do with embarrassment.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/feb/10/binyam-mohamed-plea-guantanamo/print