Thanks for sharing your experience.

Posted by Valtin at Invictus:

"[...] Wiretapping, Torture, Stonewalling by government, and Obstruction of Justice by the agencies and players involved -- Watergate was not easy, and this will not be so either. But I feel the tide turning, and we must complete what the Vietnam and Watergate eras failed to achieve: a social revolution in how power is conducted in this country, and an end to militarism and imperialist foreign policy as the raison d'etre for U.S. power."

http://valtinsblog.blogspot.com/2009/03/from-doj-to-cia-wiretapping-torture.html

Holder's speech on March 2, 2009 [thanks]:

http://www.usdoj.gov/ag/speeches/2009/ag-speech-090302.html

Pedinska said:

I am interested to see what folks think. Did he, in fact, address the memos adequately (could be, I only have time to skim as I have to leave for an appointment shortly), or is there still wiggle room? Keep in mind the continuing battle over states secrets......

In a word?

NO.

First of all, I think the remarks were not meant to address the OLC memos issue. He did speak at some length about the Obama Executive Orders. He made one specific pledge:

While many practices will be subject to review under these executive orders, one in particular will not. As I unequivocally stated in my confirmation hearing before the U.S. Senate, waterboarding is torture. My Justice Department will not justify it, rationalize it, or condone it. The sanction of torture is at odds with the history of American jurisprudence and American principles. It undermines our ability to pursue justice fairly, and it puts our own brave soldiers in peril should they ever be captured on a foreign battlefield.

So, the Justice Department will no longer "condone" waterboarding.

That's it.

The story of the CIA Inspector General Report:

May 2003 - CIA “Office of Inspector General reviewed the videotapes” of detainee interrogations. See May 7, 2004. [54]

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]

March 2, 2009-In a letter to the federal judge overseeing Freedom of Information Act litigation in New York, Acting U.S. Attorney Lev Dassin writes: “The CIA can now identify [that] ninety-two [interrogation] videotapes were destroyed. This information is included in the CIA Office of Inspector General’s Special Review Report. […] The CIA will unredact this information […]” [111] See May 2003 and May 7, 2004.

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/tlpage44.html

Scott Horton is wrong. Yoo doesn't see the Constitution as disappearing ink except for the Commander in Chief clause. He sees the Constitution, not as a product of the Enlightenment, but as a creation of a constrained monarchy, with some limited parliamentary and judicial roles added to prevent some unwanted monarchical side effects, based on the Vesting Clause.

I do think the "be afraid, be very afraid" language is meant for the peons.

It seems Yoo et al. are just following in Alexander Hamilton's footsteps:

"Alexander Hamilton, the monarchist-leaning founding father, can justifiably be considered America's first prominent authoritarian conservative. Political scientists Charles W. Dunn and J. David Woodard reported in their study The Conservative Tradition in America that Hamilton's "brand of conservatism may be properly labeled authoritarian conservatism." Dunn and Woodard trace the ideology of authoritarian conservatism to Joseph de Maistre, a French nobleman and political polemicist who became an outspoken opponent of Enlightenment thinking, and who favored a strong central government. De Maistre was more famously known by later generations for his admiration of hangmen, whom he felt were essential for social order."

"Maistrean conservatism was "authoritarian in its stress on the authority" being granted to "some traditional elite."

"As one sifts through the conservative philosophy of the religious right and of the neo-conservatives, the Maistrean philosophy is conspicuously present. Unlike traditional conservatives who embrace varying degrees of libertarianism - drawn from the core beliefs of classic Nineteenth Century liberalism - the authoritarian conservative wants an all-powerful chief executive who runs a mighty military that implements his will.

Why Authoritarians Now Control the Republican Party: The Rise of Authoritarian Conservatism

Part Two in a Three-Part Series

http://writ.news.findlaw.com/scripts/printer_friendly.pl?page=/dean/20070921.html

I'm sorry; I'd like to continue the discussion, but can't right now.

Good evening, All!