that Feinstein and Wyden are finding out how pervasive the knowledge of torture in our military was and how digging that out might damage our whole military system?

http://washingtonindependent.com/20835/why-is-dianne-feinstein-creating-rhetorical-wiggle-room-for-torturing-people

Pretty serious omission by the NYT if this was indeed her statement for the record.

Oops, you got me on that one. I was inferring from the context of the article that "Alias" was one of the worst offenders for heroes torturing prisoners. I've never watched it, so I appreciate your clarification. I'd love to find the full report for the analysis the articles I cited relied on, but I haven't found it yet.

http://www.navytimes.com/news/2008/12/ap_retired_generals_120308/

NavyTimes - - your online resource for everything Navy

* * * * *

Wednesday Dec 3, 2008 20:50:46 EST

WASHINGTON — A dozen retired generals met with President-elect Barack Obama’s top legal advisers Wednesday, pressing their case to overturn some of the Bush administration’s terrorism-fighting policies. [...]

The generals would like to see authority rescinded for the CIA to use harsh interrogation methods that go beyond those approved for use by the military; [...]

* * * * *

There are strong voices from the military saying the CIA methods are illegal and immoral and stupid - - and are costing American military lives.

And some people at the CIA (and, undoubtedly, at the OVP) are pushing back and trying to "frame" the debate as a debate between those who want America safe -versus- far left (supposedly) bloggers and wackos.

How the debate plays out may depend on how the debate is "framed".

It's absolutely incorrect to frame the debate as being about going after low level people in the military.

When the investigations come (if ever), they should start by grilling Harriet Miers for as long as necessary, (she was involved, for instance, in the destruction of the torture tapes that Cheney and Bush (almost certainly) viewed at the White House). Then work upwards from Miers to Bush to Addington.

Pretty serious omission by the NYT if this was indeed her statement for the record.

I don't agree, and don't think it changes the meaning much. Scherer noted the same statement.

EVERYONE says they are in favor of banning torture and complying with all laws and treaties. The Bush administration says they're in favor of that, too. That's meaningless.

The question is: what tactics are allowed? For a full year, she said she wanted only those tactics in the Army Field Manual. Now she's changed that. That is the issue. Her full statement doesn't alter that in the slightest.

for this week's "Contributor of the Week".

Congrats to the winner. (It's really a big deal!)

Also, congratulations to Adnoto on his apparent furlough.

link at sig

"I think I would arrive at saying I moved the family member but wouldn't actually do it." -- Jim White

What's the difference?

The opinion you linked to is questionable.

Is Feinstein equivocating, or is she unequivocal?

Here's what Scherer concluded.

http://swampland.blogs.time.com/2008/12/03/interrogation-policy-still-a-bit-shadowy/

An aide to Feinstein contacted me this evening to say that the New York Times cut off part of her statement to the paper.

That full statement, however, seems to only confirm the Times' suggestion that Feinstein is backing away from the Army Field Manual standard for all interrogations, in favor of an alternative, still undefined, "single standard across the government."

- - Michael Scherer

* * * * *

I agree with Scherer.

It's another feinsteinweaselanswer (thanks, pieceofcake).

No apology owed to Feinstein.

I suppose that eventually most Americans will wise up to the fact that there is absolutely NO, as in NOT A FUCKING BIT, of difference between the two major political parties.

Of course by then the internment camps will be up and running and dissenters will find themselves prisoners in their own country.

Welcome to Amerika.......

I understand the article was pointing out Feinstein's inconsistencies, and she is a slippery liar, but what is this obsession with the army field manual? The United States is party to the Geneva Convention, which means its provisions have the power of domestic law. The CIA can go ahead and write its own interrogation manual, they can embroider it with florettes or emblazon it with deathmetal logos, but as long as it adheres to the law, what difference does it make?

It seems as they are going to great pains not to mention this feren treaty we're party to.

but I wanted T-o-t-D!

and anyway, I just cut-and-paste.

Give it to somebody who can write. How about Kovie?

The tireless, not to mention caustic, assumption that you are the sole, lonely advocate for voting system changes and the insulting manner in which you fling it about, are the reason Kovie and others here get tired of your rants.

DOING WHAT IS REQUIRED TO CHANGE THE GAME TO NOT BE CROOKED ! ! !

Shall we storm the combat battalion based here now? Is that Teh Plan?? Or should we all assemble on the Mall and sack Kongress? Where is the secret website that tells us where/when to meet and how long the tines on our pitchforks should be to qualify as "acceptable" for Teh Revolution?

UNLESS/UNTIL i hear ONE FUCKING STUPID saloonie get on the bandwagon for REAL CHANGE and advocate for INSTANT RUNOFF VOTING as their NUMBER ONE PRIORITY TO CHANGE THE FIXED GAME, i don't think you baby-citizens know shit...

I'm on board for all that...there, you have your 'one fucking saloonie' now. Happy? So I guess we'll all now hear your proposal for implementing all of these changes. Short of doing what GWB did in Iraq at the point of a gun, I'm not sure what you'll tell us we should be doing different from what I know for a fact people here are concretely doing. If you have alternative suggestions, then put them out there, but they'll get further if you act rational instead of like the hate-spewing idjits on the right.

(there, i've shown you mine, now show me yours, dickless; yeah, i thought not, pussy...)

What you've shown here, time after time, is an inordinate anger against the status quo. One that is shared whether or not you believe it.

Posting "NUMEROUS 'serious', 'practical' postings concerning the BEDROCK issue" is not the same as offering a solution. If you had any kind of 'dick' yourself, then you'd be offering solutions, but you'd rather rant and spray the threads with the spittle of your righteous anger.

'Pussy', indeed. I've got one and I'm not afraid to use it, what about you? Were you in that room with Fitrakis? If not, then WTF were you doing election night you sorry Windbag of Self-righteous Gas???

On that note, I'm leaving town for a business meeting, so spew away guerrilla-boy. Just remember it's less messy if you face downwind.