I found Think Progress reporting that Sen. Feinstein was misquoted. Here is what they say was edited by the NYT.,

“The law must reflect a single, clear standard across the government, and right now the best choice appears to be the Army Field Manual,” Senator Feinstein said. “I recognize that there are other views, and I am willing to work with the new Administration to consider them. However, my intent is to pass a law that effectively bans torture, complies with all laws and treaties, and provides a single standard across the government.”

http://thinkprogress.org/2008/12/04/feinstein-nyt-torture/

This is an important issue, so I am glad to hear the Senator's staff trying to have her record clear.

But, then I also hear that this clarification still leaves her fuzzy on the issue.

Thank you, Glenn -- as always. I live in Oregon, and I wrote the following to my Senator, Wyden:

Dear Senator Wyden,

I am anxious about Glenn Greenwald's column in Salon.com this morning. Why are you equivocating on TORTURE?

I hope you will respond directly to Mr. Greenwald and to the New York Times. Mr. Greenwald hosts a twice-weekly discussion podcast -- would you please agree to an interview with him on that podcast?

Had I wanted a "Writer of the Week" I would have had a "Writer of the Week".

Stopyerbitchin and take the reward like a man (or whatever).

The weather is actually relatively mild in Oslo this time of the year.

The transition of the Chair of the Intelligence Committee from Roberts to Rockefeller to Feinstein has been so smooth and seamless as to make me wonder if all three have ever been seen in the same room at one time.

How someone as corrupt as Feinstein can be allowed to chair the Intel Committee is yet another indictment of the Democrats. Was no one paying attention when she chaired the Rules Committee? Or, were they just hoping no one was paying attention?

The difference is whether you put another (most likely) innocent person into the potential blast zone. The problem is that you are still engaging in turning the terror back on the instigator, possibly heading down the slippery slope of adopting all of their tactics.

'Pussy', indeed. I've got one and I'm not afraid to use it, what about you?

If it wasn't for him (and I think Adnoto must have had a hand in it too, judging from his posts) we'd still be in Iraq, we'd still be torturing people and Gitmo would still be violating the fourth ammendment.

Obviously, the CIA can and should develop specific interrogation tactics that are classified

NO, NO, NO, NO!

My objection is not the development of interrogation techniques but their classification. I would have thought that in your position you'd have learned (a) to never trust your government and (b) that any power given to the government can and will be abused. Does the government need to be able to keep things secret? Sure. We don't want other countries knowing the capabilities of our military systems. We need to keep negotiations with foreign countries secret until they are complete. We need to keep the names of our spies secret. I'm running out of things that need to be kept secret here. Have you ever heard of SI/SAO (Special Investigation/Special Access Only)? So they develop their new techniques - enhanced versions of the thumb screws/fingernail splints/waterboarding/rack/crucifixion that we currently are using. They then classify it as utter top secret and further identify it as Special Access Only. A grand total of a dozen people know what it is. So they can merrily continue to torture people simply because nobody who might object knows about it (that's the special access part).

One of the most pernicious things the government does (and this is not limited to the Shrubbite regime) is abuse the classification system. The government has, is, and, unless we do something about it, will continue to hide illegal, immoral, and unethical behavior behind the shroud of secrecy. Does it not set off alarms in your head when the government continues to keep key evidence from the Gulf of Tonkin incident classified more than 40 years after the event? The Shrubbites have raised this to new heights where they can capture foreign nationals in a foreign country which we are occupying after a war that violated a variety of international treaties, charge them with crimes under American law (even though he's never been to the US), try them without having to prove a damn thing - the evidence is classified so you just have to trust us - thus neatly preventing the poor bastard from knowing what he is really accused of doing as well as preventing him from rebutting it and then throw him back into his solitary confinement in a cell the size of a postage stamp.

Hello Franz Kafka.

You call this justice? You call yourself a lawyer? You oughtta be ashamed of yourself.

"I have said repeatedly that America doesn't torture..." -Barack Obama

Hey, Jebbie, this line of Pedinska's needs immortalizing somehow...'Pussy', indeed. I've got one and I'm not afraid to use it, what about you?" -- bamage

Are you aware of the amount of damage a person with a Black Belt in Tae Kwan Do can do to an old man armed merely with superior intellect and a certain amount of guile?

Lots.

I don't believe I want to touch that.

I actually found it to be one of her weakest statements. As, really, it was simply a rant response to a rant.

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

I look at it a bit differently.

The way the NYT presented it, it clearly seemed she was equivocating over a ban.

The way I read it now, she seems to be equivocating over whether having the AFM impose a single standard is the best option - but she does not appear to have equivocated over a ban.

That said, there is a weasel word in there - "effectively". And I do accept the point that that she is backsliding on the AFM principle, but not as clear she is backsliding on the more fundamental point on a torture ban.