It's not NPR's torture controversy , It's yours.

Really? You must not have visited the comment sections to the related posts there. Doesn't surprise me though since you commented on Glenn's interview with Charlie Savage before even listening to it.

Must really twist your knickers to have one of your journalistic Bible's best agree with Glenn. Yeah, I bet you can barely walk from all the elastic wadding up. I heard it going fwip-fwap-fwip-fwap from clear across the country as you hurried over here from the other thread to bleat at Glenn about something he's never claimed to have.

Sad, in this day and age, to think that the true journalism that still exists is almost entirely confined to the pages of blogs like UT and shows on the Comedy Channel.

February 2003 - CIA lawyer Scott W. Muller told members of the House and Senate Oversight Committees about the CIA’s interest in destroying the interrogation tapes. [119]

May 2003 - CIA “Office of Inspector General reviewed the videotapes” of detainee interrogations. See May 7, 2004. [54] On March 2, 2009, a letter to the judge overseeing FOIA litigation reveals that ninety-two CIA interrogation video tapes were destroyed, and that this information is included in the CIA Office of Inspector General’s Special Review Report [111] [119]

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] On March 2, 2009, a letter to the judge overseeing FOIA litigation reveals that ninety-two CIA interrogation video tapes were destroyed, and that this information is included in the CIA Office of Inspector General’s Special Review Report [111] Helgerson’s report was opposed by Scott Muller, Counsel to the Clandestine Service. Muller attended a meeting at the WH with Gonzales, Addington and [NSC lawyer] Bellinger, in which possible tape destruction was discussed. [119]

May 31, 2005 - Comey tells Gonzales: “[…] it was simply not acceptable for Principles to say that everything that may be “legal” is also appropriate. […] I told him it would all come out some day and be presented in the way I was presenting it. I mentioned that I had heard there was a video of an early session which would come out eventually. […]” [151] In November 2005 the CIA destroys 92 interrogation tapes. [119]

November 2005 - CIA Clandestine Service Director Jose A. Rodriguez Jr. orders the destruction of CIA interrogation tapes. [119] These tapes had been discussed in the report filed by the CIA IG on May 7, 2004. See also March 2, 2009.

December 7, 2007 - The New York Times reports that hundreds of hours of videotapes of the interrogations of Abu Zubaydah had been destroyed by the CIA in 2005. [16] [See March 28, 2002, May 2002 and March 27, 2007]

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.

Sources:

http://www.webdsi.com/jebbie/tline.html

If anyone is interested in actually watching the video from which Glenn quoted, it can be streamed from the Daily Show website here:

http://www.comedycentral.com/videos/index.jhtml?videoId=114421&title=kerry-controversy

Glenn Greenwald just plain chaps some people's asses: he's sarcastic, smart (and he knows it), opinionated, judgmental, and probably too sure of himself by half. It's one of the things I like most about the guy, because the asses he chaps are the ones most in need of the chappin'.

To all of you: groupies, haters, lurkers and ass-chappers: I sincerely wish you, each and every one, a fun and relaxing holiday weekend.

Except that this article is beautiful in it's simplicity, in it's logic, and in it's devestating clarity.

This paragraph in Shepard’s column is odd:

"But no matter how many distinguished groups -- the International Red Cross, the U.N. High Commissioners -- say waterboarding is torture, there are responsible people who say it is not. Former President Bush, former Vice President Cheney, their staff and their supporters obviously believed that waterboarding terrorism suspects was necessary to protect the nation's security."

First, Shepard posits that Bush, Cheney, their staff, and their supporters are “responsible people.” That characterization--one might argue--is called into question by the debate about which Shepard is writing.

Second, Shepard presents as two legitimate, maybe even equal, sides of the debate the Red Cross and the U.N. High Commissioners, and Bush, Cheney, their staff, and their supporters. So on one side we have neutral, international human rights organizations, and on the other we have . . . the very people authorizing, committing, and/or supporting the policy that’s being debated.

Third--and this is just odd--at the end of the first sentence, Shepard leads the reader to believe that she’s about to name folks who say that waterboarding is not torture (“there are responsible people who say it is not”). But then, rather than saying Bush, et al. believe it’s not torture, she notes that they “believed waterboarding terrorism suspects was necessary to protect the nation’s security.” Of course the question whether an act constitutes torture has nothing to do with the question whether something is necessary for national security.

Like I said, it’s an odd paragraph.

Seems to me that the WaPo "Salons" should subject them to the Lobbying Disclosure Act -- and that canceling them may not put the toothpaste back in the tube.

More @ sig.