Bush just mentioned (4) incidents in which these tactics were utilized. Weren't there only (3) admitted to previously?

As a veteran having served ten years in the US military I had always fantasized about one of my kids one day attending a US service academy. The US Naval Academy, West Point, Air Force or Coast Guard, any one would do, though I certainly have my preferances.

That was until the passage of the Military Commissions Act of 2006 when that dream was snatched away from me by George Bush and company. I was forced to reconsider a long held belief and tradition in my family. On the brighter side , it has made for one less agrgument with my wife, who has never fantasized about either of our children in military service.

The most recent developments have only strengthened my resolve that this president and his administration know absolutely nothing about waging a successful military campaign or maintaining its legitimacy with those sacrificing their lives in defense of the same.

Good luck to US all.

There are reasons to be concerned that the administration's use of renditioning and detaining of prisoners may be far more extensive than is publicly perceived. Details are being spelled out at http://timelikethis.blogspot.com/

Ok, wait a damn minute here. Said Senator Leahy:

"Such techniques are already clearly illegal."

OK, so why is no one being arrested for it? Is it the fact that the Justice Department is part of it? Is there actually no such thing as law enforcement in this country when it would conflict with the interests of the DOJ's administration?

Such a case would suggest that ours has always been a despotic government that just works on the honor system.

Maybe Europe should step in and make the US safe for democracy. God knows I'd support them.

How do you know when your own government is working against you? The North Koreans think they're better off than anyone else. Perhaps being told, or believing, that you are in a democratic country is the surest sign that you are not.

Seconding thanks for your commitment to the country and honesty!

I guess that means it's OK for these terrorists to waterboard our guys, too.

http://OsiSpeaks.com or http://RealConservativesSpeak.com

Even today I'm astonished at Bush's stupidity.

There was one telltale sign here however that really solidified it for me the other day. Jon Stewart seems to have been the only person pointing this out, but Bush apparently is not even aware that gas prices are about to hit 4 dollars on average.

It's gone from stupidity and ignorance at this point to living in a vacuum. What else doesn't he know? How preoccupied with war and terrorism is he that he's completely missing reality here?

Notice the similarity of the sweeping statement the President is making about POW abuse, and the illegal surveillance. In both cases the President is incorrectly asserting that if he is forced to comply with the law, the United States will be less secure:

The bill Congress sent me would take away one of the most valuable tools in the war on terror -- the CIA program to detain and question key terrorist leaders and operatives.

It is reckless for this President, his legal advisors, and the GOP to assert "legal compliance means the US is less secure." The opposite is true: When the United States restrains itself, works within the law, it is respecting combatants who have been taken out of the fight. Those who are respected are more likely to cooperate.

This President would ask that we keep the option to abuse POW on the table, and pretend that that will enhance US security. No, each abuse will inspire others to take up arms and confront American lawlessness. It would be preferable if the Congress were to confront this President's confrontation with the rule of law; as opposed to this President demanding foreign forces use military forces to confront this lawless violation of Geneva.

This assertion was discredited as a fabrication. The entire plot was shown to be an illusion:

a plot to hijack a passenger plane and fly it into Library Tower in Los Angeles

Notice this waffling statement, again just as was done with the Iraq WMD: "Saddam could . . ."

If we were to shut down this program and restrict the CIA to methods in the Field Manual, we could lose vital information from senior al Qaida terrorists, and that could cost American lives.

Again, we've already addressed above the issue of "costing" American lives: Ensuring POWs are treated humanely will do the opposite, and save American lives. As to the first "could," the President did not say "will lose" or "shall lose," but "could lose."

- WHy is the WH counsel not willing to support an assertion of "Shall lose" or "Will lose"? Because they know, or should know, that POW abuse would likely result in the opposite: Substantial blowback against US combat forces; and a degradation of US foreign policy and overseas alliances and support.

Also notice, the President is saying "shut down this program" as if the CIA will be blocked from conducting interrogations. No, that is incorrect, as the President recklessly said with the illegal NSA surveillance. Nobody is arguing that the CIA should be blocked from engaging in covert activity; only that they be compelled to conduct that activity under the laws of war. If the CIA will not voluntarily constrain itself, no other nation needs to honor the same principles the CIA and this President ignores. That is lawfully permitted under the principles of reciprocity and retaliation.

The Senator is commenting on the lack of information he's could be provided in secret, but has not been given:

I have heard nothing to suggest that information obtained from enhanced interrogation techniques has prevented an imminent terrorist attack.

If the President's assertions are true -- that there "is" evidence that POW abuse makes the US safe -- why hasn't he provided that information in secret to the Intelligence COmmittee?

The only reasonable answer: The President is pretending he has information which does not exist; and he will not reveal in secret things to the Senate things he knows or should know have been fabrications. This is more evidence the President is lying about war crimes, Geneva violations, and laws prohibiting POW abuse.

Where there is no action that prevents an "imminent" attack, there is no information linking US combat actions and an imminent attack on US forces or citizens. Without an "imminent threat," there is no basis for the President to use combat forces. The President has been indirectly charged with waging illegal warfare, and using US combat forces where there was no imminent threat, as Geneva requires.

Now that the truth is out there, let the word go forth. Without conservatives there would be no torture. W's veto is complete, absolute and irrefutable proof of this simple fact.
We have been told "they hate us for our freedoms" and "they worship a culture of death." What we did not know was conservatives were talking about themselves. Every time W wants another one of our civil liberties it's conservatives who insist you won't miss that right, you don't need it anyway and besides, point to one person who has been hurt by the lack. When you consider that conservatives love torture and the death penalty the truth becomes clear. It is conservatives who have a culture of death. And it is conservatives who hate us for our freedoms.

I would be nice to waterboard Buch and Channey to get the real truth on Channey"s envolvement with Enron, was Bush asleep at the wheel or was he involved with 911 attack, why he didn't tell Comgress the truth that came out in the 911 Comissionusing,using the Pattriot Act for data mining or political cheeting, being wired in a debates, or how much drugs he used in college. .

i hate m
Sir oR Madam -more probably troll -please to refrain from asserting any criminal violence against any individuals including "Buch ,channey " on our TPM community thread - we need not give any credence to the right wingers when they say we are 'liberal fascist " that being one of the latest red herrings jONAH Goldberg is peddling - Also since we can assume our NSA and many other agencies are doing the total awareness data mining that Poindexter was proposing then when can also safely assume that the phrase "WATERBOARDING BUSH about alleged drug use & war crimes" clearly will put us here on this thread even more in the crosshairs of whomever is surveilling these sites.
So "i hate m " aren't you really a troll, and aren't you really trying to get this site on some "gummit" list of usual suspects ??

Senate intelligence committee Chairman Jay Rockefeller has zero credibility in my book.

I just hope that the new administration will not block extrication for these war criminals by any Old Europe country with civilized laws.

Impeach, investigate, incarcerate, impoverish

TESTING ,
It appears that through inaction the Congress is complicit . Cong Wexler just sent out another e-mail implying that complicity . Why are Harmon & other Represenatives being silent on the admission coming from the latest President address .Deafening silence does underscore concerns regarding complicity in torture .C'mon Congress wake up and smell the Hague coffee brewing !!!

The President has no power, on assertion alone, to state that his procedures are above judicial or legislative review. It defies reason to believe:

A. Something is unlawful and cannot be used by the Army because it violates Geneva; but

B. These same procedure magically becomes "lawful" simply because the President declares that method is outside what Congress, the courts, and others can compare to Geneva.

President's problem, in arguing for methods that are "outside" the Army Field Manual, is that he has a contradiction. The manual excludes specific procedures, but is guided by specific legal standards. The selection discusses the specific legal authorities guiding the procedures within the Army Field Manual:

The principles and techniques of HUMINT collection are to be used within the constraints established by US law including the following: • The Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ). • Geneva Convention for the Amelioration of the Condition of the Wounded and Sick in Armed Forces in the Field (including Common Article III), August 12,1949; hereinafter referred to as GWS. • Geneva Convention Relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War (includingCommon Article III), August 12, 1949; hereinafter referred to as GPW. • Geneva Convention Relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War (including Common Article III), August 12, 1949; hereinafter referred to as GC. • Detainee Treatment Act of 2005, Public Law No. 109-163, Title XIV.

The guidance in the Army Field Manual are public laws, treaties, and known legal obligations. However, the President is arguing that there are "other" procedures which the CIA "must" be able to engage.

Jurist reports that some of the procedures prohibited in the Army Field Manual include procedures which violate the Geneva Conventions:

[E]xplicitly prohibits the use of waterboarding, [redacted text] electrocution, sensory deprivation, inducing hypothermia, or depriving the subject of food, water, or medical care.

- Which of the specific procedures the Army Field Manual does not approve, and has been excluded has the President kept "on the table" for CIA agents to use in violation of Geneva?

- What legal authorities in the President relying on to abuse Prisoners of War?

- Why are interrogation procedures, which DoD will not include in the manual, things which the President wants to perform in violation of Geneva?

- Which specific procedures has the President said are outside what the Army can use, and a violation of Geneva; but are what the CIA can use?

- How can something be "not possible" under the Army Field Manual as a violation of Geneva; but "permissible": How can the CIA be authorized to do something which the Army is prohibited from doing on the grounds of it being a war crime?

- What is the legal justification to argue that procedures that fall otuside what Geneva permits, and beyond what the Army is permitted to use, could be used by the CIA?

- How can techniques which violate Geneva, and cannot be included within the Army Manual, be something that the CIA can use, but also be lawful under Geneva?

- Which specific methods has the Army rejected as a war crime, and not permissible under Geneva, but the President wants to permit the CIA to use in violation of Geneva?

As more information surfaces about US rendition efforts around the globe, the President will have to explain: If, as he asserts, the POWs were always lawfully treated under Geneva, why bother transferring the POWs out of the United States; or transship them from European black sites to Africa? It's absurd for him to argue things were "just fine" when the President's actions communicate the opposite: The POWs were being mistreated.

President's Movement of POWs After Supreme Court Ruling

After the Supreme Court ruled the Guantanamo prisoners were entitled to Geneva protections. The President then ordered prisoners to be transferred from Europe to Guantanamo. If the prisoners in Europe "were" being lawfully treated, there would be no reason to change their detention location; nor move the prisoners to a new prison.

When the lawsuit against the Boeing subsidiary started, the US government claimed the activity could not be subject to litigation because it was a state secret. The court ruled that the US government activity could not be litigated because any disclosure of anything about the Boeing involvement would disclose state secrets. This presumes that war crimes can be shielded by a state secrecy claim. Yet, as more details about rendition surface from sources outside the US it looks less like the rendition effort is a bonafide covert activity, but a planned war crimes program, designed to move prisoners beyond judicial oversight. If the President's assertions are true -- that the POWs were being treated lawfully -- there would be no reason for any POW to be hidden, shielded, or outside any legal review.

It appears more likely: The President knows the POW treatment was not lawful, precipitating the movement of prisoners after the Supreme Court ruling; and that the "state secrecy" claims are not bonafide, but designed to shield other evidence which the government has impermissibly hidden related to other war crimes.

It's absurd to believe the President's activities through the CIA are lawful. "Lawful" procedures could have been used by the army, there would be no reason to transfer any POWs from the army to the CIA; nor would there be any reason to transfer the prisoners beyond NATO to other countries. It doesn't matter what the President is saying about the CIA abuses of POWs; the issue is his conduct which is not consistent with lawful POW treatment, but more likely related to war crimes.

Alleged Recklessness in re War Crimes: European Denials About Complicity With US Rendition Efforts in Europe

There is no statute of limitations on war crimes. The Europeans' earlier denials on rendition have proven false: They were involved with rendition. Similarly, the President, CIA director, and NSA director have asserted that certain information, programs, and POW treatment procedures [torture] are a "state secret". As more information surfaces, it appears this claim is dubious; that the treatment is not a lawful covert action; that the purpose behind the certification of "state secret" is not primarily to protect national security or diplomatic relations; but to shield information related to war crimes.

As the information surfaces overseas, and other countries do confirm the details of rendition, its clear the basis for US diplomatic relations and national security is to secretly commit war crimes with the assistance of its NATO allies, and not be held accountable for those war crimes. That's not a defense or justification to call something a state secret, but a larger alleged conspiracy related to war crimes evidence destruction, planning, and policy making.

National security is an illusion when it the US relies on illegal war crimes to abuse POWs. Rather, POW abuse would impermissibly subject US military personnel to like abuses; and reduce the chances foreign combat forces would surrender. The issue isn't that the US hopes to preserve national security; but it is recklessly invoking "national security" and "diplomatic relations" as a pretext to avoid the courts and public discovering the fraud, illegal activity, and war crimes at the foundation of US foreign policy. This is circular reasoning consistent with criminal activity and unconstrained illegal warfare.

Alleged False, Reckless Affidavits Abused State Secrecy Shield To Impermissibly Thwart War Crimes Adjudication

More information is surfacing. This information will help the legal community show the court that the affidavits the CIA director, NSA director and others provided to the court to invoke a state secrets claim were based on allegedly false, reckless, and fraudulent information in contempt of court, designed to thwart judicial review of war crimes.

- How many people with knowledge of these war crimes has the US government threatened with lawsuits to silence them about war crimes?

- Is it the policy of the President to work with private, civilian legal counsel to silence public discussion of war crimes evidence related to rendition, prisoner abuse, and unlawful CIA violations of the laws of war?

- Which private settlements has the President, working through civilian counsel made: Was there any exchange for a "promise not to prosecute" in exchange for an agreement to remain silent about war crimes?

- Who was threatened with prosecution if they publicly discussed evidence of war crimes, illegal prisoner abuse, and unlawful CIA mistreatment of POWs in violation of the laws of war?

- How many "secret NLSs" were used to harass, target, and intimidate people who have evidence of US war crimes in re unlawful CIA mistreatment of POWs in violation of the laws of war?

- When did legal counsel working for the President, OVP, DoJ, NSA, and CIA reconsider their assertion that "a threat to prosecute someone for discussing war crimes" could be adjudicated as a subsequent war crime?

- What types of "private settlements" have there been to pretend that the information about war crimes against POWs is a "state secret" or "classified"; but the truth is that evidence cannot be lawfully shielded as a state secret because it is evidence of illegal US war crimes against POWs?

- How many people have been secretly threatened for discussing war crimes on the grounds that the information is 'Classified"; but the truth is that classification guidelines never lawfully allow for war crimes related evidence to be shielded or classified?

- What is the point of US attempting to engage in "national security" or "diplomatic efforts" when those actions are not related to lawful interactions, but US foreign policy and diplomatic relations substantially depend on silence about war crimes, illegal intimidation, and threats to shield that war crimes-related evidence?

- How many US government contractors were rewarded with no-bid contracts, less intrusive audits, or more discretion in violating the laws overseas for their silence about war crimes?

- How many NSLs were issued to target and intimidate people who have evidence of US war crimes; and these people are not bonafide threats to US national security, but they have evidence of interest to war crimes prosecutors?

- With the revelations that the UK and NATO allies have lied about their assistance to the US on rendition issues, when will the court reexamine the affidavits by CIA and NSA on issues of rendition, surveillance; and reconsider whether those affidavits were false and related to an illegal objective of thwarting judicial review of Geneva violations?

The President's radio address raises many other points which deserve comment. These should be broadly construed to apply to the CIA-DoD-DoJ POW treatment policies, procedures, tapes, and destroyed evidence not just under US control, but allied control.

Signing Statements

Let's reconsider the President's speech this weekend on his reasons for vetoing the bill. Normally, when this President disagrees with Congressional language, he'll issue a signing statement. This time, he didn't do that. One reason is this legislation removes all ambiguity which the President exploited to "justify" illegal war crimes, prisoner abuses. Think back to Yoo/Gonzalez statements about Geneva: They claimed there was ambiguity. This is untrue: Geneva expressly prohibits all abuse; yet Gonzalez and Yoo, and now Mukasey were/are focusing on whether or not "Geneva outlaws torture"; or whether something that is "not torture, but abuse" is prohibited as a war crime. The issue isn't the law, but the illusion of ambiguity. This Congressional language is a threat to this President because he can no longer rely on this false ambiguity when telling CIA, DoD, DoJ personnel/contractors what to do. They now have express guidance of what they are not allowed to do. This legislation is a threat to the President because it gives the DoJ-DoD-CIA contractors/personnel a tool to challenge the President saying, "We're not allowed to do that." The issue for the President to openly explain:

- Why is he being inconsistent and not issuing a signing statement?

- Since when is this President suddenly concerned about a law; rather than issue a signing statement, he's vetoing it. Why the change; why the sudden "concern" with the law; why not issue a signing statement saying he'll still do what he wants?

- Why is this President, who ignored FISA, concerned whether Congress is or isn't passing a law about something else? He's shown he will ignore the law; and the DOJ AG will not enforce the law; why not violate this one as well in secret after signing it?

Video Tape Evidence

Part of the above questions relate to the issues of evidence under the UK-US special relationship; and the evidence the Eastern European intelligence services still have. The CIA has been discussing issues with the EU/EC. Evidence is floating around. Consider the questions which have not been expressly asked:

- Is it a "state secret" whether the UK, US allies in NATO, Romania, or Poland have copies of the tapes depicting CIA abuse of prisoners?

Undisclosed Memos, Policies

Reconsider the signing statement, and this Congressional language the President vetoed. The President would like to exploit the ambiguity because there are existing memos which rely on this false ambiguity, which DoJ, DoD, CIA personnel and contractors rely to continue the abuse. Not also the President never says that the war crimes or illegal abuse has ended; he only is commenting whether the current legislation is or isn't something that he supports.

It appears the President's veto, and lack of a signing statement have raised a reasonable line of inquiry:

- Which policy memos has the President issued in secret, not disclosed to Congress, or provided to Congress in secret, that continue the abuse of POWs, and rely on this false ambiguity, that there is "some POW treatment" that is outside the Army Field Manual, but still permitted?

- Conversely, why is the President not directing DoD personnel to use these "secret methods" that fall outside the Field Manual?

- Where is the Memo from the President discussing the plan to ignore the Geneva Conventions, call the POW abuse a state secret, and claim the POW abuse is a "state secret"?

Redacted Memos

Craig Murray was the UK Ambassador to Uzbekistan. Here is a sample document which was redacted [ snipurl.com/21do6 ] You'll notice his blog which includes other documents here [ snipurl.com/21do9 ] Murray's concern, in part, was that the CIA was illegally torturing people; and the UK was using that unreliable information for subsequent (illegal) purposes. This falls under the umbrella of the "special relationship" between the US and UK intelligence services.

The line of inquiry related to the President's speech on his veto and the redacted UK memos in re POW abuse and torture:

- Now that the Europeans have disclosed more evidence that the US did, in fact, fly to Diego Garcia; and the UK denials of their knowledge of this rendition appear dubious, what is the plan to re-examine the basis to redact Murry's Memos?

- Given we've found that the UK's denials in re rendition support/ CIA abuse of POWs have been discredited, is it not reasonable to question whether the original statements given to Murry as the "reasons" for the redactions are also without merit; and the redacted memos should be reexamined in light of the UK's now-known deceptions?

Affidavits

The President's other problem in not, as he has done, issuing a signing statement, is that he has to explain another inconsistency. One of the arguments Congress was giving about agency head affidavits was that the Judicial Branch was not making specific examinations of the secret documents to ensure that the agency-head's affidavit was, in fact, true. Rather, the judicial branch was taking on assertion alone that the US would suffer "national security problems" or "impacts to to diplomatic relations" if the CIA abuse, POW abuse, rendition, and other war crimes involving US contractors were litigated, much less disclosed.

However, things have changed. The UK, EU/EC, and NATO allies in Eastern Europe have revealed more details. And we're learning more things. The President's failure to issue a singing statement, but veto this bill, raises questions about the agency head affidavits:

- With the disclosures from UK, EU/EC, and Romania/Poland on their involvement with the rendition, POW abuse, and alleged war crimes, will the agency-head-declarations be revisited?

- Is there any plan by anyone to reconsider the NSA, CIA, or DoD agency head declarations in light of the President's inconsistent approaches: First issuing a signing statement and ignoring the law; now vetoing a bill, and not issuing a signing statement?

- Now that the UK's involvement with rendition is known, and their previous denials are seen for what they are -- baseless, fraudulent, false, and unreliable -- what plan is there to reconsider the memos Craig Murray was not allowed to disclose; and then compare those memos with the affidavits the US CIA, NSA, DoJ, and DoD agency heads have given on issues of rendition, war crimes, state secrets, POW abuse, prisoner transfer, and other things asserted to be state secrets?

- How much information on the Craig Murray memos should no longer be redacted in light of the UK's now-known fraudulent statements on their involvement with rendition; and what information on these to-be-disclosed memos would show the US NSA-DoJ-CIA-DoD agency heads assertions were false; and that the purpose of the "state secret" claim has nothing to do with "diplomatic relations " or "national security" but with an overt policy of this President to hide war crimes evidence linked to him, CIA, and outside legal counsel and contractors?

- Is there any plan of the Congress to revisit the basis for the NSA, CIA, DoD, or DoJ agency head affidavits on issues of rendition, POW abuse, and other alleged "state secrets" in light of the to-be-disclosed Craig Murray memos?

- Given the UK-US 'special relationship' and now-disclosed UK-lies about rendition, is there no interest in Congress to re-examine the basis for the claims that there is "no tape" and "all tapes have been destroyed" and "there is no evidence of any POW abuse"?

The DoJ says it is not going to look at the contents of the tape; just look at whether the destruction of the CIA tape was or wasn't lawful. It's time to re-examine DoJ AG's plan to ignore the alleged war crimes on that tape; and examine whether Poland, UK, Romania or others do, in fact, have tapes; and the DOJ AG is aware that it is an asserted "state secret" that this war crimes related evidence has not, as was told to the court, been provided to the court as required.

This is only the beginning. This President in refusing to issue a signing statement, but vetoing this bill, has created a problem for himself, his outside legal counsel, and the legal counsel who are allegedly complicit with frivolous legal arguments in re war crimes. Things are not adding up. This Congress appears complicit with this non-sense. Time for the Congress to decide whether it is serious about investigating facts, and developing a credible plan to ensure this does not happen again; or whether it would like to be the target of this ongoing war crimes investigation. There is no statute of limitations.