If we don't torture people, then the terrorists win.

Got it.

I think King doesn't like black people.

The stunning aspect of this are all the rightwing kooks on Politico (and elsewhere) who, apparently, are convinced that being just like the terrorists is okay because ... well, we're America, so when we do the exact same stuff, it's justified.

If some of those we torture or kill are innocent? Well, tough luck, I guess.

If these people had been around in WW2, they'd be for rounding up all German citizens and putting them in concentration camps. After all, using their "logic," the Germans did that to the Jews, so why shouldn't we do the same?

These people are nothing more than sick bastards who are either bigots who hate Muslims, or get off on the thought of torturing others.

There really aren't any other explanations ...

Fresh-off-the-press headline at the Columbus Dispatch site: "CIA: Severe interrogation led to arrest of Columbus terrorist."

No ifs, no buts, torture works to keep us safe -- although they don't actually call it "torture"; instead it's "severe interrogation."

Time to despair yet?
____________________________________________

Rep. King, do you believe CIA agents are above the law? Who else in the government do you believe are above the law? Should the AG, as the highest law enforcement official, ignore the law?

King believes torture isn't torture, the rule of law was on hiatus from 2001 to 2008, accountability and due process are dangerous concepts, and if you disagree with him, you might be un-American.

And if you agree with him, you're a Republican.

Q for Rep. King - on what planet do you spend most of your time? -Kevo

Typical American Exceptionalism.

We are awesome because of who we are, not what we do.

Wikipedia sez Peter King supported the IRA during their campaign of asymmetric warfare against Britain. "We must pledge ourselves to support those brave men and women who this very moment are carrying forth the struggle against British imperialism in the streets of Belfast and Derry.” "He became involved with NORAID, an organization that the British, Irish and US governments accuse of financing IRA terrorist activities and providing them with weapons."

Whatever. It's all tribal. Kinda wish everyone would just admit it, instead of needing to rationalize their bloodlust, revenge fantasies and chauvinism.

I got stuck in mod-jail for trying to do two links on a previous thread, so here I'll try it in two comments:

Smoove piece of timing that, on the very day li'l Petey King & Co are stomping their widdle feet about Holder going after the torturers, Holder also goes after a major Dem fundraiser. Ooopsy.

Mind you, . . .

. . . before/while he switched to the Dems, Hassan Nemasee was doing some pretty big fundraising for Jesse Helms, Sam Brownback, Al D’Amato, Rudy Giuliani, and Mitt Romney.

Yeah, King was a big IRA supporter, so the bombs and the things the IRA did to people who dared to defy them were all OK by him. I'm not, by the way, a fan of the Northern Irish Protestants either.

What's sadder than Rep. King's contempt for law is the likelihood that something like 1/3 of Americans agree with him.

"You will have thousands of lives that will be lost and the blood will be on Eric Holder's hands," he said.********

In case you haven't noticed, thousands of lives, 10's of thousands, if not more, HAVE been lost, and the blood is on YOUR hands, and the hands of other unpatriotic, blood-thirsty pig-heads like you.

I mean, I don't see what is wrong with the things King says. It's not like towelheads are people.

...

...

What a lunatic. How do people like this get elected?

What chunk of New York does King represent? I need to know so I don't accidentally go there.

What a maroon.

Sadly, King is right.

the rule of law was on hiatus from 2001 to 2008 and the line between permissible and impermissible interrogation tactics was "a distinction without a difference" in the Bush era.

Worse yet, the line of permissibility was defined by John Yoo regardless of legality and is being validated by Obama's actions to go after ONLY those who stepped over this unlawful line dreamed up in Yoo's fevered mind.

Read some Glenn Greenwald once in a while.

Read a bit more in regard to this item, and from what I notice, King and his ilk recognize and desire power while neglecting the fact that in this nation, democracy is attached to such power! King sounds a bit authoritarian, and I wonder why he wastes his time by being elected to serve in a representative body! -Kevo

What are the consecuences for King's despicable rant? Is he censured or shunned in any way?

Tommorow, he'll go on Glenn Beck and suggest that if Holder doesn't back down, he should be lynched.

Perhaps King, as one of the last Republicans left standing in New York, is feeling alone and isolated and the paranoia is starting to make him crack. Either that, or he needs his meds, quick.

Whose side are they on? The side with the Constitution and the rule of law, jackass.

What chunk of New York does King represent?

Staten Island.

Secret arrest and indefinite detention, without charges, without evidence, without hearing, without counsel, became the method of inflicting inhuman punishment on any whom the Nazi police suspected or disliked. No court could issue an injunction, or writ of habeas corpus, or certiorari...

International law, natural law, German law, any law at all was to these men simply a propaganda device to be invoked when it helped and to be ignored when it would condemn what they wanted to do. . . . Of the criminal nature of these acts at least, the defendants had, as we shall show, clear knowledge. Accordingly, they took pains to conceal their violations.

Justice Jackson in his opening statement at the Trial of the Major War Criminals at Nuremberg on November 21, 1945 (Vol. 2, pp. 104-105)

WHO is unAmerican? Who is the Nazi? Who does this sound like King? You and your heros bu$h-Dick come to mind?

I only wish we could prosecute the lot of them. Keep America true to her principles, true to her laws, and true to her values.

Peter King also has supported terrorists in the past. He orchestrated fund-raising ventures for the I.R.A. in the States during the 80's.

Calm down, folks. He's running for re-election, just like all the others.

Pay no attention to the noise, unless you're in his district.

However, I do wonder, parenthetically, if these people hate the government so much, want to 'drown it in the bathtub', why do they RUN FOR ELECTION in the first place?

Peter King represents NY 3, on Long Island. Much to my embarrassment he is my Rep. Unfortunately he does represent the attitudes of a great many of his constituents. His district is home to a great many cops, firemen and blue collar types. It seems that these types are prone to ignorance and racism.
Another 4 years and I can sell my house and get the hell off this shithole island.

C'mon all you wee squints. Admit it. None of you, not even one little squint, has read the IG report.

The incidents described in the report have ALREADY been investigated (that's why they're in the damn report, simps). CIA people have ALREADY been investigated, punished and drummed out. Panetta, hardly a neo-con, is apoplectic. The full Congress has had this report for five years and...

Oh the effin' hell with it!!
____________________________________________________________________

Report of the Inspector General, CIA, May 2004:

"This Review did not uncover any evidence that these plots were imminent. Agency senior managers believe that lives have been saved as a result of the capture and interrogation of terrorists who were planning attacks, in particular Khalid Shaykh Muhammad, Abu Zubaydah, Hambali, and Al-Nashiri.

{...}

"The waterboard has been used on three detainees....

"Prior to the use of EITs, Abu Zubaydah provided information for [redacted] intelligence reports. Interrogators applied the waterboard to Abu Zubaydah at least 83 times during August 2002. During the period between the end of the use of the waterboard and 30 April 2003, he provided information for approximately [redacted] intelligence reports. It is not possible to say definitively that the waterboard is the reason for Abu Zubaydah's increased production, or if another factor, such as the length of detention, was the catalyst. Since the use of the waterboard, however, Abu Zubaydah has appeared to be cooperative.

"With respect to Al-Nashiri, [redacted] reported two waterboard sessions in November 2002, after which the psychologist/interrogators determined that Al-Nashiri was compliant....Because of the litany of techniques used by different interrogators over a relatively short period of time, it is difficult to identify exactly why Al-Nashiri became more willing to provide information. However, following the use of EITs, he provided information about his most current operational planning and [redacted] as opposed to the historical information he provided before the use of EITs.

"On the other hand, Khalid Shaykh Muhammad, an accomplished resistor, provided only a few intelligence reports prior to the use of the waterboard, and analysis of that information revealed that much of it was outdated, inaccurate, or incomplete."
____________________________________________________________________

Holder has also known about this report. This whole play is designed to take prog eyeballs off of the ObamaCare swiss cheese submarine for two or maybe three days and get some Bush hate going again -- that's all y'all can do now. (And don't worry about Hambali, his crew only slaughters Kiwis and Aussies on vacation in Jakarta. They can't get to you punks. Yet.)

It's cynical, condescending, corrupt, gutless and asinine. Right up your street.

Holder has also known about this report.

Uh, dipshit, everyone knows about this report. It is not exhaustive, nor is it a justifiable criminal investigation by the DOJ.

It's cynical, condescending, corrupt, gutless and asinine

What you are describing is the raft of lies sold to Americans to justify the invasion of Iraq and thereby achieve a number of domestic political goals.

You're right about one thing, however: this investigation is politically motivated. It's meant to mollify that part of the American electorate who are concerned about law and accountability and understand, like General Taguba who investigated Abu Ghraib, that war crimes investigations are what are actually in order based on the lawbreaking of the previous administration.

From an article on Findlaw:

Given the severity of the crimes that were committed, the possibility of a criminal investigation could not have come entirely as a surprise. Indeed, the Inspector General's report describes how, even back in 2004, the issue was on some operatives' minds. "A number of [CIA] officers expressed concern that a human rights group might pursue them for activities [redacted]," the report states.

It also relates that one operative "expressed concern that one day, Agency officers will wind up on some 'wanted list' to appear before the World Court for war crimes stemming from activities [redacted]."....

Yep, other than the agents being concerned that they were committing war crimes at the behest of the Bush administration, everything was fine and dandy. 35 pages of a 109-page report completely blacked out, all three pages of the IG's recommendation section entirely blacked out, pretty much everything else of value mostly redacted.

I think we can safely put this one to bed. [/sarcasm]

I see no mention of the fact that these cases were all dealt with years ago by non-political career Justice lawyers. The bubble you folks live in is nicely illustrated here. I've never seen a group drive off a cliff before with all the warnings that could possibly be provided. It is really an interesting time.

No you fools can post fake posts from me but this is the only one that is real. It is just an amazing time.

The bubble you folks live in is nicely illustrated here.

The only inference I can draw from your post and that article are that America shouldn't treat the fair and impartial application of the law as the fundamental motivation of prosecutions, but should rather first be concerned about possible negative political outcomes.

So instead of believing that we are a nation of laws and not men, the upper crust Republican view is that we are a nation of men, not laws, guided by the popular sentiment of the day.

Interesting. I wonder what the Founders would have thought about that?

I wonder if Mr. King was the White Knight of the CIA when The Only President He's Ever Loved was deliberately compromising the identity of a CIA agent. I'm guessing no.

"I've never seen a group drive off a cliff before with all the warnings that could possibly be provided." - Mike K

What, you didn't know that George Bush was provided with a PDB on August 6, 2001 entitled 'Bin Laden determined to strike US"?

I wonder if Mr. King was the White Knight of the CIA when The Only President He's Ever Loved was deliberately compromising the identity of a CIA agent. I'm guessing no.

Exactly. Remember just a few scant years back the right-wing considered the CIA to be "traitors" for various reasons, mainly because they were perceived not to be complete and utter shills for Bush:

Paul Pillar Speaks, Again The latest CIA attack on the Bush administration is nothing new.

Reuters’ Headline Labels CIA Traitor ‘Whistle-Blower’

Leaking At All Costs: What the CIA is willing to do to hurt the Bush administration.

Bush vs. the Beltway: How the CIA and the State Department Tried to Stop the War on Terror

Good times, good times.

That's precisely the problem, Trex - the Republicans believe that if the American people had any requirement for a collective memory, Bush would have issued them one. Nobody is expected to remember what a politician said yesterday (witness the erratic stumbling of Michael Steele, who was for Medicare before he was against it), never mind a couple of years ago.

They think the average American is an idiot, with a limitless capacity for bullshit and an ass that was specifically designed for having sunshine pumped up it. Under any other circumstances, such a suggestion would make that average American want to punch the person who suggested it into the next county. These days, it just inspires a sleepy smile, and a request for more bullshit.

Whatever happened to St. Ronnie's Shining City on the Hill? I thought we were supposed to at least pretend to be better than the hooligans? So I propose the following: a three month window for a truth and reconciliation committee for the Bush Years. You have three months to publically say all the crazy shit you did, and get immunity. As long as you are honest, completely, publically and under oath. If you don't volunteer, we're using the testimony of everyone else to nail you to the wall. We are merciful, it was a bad time. Confession is good for the soul, after all. Let's hang our dirty laundry for the world to see, let's bring the rats, and all the ostensibly good people who got caught up in the hate and fear, and show them to the world. This will not damage our reputation or power globally. Mea culpa, mea maxima culpa.

If you don't take advantage of the opportunity, we're goingto hunt you down and prosecute. Of course, the President may, at his sole discretion, classify any particular mea culpa if it, in his belief, damages national security, but his name is going on the seal.

That's precisely the problem, Trex - the Republicans believe that if the American people had any requirement for a collective memory, Bush would have issued them one.

Well said, Mark. I experienced this personally a few weeks backs when a family member blamed the entire economic crisis on Bill Clinton. It's like Bush was in office only long enough to respond valiantly to 9/11...and then nothing for seven years.

I think the problem is not only with the collective memory of the right but the personal memories as well. For instance, Mike K seems to have forgotten that he wrote posts on his own blog stating that the CIA had outlived its usefulness.

Oh, trex, I think the CIA is useless but the field agents, unlike Vanity Fair star Wilson, were promised they would be protected if the followed the rules. I would be content with the CIA being closed down and replaced with military intelligence or even private intelligence services like Stratfor.com, of which I am a member. That has nothing to do with the left's tilting at windmills.

The latest RNC talking point is that "Obama has lost control of his administration". I've heard it or read it several times today. Hey Peter King--Bullshit.

I would be content with the CIA being closed down and replaced with military intelligence or even private intelligence services like Stratfor.com, of which I am a member.

So let me get this straight: we libs are fools because by investigating a handful of CIA agents for potentially serious crimes while at the same time acknowledging the critical importantance of the CIA, we will upset the electorate.

But you want to abolish the CIA entirely because they're "useless" and "traitors" and "like the KGB, just less competent" and that will be just fine with the American public, particularly if they know that Mike K of Stratfor is at the helm defending America from her enemies foreign and domestic?

I have to say, even your parodies don't write material this bizarre.

Pete Hoekstra on NPR tonight, 'splainin why this is all so unnecessary. Peter's rationale?: This was all investigated by the CIA and Congress before. Congress was fully briefed on it. There's nothing there.

Except Peter, the folks who determined there was nothing there, were simply following orders from the folks who ordered it all and they were also busy lying to Congress. But that would be "looking backward," and of course if Peter believes in anything, it is looking forward.

The nasty thing about private intelligence services, much like private paramilitary forces (Blackwater ring a bell?), is that they owe their allegiance to whoever pays their wages, and are not particularly concerned whether a course of action is constitutional or even legal. You might say that these things didn't much concern the CIA of late, either, and you'd get no argument from me. The CIA seemed to feel they had good reason to believe Bush had their backs, and that he wouldn't direct them to do things that might be illegal if he couldn't shield them from the consequences.

The solution certainly isn't the engagement of a private intelligence service that will be happy to arrive at whatever conclusions its employer might find convenient. That's what the Bush administration was moving toward with the federal intelligence services, and they were nearly successful.

He's a patriot. Now shut up and take your lumps.

RIP, TK

I've never seen a group drive off a cliff before with all the warnings that could possibly be provided.

Bin Laden determined to strike in US

Jackass.

....and SRW1 beat me to it by 12 hours. Well played, sir.

You're right Mike K, field agents should not be investigated yet, first, the highest officials of the Bush administration should be. Every last one of the Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Yoo, crime gang should be in leg irons.

Stratfor.com, of which I am a member.
Mike, you say this like your awaiting orders for your next mission. When really, you're just sitting in your Mom's basement reading the rightwing Stratfor newsletter in your boxers. And for only $349 a year. What a rube. LOL.