News Who will turn the dark and painful page ?

[WhoWee]

Not a bad idea.

I'd give him Cheney's ranch in Wyoming as compensation for the indignities he was made to suffer at the hands of Cheney's henchmen.

Really?

And what should Khalid Sheikh Mohammad (and his henchmen) pay to the families of people killed on September 11, 2001?

Remember, if you (they) destroy the United States of America...you will lose your rights.

There is a limit to radical left cheering...you are clearly there.

 

[LowlyPion]

And what should Khalid Sheikh Mohammad (and his henchmen) pay to the families of people killed on September 11, 2001?

You've got a point.

OK Seize the ranch he just got from Cheney and sell it to give to the victim's families.

 

[WhoWee]

You've got a point.

OK Seize the ranch he just got from Cheney and sell it to give to the victim's families.

I'm sorry for the tone LP...this is an emotional topic...just as decision making immediately after 9-11 was emotional.

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

And what should Khalid Sheikh Mohammad (and his henchmen) pay to the families of people killed on September 11, 2001?

I'm sure that if they weren't turnips they'd be bled already.

 

[WhoWee]

I'm sure that if they weren't turnips they'd be bled already.

Can you please explain what that means?

 

[turbo]

You can't get blood out of a turnip. You can't get financial compensation out of a criminal who has no assets.

 

[WhoWee]

You can't get blood out of a turnip. You can't get financial compensation out of a criminal who has no assets.

Thank you Turbo, that's valid, but I'd like to know TheStatutoryApe's intended meaning.

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

Thank you Turbo, that's valid, but I'd like to know TheStatutoryApe's intended meaning.

Turbo hit it on the nose. I apologize if my meaning was not clear.

 

[LowlyPion]

I'm sorry for the tone LP...this is an emotional topic...just as decision making immediately after 9-11 was emotional.

I understand. I am no friend of Khalid Sheikh Mohammad. I can't weep that he would be subjected to hell on this Earth and whatever awaits him in his, as his was the act of a coward, planning something that he did not carry out.

But neither should we sweep aside the Law in our eagerness to seek retribution. How can we pretend to honor the rule of law, except for when it is inconvenient to satisfing our lust to inflict harsh treatment on our enemies. If the law is malleable to the agendas of whoever may be in power at the moment, that seems a very dangerous precedent.

 

[WhoWee]

I understand. I am no friend of Khalid Sheikh Mohammad. I can't weep that he would be subjected to hell on this Earth and whatever awaits him in his, as his was the act of a coward, planning something that he did not carry out.

But neither should we sweep aside the Law in our eagerness to seek retribution. How can we pretend to honor the rule of law, except for when it is inconvenient to satisfing our lust to inflict harsh treatment on our enemies. If the law is malleable to the agendas of whoever may be in power at the moment, that seems a very dangerous precedent.

Agreed.

 

[LowlyPion]

Jon Stewart on Rove and Cheney contracting Balzheimers over torturing, and now suddenly becoming the champion of transparency and declassification.

http://www.thedailyshow.com/video/index.jhtml?videoId=225124&title=balzheimers-disease

 

[WhoWee]

Jon Stewart on Rove and Cheney contracting Balzheimers over torturing, and now suddenly becoming the champion of transparency and declassification.

http://www.thedailyshow.com/video/index.jhtml?videoId=225124&title=balzheimers-disease

I have to admit...Stewart is a funny guy.

I think we're living in the famed "opposites world" now...Castro and Chavez are our friends...UK and Israel...not so much. Cheney and Rove wanting transparency only makes sense in "opposites world"...right?

 

[drankin]

Jon Stewart on Rove and Cheney contracting Balzheimers over torturing, and now suddenly becoming the champion of transparency and declassification.

http://www.thedailyshow.com/video/index.jhtml?videoId=225124&title=balzheimers-disease

I believe that Cheney is saying, without saying, that there is a huge can of worms behind all this declassification and public disclosure.

 

[WhoWee]

I believe that Cheney is saying, without saying, that there is a huge can of worms behind all this declassification and public disclosure.

Now, now...let's not speculate...(but I think you're right).

 

[LowlyPion]

I believe that Cheney is saying, without saying, that there is a huge can of worms behind all this declassification and public disclosure.

So this is why he's now calling for declassification?

No. I think Cheney is getting a little worried. Not only about trying to fudge the past to massage how history will think of his legacy (he's lost that battle), but also to maybe even start crafting a defense, if the torture trail runs to his desk.

 

[turbo]

Calling for declassification and release of memos can set the stage for defense claims that it is not possible to get a "fair trial" for the people who approved torture. If I was Cheney (gahhhh! the thought is repulsive) I would pursue this vigorously, and then paint any effort at prosecution as "political". FOX would eat that up.

 

[LowlyPion]

Calling for declassification and release of memos can set the stage for defense claims that it is not possible to get a "fair trial" for the people who approved torture. If I was Cheney (gahhhh! the thought is repulsive) I would pursue this vigorously, and then paint any effort at prosecution as "political". FOX would eat that up.

I'd think with Cheney appearing to be such a paranoid personality, that he likely has been more than careful not to put his name on anything that would catch him up. After all the talk when he was in office about executive privilege, limiting discussion of classified issues, the man-safe in his office, and his refusal to part with documents even to the National Archives, because by some legerdemain with the Constitution he inhabited some netherworld that was not the Executive, yet was when it suited his purpose, ... he's really only made himself out to be a woeful hypocrite. Not that this has seemed to bother him in the past, I might be quick to add.

I note today, however, that his daughter is now out trying to speak for him, by saying that he wouldn't have had any input into legal opinions. Now if that doesn't smell like a dead rat in the walls somewhere, I have to say that increases my thought that he just may have been more involved than he has let on, or that I might have presumed, in letting his daughter run point for him.

 

[WhoWee]

I think the President will put and end to this soon. I'm sure he's familiar with the old saying..."treat people the way you want to be treated". Someday, be it 4 or 8 years from now, Obama will leave office. Setting a precedent of dragging former administration officials (or a President) in front of a witch hunt-like tribunal could have future consequences...especially if his programs/policies don't yield the results he's outlined.

 

[LowlyPion]

I think the President will put and end to this soon. I'm sure he's familiar with the old saying..."treat people the way you want to be treated". Someday, be it 4 or 8 years from now, Obama will leave office. Setting a precedent of dragging former administration officials (or a President) in front of a witch hunt-like tribunal could have future consequences...especially if his programs/policies don't yield the results he's outlined.

Of all of his concerns, I'd say that's the least.

For one thing Obama clearly has integrity. I doubt he has any concerns that he would ever be caught up in a witch hunt. His has been a life of public service. Not even the witch hunting Republicans, if they survive, would be so bold as to suggest anything like that. They wouldn't dare.

 

[WhoWee]

Of all of his concerns, I'd say that's the least.

For one thing Obama clearly has integrity. I doubt he has any concerns that he would ever be caught up in a witch hunt. His has been a life of public service. Not even the witch hunting Republicans, if they survive, would be so bold as to suggest anything like that. They wouldn't dare.

Really?

What if he's called upon in the future to explain why his people needed to lie about his famous bow before the King...if you tell a little lie...there MUST be other lies...right?

As for his life of public service...has anyone ever even produced his birth certificate yet?
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=79174
How many signatures are on that petition...250,000?

Better yet, maybe he'll be asked to explain what "dabbling" (in drugs) actually means.

Are any of these topics more ridiculous than Clinton's "dress"?

In politics, ANYTHING is possible.

 

[Phrak]

For all you partisans whos opionions orbit the party attractor.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/12/08/AR2007120801664.html"

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

Really?

What if he's called upon in the future to explain why his people needed to lie about his famous bow before the King...if you tell a little lie...there MUST be other lies...right?

No legal recourse against a bow or a lie about one.

As for his life of public service...has anyone ever even produced his birth certificate yet?
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=79174
How many signatures are on that petition...250,000?

I believe they did and all the conspiracy nuts labeled it a fake so they gave up trying to apease them.
Besides the court case has already been thrown out.

Better yet, maybe he'll be asked to explain what "dabbling" (in drugs) actually means.

I believe he explains in his own autobiography that he smoked marijuana and tried coke.

 

[humanino]

bow before the King
[...]
birth certificate yet?

You really have nothing to think about.

 

[LowlyPion]

Really?

I realize the perils in underestimating the guile and baldly Machiavellian tactics of this group of Republicans, but at this point they are simply on the wrong side of history.

And btw regurgitating these before the election myths about his citizenship that have been dismissed from court even seems wholly counter productive. Barack Obama is the President. I realize Republicans are in a quandary, but it's really a problem of their own making. The Christian Fundamentalists, and their social intolerances have apparently alienated a majority of the American electorate. Their candidates have run the country from surplus to deep recession, with lack of oversight, deregulation and foreign adventures. And their anti-science stances have seemingly left them in the wilderness with no vision, no alternatives but a budget without numbers, and with the only strategy I can see to just be disagreeable and obstruct and generally just be a party of frowns that no one looks to want much to do with any more.

 

[WhoWee]

You're both missing the point...Clinton made a personal mistake (yes it happened at work and similar allegations were floating around in Arkansas...blah, blah, blah) but it was generally a personal matter between him and his wife...until his lie was uncovered.

The lie became the issue.

The public tolerance for lies is unpredictable...but when it becomes clear...look out!

Why lie about a bow? Why lie when there is no reason to lie?

Look at Dodd last month saying he didn't know about the AIG bonuses and Pelosi this week saying she didn't know about waterboarding.

All of the little lies add up to the want for an inquiry...that is my point.

We were at war, Bush asked for a legal opinion and the lawyers provided it. Move on.

 

[LowlyPion]

We were at war, Bush asked for a legal opinion and the lawyers provided it. Move on.

Ahh. But as you say that is apparently a lie. What he sought was the fig leaf of a crafted legal opinion that wasd devised to justify his administrations illegal activities.

As you say public tolerance for such lies is unpredictable.

Weighing Clinton's getting a little afternoon delight between the meetings of his office, and Bush/Cheney/Rove engaging the country in torture and war crimes, on top of waging an unjustified war of aggression, just doesn't even begin to be measured on the same scale.

If the country wants to get up tight about a President getting something on the side, because he thought it was no one's business but his own, then as you say where this ends up, given the graveness of the misrepresentations and the affairs of state it was trying to hide, then by your own argument, I'm guessing you can't be surprised at all that the country would want to put a few heads up on poles outside the teepee.

Besides no one is asking for Bush's head. Maybe as it stands Yoo and Bybee. But without knowing what other lies there may be, who knows where it might end.

 

[WhoWee]

Ahh. But as you say that is apparently a lie. What he sought was the fig leaf of a crafted legal opinion that wasd devised to justify his administrations illegal activities.

As you say public tolerance for such lies is unpredictable.

Weighing Clinton's getting a little afternoon delight between the meetings of his office, and Bush/Cheney/Rove engaging the country in torture and war crimes, on top of waging an unjustified war of aggression, just doesn't even begin to be measured on the same scale.

If the country wants to get up tight about a President getting something on the side, because he thought it was no one's business but his own, then as you say where this ends up, given the graveness of the misrepresentations and the affairs of state it was trying to hide, then by your own argument, I'm guessing you can't be surprised at all that the country would want to put a few heads up on poles outside the teepee.

Besides no one is asking for Bush's head. Maybe as it stands Yoo and Bybee. But without knowing what other lies there may be, who knows where it might end.

Again, there may be lot's of blame to go around...for a lot of things...remember Barney's claim last summer that Freddie/Fannie were sound, Nancy's claim this week she didn't know anything about waterboarding, Dodd said he didn't know about the AIG bonuses?

I think we need term limits and a lot of new blood...maybe a real third party.

Spending is out of control and the problems aren't being fixed. Sometimes you have to finish a job before you start a second. The Executive and Congressional Branches just throw money into the wind...it doesn't matter who is in charge. Bipartisan shouldn't mean "I'll agree to your stupidity if you'll agree to mine".

All of our elected officials should be truthful to us. Lies are unacceptable.

 

[mheslep]

Weighing Clinton's getting a little afternoon delight between the meetings of his office,

That was not the case against Clinton. The case was lying under oath to a Federal judge about it in a trial about his serial sexual harassments.

and Bush/Cheney/Rove engaging the country in torture and war crimes, on top of waging an unjustified war of aggression, just doesn't even begin to be measured on the same scale.

All with the approval of Congress, including Pelosi.

 

[LowlyPion]

That was not the case against Clinton. The case was lying under oath to a Federal judge about it in a trial about his serial sexual harassments.
All with the approval of Congress, including Pelosi.

Well if lying to Federal Officials is as great a crime as you suggest, then it looks like you have provided the basis of a top notch case against the Bush Administration that was far more severe in its reach than whether or not the President got some in camera sex.

Whether you want to consider the lies about the justification for going to war ... there was no real justification ... to supplying bogus legal cover for the torture they wanted to engage in ... they crafted the memos to fit their actions ... or the misrepresentations they made to Congress about their conduct of the "enhanced interrogations" ... these all look like capital offenses compared to the meddling into a President's potential sexual misconduct.

 

[BobG]

Indeed it would, but Bush had the same legal guidance as the people following his orders, so a court case would logically work out the same for him as for them. That's the point here: Bush sought legal guidance before laying out the policy. He attempted to find the line and walk as close to it as possible without being on the other side. It is true that most people would draw the line in a different place, but the fact that he made an effort to draw a line and stay on the proper side is what makes prosecution problematic for both him and the people carrying out the acts. Simple logic: if he didn't think it was torture, then he wasn't lying.

Would an attorney's bad advice be ample defense in a criminal trial?

It might be good grounds for a client to sue his attorney and it might affect any sentence handed down, but I don't think it would affect the decision about guilt or innocence.

The only thing close would be appeals based on a defendent having a trial lawyer so bad, that his rights to a fair trial were denied. And a successful appeal would get him a new trial, not acquittal.

People working under Bush would not have the same legal situation as Bush. They'd have conflicting requirements - the requirements to follow the legal orders of their superiors and requirements to adhere to the law (i.e. - disregard illegal orders of their superiors). Bush would have had no such conflict. The fact there is a conflict and the impact of disobeying orders would get them some slack. Not enough to guarantee they'd get off, but some slack, none the less - probably enough to get them out of any grey areas, but not enough to get them out of clearly illegal acts.

I don't see how the authors of the legal memos could be found guilty of anything except incompetence. Giving advice isn't the same as having responsibility for making the decision. To find them guilty of anything criminal, you'd have to prove they believed waterboarding was torture, but wrote the memos anyway to provide cover for illegal acts.

 

[mheslep]

Well if lying to Federal Officials is as great a crime as you suggest, then it looks like you have provided the basis of a top notch case against the Bush Administration that was far more severe in its reach than whether or not the President got some in camera sex.

You just can't let it go - 'Clinton was about sex'. He was impeached for lying under oath. BTW, I don't think he should have been though it was a close call, but I don't care to let this revisionist history go either.

The 'top notch case' requires evidence, not sophistry.

 

[LowlyPion]

You just can't let it go - 'Clinton was about sex'. He was impeached for lying under oath. BTW, I don't think he should have been though it was a close call, but I don't care to let this revisionist history go either.

The 'top notch case' requires evidence, not sophistry.

Despite your best efforts to drag Clinton into this, the only real issue in this instance is the sophistry evidenced by the Legal Memos put out by Bybee and Yoo. It appears to me that the fig leafs that they crafted are no cover at all, to the point that if they were not found guilty of intentionally creating a justification from whole cloth, they must then be open to charges of total incompetence and inability to grasp the law and the situations they were asked to provide justification for, if not stupidity for being set up as the fall guys for the pursuit of illegal acts.

 

[mheslep]

Despite your best efforts to drag Clinton into this,...

More BS. You did:

...Weighing Clinton's getting a little afternoon delight between the meetings of his office, and Bush/Cheney/Rove engaging the country in torture and war crimes, on top of waging an unjustified war of aggression, just doesn't even begin to be measured on the same scale...

 

[drankin]

It will be interesting if full disclosure really comes out. Pelosi, for example, knew of the "tortures" as she was privy of the briefings early on.

 

[WhoWee]

It will be interesting if full disclosure really comes out. Pelosi, for example, knew of the "tortures" as she was privy of the briefings early on.

I think it's obvious...she didn't think waterboarding was torture...AT THE TIME!

 

[Alfi]

comparisons ?

 

[LowlyPion]

More BS. You did:

At least get your facts straight. I was merely responding to the previous comments about Clinton, as if that somehow would rise to the kinds of malfeasances that torturing detainees and then fabricating some Emperor's clothes stitched from Legal Memoranda from the President's Office of Legal Counsel to somehow stand as any kind of justification for their actions.

https://www.physicsforums.com/showpost.php?p=2172344&postcount=125
https://www.physicsforums.com/showpost.php?p=2171946&postcount=120

 

[LowlyPion]

It will be interesting if full disclosure really comes out. Pelosi, for example, knew of the "tortures" as she was privy of the briefings early on.

I'm thinking that full release of previously marked as classified material by the previous administration is not a game that Republicans will want to be playing.

Pelosi was hardly in charge. Attempting to somehow try and spatter her with the mud thrown off by Republican Administration actions, from information that was disclosed as Secret, seems an odd game to be playing. But if that's their pleasure ... batter up.

 

[turbo]

I'm thinking that full release of previously marked as classified material by the previous administration is not a game that Republicans will want to be playing.

Pelosi was hardly in charge. Attempting to somehow try and spatter her with the mud thrown off by Republican Administration actions, from information that was disclosed as Secret, seems an odd game to be playing. But if that's their pleasure ... batter up.

Yep. Lets, see. The Bush administration wants to "legally" use torture, so they actively seek out legal opinions that give them that "right" even though many high-ranking appointees and military personnel are voicing opposition. Then when they have their fig-leaf of questionable legal opinion justifying torture, and they put the system in place, they allow some high-ranking members of the opposition to have access to some of the "finished product" without disclosing the background and dissenting opinions, under the threat of treason if those "secret" briefings are leaked... well you can see where this is going. Pelosi and other Democrats who got briefings should demand that their briefings be declassified so that the public can see the differences between what was going on in Bush/Cheney internal memos and legal opinions, and what they disclosed to the Democrats in their briefings. Darth Cheney and Bush the Incompetent and their immoral crowd have damaged the stature of the US in the world more than all the secret wars and "dissapearings" in Central and South America combined.

 

[WhoWee]

Yep. Lets, see. The Bush administration wants to "legally" use torture, so they actively seek out legal opinions that give them that "right" even though many high-ranking appointees and military personnel are voicing opposition. Then when they have their fig-leaf of questionable legal opinion justifying torture, and they put the system in place, then allow some high-ranking members of the opposition to have access to some of the "finished product" without disclosing the background and dissenting opinions, under the threat of treason if those "secret" briefings are leaked... well you can see where this is going. Pelosi and other Democrats who got briefings should demand that their briefings be declassified so that the public can see the differences between what was going on in Bush/Cheney internal memos and legal opinions, and what they disclosed to the Democrats in their briefings. Darth Cheney and Bush the Incompetent and their immoral crowd have damaged the stature of the US in the world more than all the secret wars and "dissapearings" in Central and South America combined.

I've got to get me one of those tractors Turbo-1

 

[mgb_phys]

An obvious solution suggests itself.
You just need the above people, a few barrels of water and an out-of-the-way prison somewhere in the middle east.
If under 'questioning' they say it is torture then it's proved and you ban it.
If they say it isn't, then either they are lying in which case the technique doesn't work and you abandon it, or they are telling the truth - in which case you can keep doing it to them.
Either way it's fun for all the family and would make a great reality TV series

 

[mheslep]

... The Bush administration wants to "legally" use torture, so they actively seek out legal opinions that give them that "right" even though many high-ranking appointees and military personnel are voicing opposition.

which is exactly what happened in the decision to release the legal memos, opposition from CIA directors, Nat. Sec. staff, etc, etc.

Then when they have their fig-leaf of questionable legal opinion justifying torture, and they put the system in place, they allow some high-ranking members of the opposition to have access to some of the "finished product" without disclosing the background and dissenting opinions, under the threat of treason if those "secret" briefings are leaked... well you can see where this is going.

'Under the threat of treason'? Yes I can see this is pure fabrication on your part.

Pelosi and other Democrats who got briefings should demand that their briefings be declassified so that the public can see the differences between what was going on in Bush/Cheney internal memos and legal opinions, and what they disclosed to the Democrats in their briefings. Darth Cheney and Bush the Incompetent and their immoral crowd have damaged the stature of the US in the world more than all the secret wars and "dissapearings" in Central and South America combined.

Comparing mass murders in Latin America to water boarding? Please.

 

[LowlyPion]

Although the waterboard constitutes a threat of imminent death, prolonged mental harm must nonetheless result to violate the statutory prohibition on infliction of severe mental pain or suffering.

... Specific Intent To violate the statute, an individual must have the specific intent to inflict severe pain or suffering. Because specific intent is an element of the offense, the absence of specific intent negates the charge of torture.

http://luxmedia.vo.llnwd.net/o10/clients/aclu/olc_08012002_bybee.pdf

So Bybee figures that as long as you don't mean to hurt someone, or cause them any long term mental stress, i.e so long as you have a pure heart, you can pretty much torture the bejesus out of someone and not fall under 18 USC. § 2340.

 

[turbo]

'Under the threat of treason'? Yes I can see this is pure fabrication on your part.

If a government official releases top-secret information (which might have been classified for any reason, including protecting Cheney's preference of ketchup) they can and will be charged with treason.

 

[drankin]

If a government official releases top-secret information (which might have been classified for any reason, including protecting Cheney's preference of ketchup) they can and will be charged with treason.

Not correct. Take a look at the Constitution, Article III Section 3.

On October 11, 2006, a federal grand jury issued the first indictment for treason against the United States since 1952, charging Adam Yahiye Gadahn for videos in which he spoke supportively of al-Qaeda. -Wikipedia-

 

[LowlyPion]

If a government official releases top-secret information (which might have been classified for any reason, including protecting Cheney's preference of ketchup) they can and will be charged with treason.

If not in fact, then surely the Hannity-Beck Axis of Right Wing propaganda would have been unleashed with a terrible fury. And in addition to any Rove directed publicity fusillade, I'd think that the real casualty of any disclosure or dissent against whatever, no matter how grievous and inconsistent with the values of the Republic, would have been that the power hungry shepherds of the Republic then in power would have likely used it as an excuse to just act without disclosure of any sort.

 

[WhoWee]

If not in fact, then surely the Hannity-Beck Axis of Right Wing propaganda would have been unleashed with a terrible fury. And in addition to any Rove directed publicity fusillade, I'd think that the real casualty of any disclosure or dissent against whatever, no matter how grievous and inconsistent with the values of the Republic, would have been that the power hungry shepherds of the Republic then in power would have likely used it as an excuse to just act without disclosure of any sort.

I really wanted to respond...but Hannity just started...Huckabee is on...

 

[LowlyPion]

Document: Military Agency Referred to 'Torture,' Questioned Its Effectiveness
The military agency that provided advice on harsh interrogation techniques for use against terrorism suspects referred to the application of extreme duress as "torture" in a July 2002 document sent to the Pentagon's chief lawyer and warned that it would produce "unreliable information."

... "It's part of a pattern of squelching dissent," said Levin, who added that there were other instances in which internal reviews of detainee treatment were halted or undercut. "They didn't want to hear the downside."

A former administration official said the National Security Council, which was briefed repeatedly that summer on the CIA's planned interrogation program by George J. Tenet, then director of central intelligence, and agency lawyers, did not discuss the issues raised in the attachment. Tenet declined comment through a spokesman.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/04/24/AR2009042403171.html

The date on the report is prior to Bybee issuing his guide on how to beat 18 USC. § 2340.

 

[LowlyPion]

Looks like Bybee may not be in a good place.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/04/24/AR2009042403888.html

Maybe if he is a man of conscience he will do the right thing and resign given his participation in helping to justify this policy.

Surely he can't think the Republicans are returning to power any too soon, and even if they did, I can't imagine that he could expect advancement in the Judicial system.

 

[WhoWee]

Looks like Bybee may not be in a good place.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/04/24/AR2009042403888.html

Maybe if he is a man of conscience he will do the right thing and resign given his participation in helping to justify this policy.

Surely he can't think the Republicans are returning to power any too soon, and even if they did, I can't imagine that he could expect advancement in the Judicial system.

It's funny how Patrick Leahy positions himself...Bush isn't doing enough...
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/02/24/AR2008022401668.html

http://www.globalsecurity.org/security/library/congress/2004_h/040127-leahy.htm

BUT, not 1 comment about interrogation techniques...or "torture"?
http://topics.nytimes.com/top/refer...index.html?scp=1-spot&sq=patrick leahy&st=cse