Resistance.

Whats new about this?

CSPAN seems like the Soap Opera Channel these days!

Ron @ 4:

L.A. Confidential @ 3:

Whats new about this?

It's just another scandal amongst a long list of scandals.

Sure and according to Time Mag "He lives in St. Michaels, Md., and is "enjoying his family," Di Rita said."

And I suppose he's enjoying his buds in Big Pharm killing us off with their pills for ills and those profits too.

hey, rumsfield
do you have one more of those secret flights and jails, so you can transport the
worst of the enemy combattans against the USA
namely

bush cheney rove rice and of course, yourself.

I said it a thousand times before: you know this administration is fucked up when the spooks (ie: CIA, FBI, NSA, etc.) think that the WH is doing/encouraging unethical behaviour.

I saw this earlier, and then I saw that Fox was running a story on how the CIA was sabotaging the war on terror . . . For some reason, this doesn't surprise me.

If there were only some way we could get Rumsfeld to talk .... hmmm....

Ok, well I know two countries I'll never visit: how can I trust I won't be thrown into a gulag there? "If you're not with us, you're against us." I chose against a long time ago (that very day, in fact), so anyone supporting neo-cons become instant murderers/torturers/scum in my book.

Would this be considered outsourcing oversight overseas?

[War Crimes Related -- Sorry about many spelling errors: Problem at this end, Rushed]

War Crimes Evidence: Please Discuss With Waxman, Conyers, Leahy Staff

They need to see this: The information shows there is a rift between the WH Counsel's office and the CIA personnel. This is very important. The information at the above link needs to be contrasted with these recorded statements here. The firm where that individual is current located is well known in the data archiving community; the firm has been linked affirmatively with public statements about the details of the WH IT data archiving.
In light of the first link, the CIA disagreed with Rumsefeld, consider this person who is reported to have refused to "confirm or deny" whether the US was or was not cooperating with specific countries on rendition. It appears based on this report, that the rift between CIA and DOD can be documented: Mary Walker, the DOD General Counsel was in charge of developing the briefings for the issue of various planned Geneva violations including prisoner abuse and rendition.
Here's the issue, for purposes of Waxman, Conyers, and Leahy: It appears based on this information that there are specific people who would be able to contradict the assertions by this person about whether the WH Counsel's office really did "believe" that what was being done was "legal."
Keep in mind what we've learned about the following contrast: [a] Someone created a backup e-mail system; yet [b] despite assertions of privildge, and the presumption that the documents were expected to never ever see the documents, as reported here, somebody realized [d] the claim of provilge hiding the infromation in the backup systems would fail, and [e] ordered the destructdion of the WH E-mails sent via the RNC.
Here's the problem for the WH Counsels' office: ALready developed are separate lines of evidednce showing that there were independent e-mails sent related to financial audits and "close hold e-mails here : The question is: Where are these RNC-related e-mails that have not been provided? It apears as though the connection beween DoD and CIA would bust this open. There can be shown a line of evidence, e-mail, and concerns within the CIA and most likely their outside contracting firm Abraxas (which handles their cover stories) that there was concern with what was going on. Either the concern was real, or it was not. Arguably, Abraxas would have the responsibilty to provide any evidence that it knew of war crimes; or it was or was not removing itself from the actdivity which the EU report documents.
Recall, after 9-11, they were taking prisoners to Guantanamo. Marin E. "Spike" Bowman [Formely with the NAVY, and DOJ] was sent from the US to review the situation in Cuba. The Army's 6th Group Miltiary Police Group's name was revealed on one of the documents in the ACLU data dump: This mean that there was just after Sept 2001, in the late 2002 time frame, memoranda from the Security Police, through the 6th Group, up to the Joint Staff.
Here's where Conyers, Waxman, and Leahy need to pay attention: Once the 6th Group Commander received that report, it was also sent into to JCS, were it would have been provided to Walker; the person at this link confirms that he was aware of various presentations relted to prisoner status. Based on the rift between the CIA and DOD on the Eastern Europe, we konw something very important: Despite the CIA concern, Addington favored sticking with Eastner Europe--he feard the change in porisoner location would be an admission of the problem.
It appears someone in the CIA, which Abraxas most likely placed under cover, was aware of the problems. The question is: Whether the CIA really had concerns; or whether this is a disinformation campaign to distract attention from the CIA back onto DoD. Either way, somehwow EU officials are convinced that the CIA personnel they spoke to disagree enough with DoD to release the details. If we assume that this is true, then this means something very important: SOmeone inside the CIA would have to have reviewed the real operations, and konwn what was really going on; but chose not to go to the US Atty; or the US Atty knew about their concerns and did nothing; but they would have communicated that with someonee. REcall, the EU report is not based on a single person, but multiple people involved. Most likely they have somehow voiced their concerns and as a group come forward. This implies that they would be communicating.

Here's the key: The timing of theirt communcation is more improtant than the content: The timing needs to be contrasted with the timing of the WH COunsel's comments. IN short, it could be that the WH Counsel's office had a double e-mail system: One with the non-sense information that they thought Congrses would get; and a secnd set of e-mails that were consisent with the concerns the CIA had bout Eastner Europe. The timing of the CIA agents e-mails needs to be compared with the timing of [a] the briefings from DoD to the WH; [b] the reports from Bowman; [c] the 6th Group reports to Joint staff; and [d] what was being side in the WH Counsel's office; then with [e] what the CIA agents were saying. One of the lines of evidence stblishes that someone is asserting the CIA knew there was a problem. The burden appears to be on DoJ OLC and the WH COunsel's office:
-Why is there one line of evidnece showign the CIA concluded the actdiivty was illegal; but OLC and WH counsel (presumably coordinating with WH political and pbulif affairs) was spinning the opposite, going to the extreme of "going after the leakers"?
- What got in the way of the US CIA officers who were aware of this from going to the US Atty;
= Was there information the CIA had, opssibnly from the NSC, that would tell them what was going on with FISA; and that the PResident would shut down any ivnestigation the US Atty might start related to the CIA report to US officials?
- How did the reporting of this apparent CIA concern with the illegal actdivity get clssified in OVP in re 32 CFR 2800, the OVP classification program;
- Did the Archivist get access to this information which would show the CIA had concerns; or was that, in fact, what Cheney had shredded, and his motivation for not cooperating with the Archivist: To hide OVP knowlege that the CIA was aware the actdivity was illegal, and that they did not agree with SecDef guidance?
It doesn't seem plausible that CHeney, as close as he was with th ePlame issues, would "not be aware" the CIA had a disagreement. Most likely, this disagreement was documented, but not adequately resolved within the OVP-OSD legal counsel areas, prompting the CIA to go to the EU. In other words, we may be looking at the LIbby-Rove Grand Jury e-mail probmems, but this time it's different: The infromation is outisde the OVP, and not witin the OVP control.
It appears as though This person has a very big problem on his hands for one reason: DoD is saying one thing; CIA officers concluded the program was illegal, yet this person after the Spike Bowman visit to Guantanamo kept saying they believed it was lawful.

Based on the above, and in light of the problem with privilege, it appers as though this person has a very big problem: His assertion of what he "believed" the activity was legal does not square with [a] what Bowman as reporting; [b] what the CIA was concluding; or [c] what he should have concluded in light of the reports and briefings he is konwn to have heard.
I would highly encourage the Congress to revisit tihs person's statements in re rendition; and call him under oath to discuss his knowlege of the RNC e-mails; and why his "conclusoins" are so out of line with what the CIA is reported to have concluded, prompting their visit with the EU inspectors. Bluntly, it looks as though this person has made misleading statements; and that the CIA concluded based on informaiton that this person should have had access to (given his connection with Mary Walker through the FEdearlist SOciety), there were wr crimes which this person did not timely remove himself; but appears to have incorrectly asserted that he "believed" the activity ws lawful, when it appears his beliefs were most likely the opposite.
Again, in light of [a] the firms knowlege of the WH Data retention, and the problem with [b] creating a backup system that was suposed to be protected but then [c] subsequently destroyed, it does not believe as though counsel believed that the progrtam was lwaful. but the opposite: They well knew what the CIA knew -- the program was illegal, thus prompting the destruction of the backup e-mail which they knew would not survilve the claim of privilge. It doesn't make sense to destroy e-mails that someone "genuinedly" thought would be shielded; rather, ti looks a sthough their claim in 2007 tht they "bleived" it was privildge is at odds with [1] creation of teh backup sytem; [2] non compliacne with Hatch Act on WH e-mail/data archiving; [3] blokcing the auditor in OVP; and the [4] destruction of that supposedly "privileged/forever to be shielded" inforamtion.
Short version: There are some CIA case officers who appear to have infromation which would help to show when the WH counsel's office was briefed on their concerns with the illegalities; and when the PResident and others connected with Gonzalez shoudl have been reasonably in a postion to know what was going on in Eastener Euopre vioalted GEneva. The CIA was aparently concerned about it enough to go to the EU, hving little confidence the US officals, Congress, or the US Atty or CIA IG would resolve the issue.

But...but...but George told those high school students that we don't torture!

WE ARE A NATION OF WAR CRIMINALS

See 7 Part Comment expanding on discussion of unfolding information: Connection between CIA, WH Counsel, and DoD GC briefings on rendition and the CIA cooperation with EU report.

Screw all these spooks. I don't want to hear about your squabbles. I want to hear you are gone, dead, disappeared removed from civilization. I've read enough to know there isn't one of you who are moral. You don't help me , you don't represent me, you are all criminals sanctioned by our paid whore politicians. You bring down democracies, and replace them with dictatorships. You train death squads to stifle people who are fighting tyranny. You get billions of dollars , our tax dollars to create false flag operations to disinform the public and destroy moral people who are poor and righteously indignant. You are the enemy of free humanity. You work for cynical greedy corporations who want control over the world. American strategic interests are not the interests of the American people. Quite the contrary ,what is called American strategic interests are often against the interests of the public and serve only the greed of Americas wealthy.
You are secret not out of real concerns for American interests you are secret because you never want the American people to know how you are f**king them Royally. The national security act of 1947 needs to be rescinded. You need to face prosecution for crimes against humanity.

Get up, stand up...

re the photo on the site:
It is from the Tuol Sleng Genocide Museum in Phnom Penh Cambodia. I think that this is a misappropriation of the so-called torture being used by the US government and an insult to the thousands who were tortured at Tuol Sleng and later sent to the Killing Fields. Only a dozen or so survived their torture