what's debateable is wether these neocons think ALL Americans are fools

MAKE SURE THAT YOU GIVE SCHUMER A NICE BIG WET KISS FOR HIS EFFORTS

Thanks to Premier Bushki's trusty Kommrades Nancvetlana Pelosivitch, Stenyomir Hoyeroski and Haryevgeny Reidov, he'll never have to worry about being held accountable.

Undue it all when the mofo is gone... I guess that's where we're at with this dreck now......

FOIA?...return it to the archives and provide funding for it...
Torture?.... Ban it with extreme predudice once and for all! Oh and I guess we'll have to spell it out in extreme minutia so some other asshole won't come along and dick around with wordplay and semantics to do it without calling the devil by its' rightful name... I.E. Torture!!!! Oh and jail the sonsofbitches who initiated it...
I guess that means shotgun Dick and Chimpy at least!
Mukasey?...Shitcan his ass,and appoint someone with a freaking soul and a clue!!!

We can do these things under a new president or we can keep muddling along tarnishing our own image and heritage making more and more of the world community turn against us culturally, socially, politically, economically.. Don't think that's gonna work out too well for the next guy or gal waltzing into the oval office.. But, it would be part of the perpetuation of Bush's real legacy... As if anyone with a brain should want THAT!!! JD

Freedom of Information Act. The way these guys are going to treat it, it sounds like something out of 1984. Act now before information about your govenment is no longer FREE!

A couple of other stories from the AP about the Mukasey DOJ: blocking of Alberto Gonzales investigation and blocking of investigation into firing of US Attorneys. Thanks, Diane and Chuckie!

Thank you Keith!!! Keep bashing away at the neocons. Remind everyone who and what they really are. Sometimes if you repeat the truth, over and over and over, it starts making sense to the sheeple. :)

Hehe, Mr. Magoo. I'm hoping when they finish all of the scandals they release a video compilation with all of them, just so we can see them all in one place.

centralilgirl @ 13:

Thank you Keith!!! Keep bashing away at the neocons. Remind everyone who and what they really are. Sometimes if you repeat the truth, over and over and over, it starts making sense to the sheeple. :)

*First...thank you folks at C&L for fixing your site, I was having withdrawwwwwels.
To the Democratic President, could I pleeeeese be the one to go to cheneys office and tell him YOUR FIRED!....please?

Impeach the new Gang of Five on the Supreme Clowns, then prosecute Bush, Cheney and the whole scurvy crew.

Bush just signing statemented away the Ban on Permanent Bases in Iraq.

What a shock. He signed it now about five times, but what difference does a signature from the Decider make?

Here's how we know the CIA is lying about "there being no notes":

The FBI decided fairly early that they were going to be over there in Afghanistan trying to make criminal cases. From

When the US government -- whether it be CIA or FBI/DoJ, or DoD -- is attempting to gather intelligence for purposes of building evidence, to support combat or prosecutions, that intelligence gathering must include organizing information for the war fighters, prosecutors, and the courts. It defies reason for the US to assert "we were engaged in intelligence gathering to support prosecutions", but then reverse themselves saying, "We took no notes otherwise needed to support the court and warfighters."

It was assumed that if there were trials, the issue of admissibility would be irrelevant because there would be military commissions: "So when people complained about the lack of evidence admissible in criminal court, that wasn't accorded too much weight, because most of these people, if they were to be tried, were going to be tried before military commissions." From Regardless whether the evidence was or wasn't admissible; or whether it was before a military commission or federal court, that information had to be organized.

Former WH counsel also reports that there were conversations about the interrogations: "In my presence, in the discussions that I was a part of, it was always explained to me that we did not use torture," Also, here is another statement supporting the assertion that there were meetings, and the White House counsel was told -- by someone -- that the interrogations-information were useful: "In terms of the intelligence take, while I was there, we continued to hear that the interrogations were productive and that we were learning a lot about Al Qaeda and its methods from the Guantanamo detainees.

- How can former White House counsel contradict the CIA: That the interrogations "were" productive; but the CIA is "not sure"?

- Were the White House counsel and CIA talking about two different sets of interrogations: One that involved abuse, and was not productive; and a second set of interrogations that were productive, but did not involve abuse?

- How was White House counsel, presumably not present at the interrogations, able to get any feedback about the quality of the information, unless the CIA or someone had taken notes and communicated that information?

Checklists

Missing from the entire discussion are the review checklists CIA was using during the rendition efforts. Recall, Plame openly admitted in her book the CIA relied on a teaming concept. The only way that the teams could keep track fo many agents, and many activities, was if there were plans with follow-up items. The area for counsel to explore is the note-taking on the checklists the interrogators were using to monitor which interrogation tactics were useful; and how this information was reviewed to provide it to medical personnel who were allegedly looking for ways to exploit this information.

The specific checklists related to the alleged rendition-abuse sessions in Poland and Romania would include the following types of things:

- Site selection
- Fuels monitoring
- Energy supplies, payments
- Coordination through the CIA's logistics center in Germany
- Verification the personnel had bee loaded on the correct aircraft
- Prisoner cycling through interrogations
- Time sheets to monitor how long a prisoner had been kept in solitary confinement
- Facility program for the US government/contractors assigned to run the facility and provide support
- Transportation support plans: maintenance, fuels, equipment load sheets, food support requirements
- Communications plan: Linking real time data-discovery from the rendition site to combatant commanders, including satellite communications along secure communication lines [hook-up, testing, verification system complete/functioning]. White House Communication Office would have been involved.
- Copies of contractor checklists used to ensure key events were completed by specific times [contractor award fees depended on X-% within key event milestones]
- Interrogation checksheets used to monitor approaches used during the video-replay sessions, and make recommendations to adjust or improve the interrogation methods
- Notes on the checklists related to the effectiveness of various "other methods" used

It defies reason for the CIA to assert nobody took notes; or that there are no notes. The WH counsel was not there, but was given information -- rightly or wrongly -- about interrogations; and there had to be an implementation plan which the interrogators in Eastern Europe wrote notes to monitor progress along various planned interrogation checklists. The US government would not randomly go down a list of events, but they would ensure that the activities they subjected the prisoners to were well regulated, monitored, and were gleaning information useful for combatant commanders.

Also, even if the information was not useful for an immediate military objective, if we are to believe that the FBI-CIA were interested in some evidence gathering for prosecutions, there would have had to have been a system to record key information, and mark the videos to highlight for the court and judicial fact finder key information. If there are no paper notes to do this, then the CIA and DOJ would ask that we believe their goal of "gathering information for judicial purposes" did not exist.

If this is the case, then the basis for the data collection was not for a bonafide reason: They were allegedly using abuse to gather intelligence for combat operations, without regard to whether that information was accurate or reliable, as Geneva would reasonably expect before deadly force were used. in so many words, by asserting they were "not" keeping notes for the court, the CIA and DOJ have dug themselves into a deeper war crimes problem: Allegedly using abuse to secure a pretext to inflict combat casualties on targets they did not know -- with certainty -- were linked with an imminent threat, nor linked with a real military necessity.

The DOJ-CIA statement -- that they were "not" taking notes -- for the purposes of adjudicating war crimes -- can be entered into the record as a statement that is contrary to interests, and admissible for the purposes of making adverse inferences:

A. Illegally Captured Information Supported US War Crimes

- The US government had in place a policy of illegal abuse;
- The illegal abuse yielded information that was not reliable, and known not to be reliable;
- The illegally captured information was unreliable, despite Geneva requirements that combat targeting be based on reliable information of an imminent threat
- The US combat targeting using this unreliable information was not against bonafide military targets, but against targets which Geneva recognizes as protected, hence supporting the asserting that the use of this illegally obtained information was for subsequent purposes that also violated Geneva
- The US government had a policy of securing information they knew was not admissible to any court, yet unreasonably relied on this information to use deadly force in combat not credibly linked with military threats

B. Notes Exist, or Were Destroyed Contrary to the Court Order

- The US court was lied to when the CIA and DOJ said there were no notes
- WH counsel was informed of information through notes which the Court has not been provided
- The rendition checklists included lists of notes which the Court has not been provided as required

C. Information Was Not Reliable

- The WH counsel's assertion that the information was "quality" is hearsay, only evidence that there was an asserted link between the WH legal office and the interrogators, TBD on the basis of notes which WH counsel has allegedly not provided, despite making this assertion
- WH Counsel was informed of information using a communication method the courts have not been provided
- WH Counsel was informed through e-mail or other electronic communication including power point slides on the status of the various interrogations, but these e-mails and presentations have not been provided to the court as the court directed

Notice they're shifting the subject from whether there was or wasn't abuse in violation of Geneva; to whether the illegal abuse -- torture or not -- did or didn't provide information. We hear no distinction between whether the information was useful as evidence or combat targeting.

More thoughts on the checklists the CIA-DoJ-DoD would have been using under this President's "evidence collection" program [interrogation, rendition, prisoner abuse, DoJ-led evidence discovery effort]:

- Who wrote and reviewed these plans; and who ensured the operational checklists -- used during interrogation -- were or were not consistent with some sort of Presidential directive, executive order, or official "finding" by the President?

- Which PDBs did the President review that prompted him to ask, "How is the interrogation program going" and "Can I review some of the interrogator notes" or other questions, comments to see how things were progressing; when did the SecDef and the President meet to review the summary results of applying these checklists to the various interrogations?

- Where were medical reviews and ICRC reporting included on these checklists; how were Geneva obligations reviewed to ensure they were adequately incorporated into these checklists; or were the JAGs concerns at the POW working group meetings ignored, and the checklists not modified based on their concerns?

- Where is the CIA implementation guidance for the Guantanamo-like procedures DoD used to oversee videography of the interrogations?

- When Jeppesson, a Boeing subsidiary was alleged to have coordinated flight scheduling for the rendition efforts, what types of checklists were the aircrews and personnel assigned to the rendition program using to ensure the activities were timely completed to yield timely intelligence, evidence, and other information?

- How critical was it that particular steps on these checklists were or were not conducted at specific times vs. generalized windows [guard reviews, security checks, feeding times, medical reviews]?

- If there were "no notes" taken, how did medical personnel assigned to the rendition program know whether or not prisoners might suffer untimely deaths, or medical problems; how did they ensure that the medical conditions were not left to go unattended, putting the prisoner at risk of serious harm, including death?

- Who are the by-name CIA controllers assigned to oversee the various CIA teams; and how did these controllers rely on checklists to organize their team to adequately support the rendition program?

- What was the decision point on which techniques to use, continue, or adjust if there were "no notes"; how were these decision points planned into the various checklists the CIA was using in Eastern Europe to ensure timely interrogation results/progress?

- What measures of merit were included in the checklists to ensure the rendition-interrogation programs did meet various goals; how were the results/notes on these checklists used by the President, CIA, and National Security Council/contractors and legal counsel to make recommendations/issue guidance on what to adjust or continue?

- When was the Senate intelligence committee given, in secret, copies of the checklists used for the rendition effort; which vault in the Congress are these obtained; who is the account manager for this vault; when did the Congress first record on the vault access list receipt of these sample checklists?

- Who attended the various professional universities/colleges/training programs for US government officials to ensure the lessons learned of other management efforts were adequately included in the review of these checklists?

- Is it the position of the White House that the White House Communication Office never received ever a copy of any checklist related to any US protected person that would visit one of these interrogation centers; how was the key interrogation center made secure for these VIP visits unless, prior to visit, the operational details/schedules/timelines of these facilities were coordinated with the Secret Service?

- When did the President's most trusted advisers personally visit these detention centers; and what was their report on the management of the facilities; how were they able to report on the management unless they reviewed checklists, procedures, and observed conditions to verify: The plans were implemented; and the steps required to implement those plans were being followed?

- When did Marin Spike Bowman visit Guantanamo; after the Senate reviewed the Guantanamo facility in November 2002, who on the Congressional Professional Staff reviewed these checklists and provided information to the Joint Intelligence Committee on the compliance with Geneva; was there a reason the JAGs'-raised concerns about prisoner treatement were not resolved?

- When did the Congressional Staffers first review, after their November 2002 visit to Guantanamo, the checklists; and how were the issues the JAGs raised at the POW working group meetings with DoJ OLC and DoD reconciled with the procedures the Congressional Staff reviewed?

- What is the first line of evidence Members of Congress at the leadership level first knew of the JAGs concerns with prisoner treatment; and the operational details of the procedures; how did they first learn of the checklists used to comply or not comply with Geneva; was there no discussion by any Congressional staff counsel who was a former JAG about the Geneva concerns, or protocols that were not fully meeting Geneva?

- When did Congressional Staff counsel first discuss the issues of Alleged Malfeasance, 5 USC 3331, Geneva; and how were these war crimes risks included in discussions on legal defense funds for the Members of Congress through the MCA in re alleged malfeasance, war crimes; was it the intent of Congress to provide legal funds for their own defense should they be accused of malfeasance in re war crimes?

- Why should the public, as it refuses to do with the FISA-telecom immunity, permit Members of Congress to reward themselves with legal defense funds for their alleged malfeasance; should it not be reasonable for the public to expect that the Geneva obligations, which should have been included in these checklists, to have inspired an investigation, not a self-defense fund for Members of Congress in the MCA; how can anyone say that Congress was fully asserting its oath without any mental reservation, when it was reserving funds to defend itself because of the alleged inaction in reviewing these checklists and alleged war crimes?

- When did the Congress agree to take the checklists off the table, and not review them to ensure Geneva was fully enforced, as required by oath as the Supreme Law and treaty obligation?

- Can anyone in Congress point to a checklist or something that would inspire in We the People the notion that this abysmal oversight should be supported; what changes in oversight are required at the State level to ensure the Members of Congress take their oath seriously and review these checklists; what is the plan of the State Attorney Generals to review these checklists and issue indictments against the President and Members of Congress for failing to ensure that all Geneva obligations were fully implemented, enforced, oversee, managed, and investigated in re these checklists?

The AG won't declare waterboarding as illegal because, Vush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Gonzalez and others would be prosecuted. Just anothjer cover-uo