This Just in: the 2004 CIA IG Report

-

cia-seal.jpgThere will be much more on this in the days to come, but here is the heavily-redacted 2004 CIA Inspector General’s report on interrogation practices, scanned and posted by The Washington Independent and with commentary from Spencer Ackerman. This report is, of course, different from the Obama administration Task Force on Interrogation and Rendition report, also slated for release today.
It has been impossible to open a newspaper over the last few days without reading coverage of the IG report’s findings, allegations of torture, and the potential for Justice Department inquiries into the mistreatment and even deaths of detainees in American custody (the Washington Post has a useful collection of stories on the varies CIA interrogation debates, which can be found here). CIA director Leon Panetta also wrote a letter to the agency in anticipation of the 2004 report’s release, urging the agency, and by extension the American public, to move on from the history of past abuses.
Meanwhile, the Obama administration seems to be of different minds on the question of what to do about detainee rights. On the one hand the White House announced the creation of new interagency team that will be responsible for interrogating top terrorism suspects according to the regulations of the Army field manual, while at the same time President Obama said he will continue the process of rendition for terrorists, though supposedly not to nations that torture.
We will be doing analysis of the report (as well as analysis of other analysis) as more news and the Task Force report trickle in.
— Andrew Lebovich

Comments

31 comments on “This Just in: the 2004 CIA IG Report

  1. Paul Norheim says:

    Kathleen,
    nice to see you`re back!
    I`m now going to read your comment on Ted Kennedy –
    I was expecting you to comment on the issue.
    On topic: Obama is obviously monitoring this
    closely. However, I hope and think that there are
    dynamics here that may be difficult for Obama to
    control, perhaps even undermining Holder`s attempts
    to keep “a balance between loyalty and
    independence”.
    We`ll see.

    Reply

  2. Kathleen Grasso Adersen says:

    I think the operative word in Obama’s statement on Holder’s decision to appoint a Special Prosecutor is calling Holder “indpendent”. Since Holder was with a law firm that represented Busolini and the RNC, he has a continuing duty to his former clients….should be interesting to see how this plays out….I’ll know “independent” when I see it.

    Reply

  3. PissedOffAmerican says:

    “Obama should remember that what goes around comes around, and two sides can play the game of criminalizing the policy decisions of a previous administration.”
    In the opinion of this racist buffoon Nadine, a criminal is only a criminal if they are indicted.
    So, uh, if one prosecutes a perp for rape, you are in fact “criminalizing” the act of rape. So voila, if a rapist is never caught, he has never committed a criminal act.
    You gotta love, her, doncha? Whatta an effin’ genius she is.
    “Obama should remember that what goes around comes around……”
    Yeah, that must be why Bill Clinton is grinnin’ ear to ear, eh?

    Reply

  4. nadine says:

    Here’s what Panetta said in a memo to CIA employees yesterday:
    “The CIA referred allegations of abuse to the Department of Justice for potential prosecution. This Agency made no excuses for behavior, however rare, that went beyond the formal guidelines on counterterrorism. The Department of Justice has had the complete IG report since 2004. Its career prosecutors have examined that document — and other incidents from Iraq and Afghanistan — for legal accountability. They worked carefully and thoroughly, sometimes taking years to decide if prosecution was warranted or not. In one case, the Department obtained a criminal conviction of a CIA contractor. In other instances, after Justice chose not to pursue action in court, the Agency took disciplinary steps of its own.”
    Holder gave no reason for revisiting a five year old report, or deciding to pursue prosecution of cases that the Bush Justice Dept had already reviewed and cleared. There is no new evidence here. There is no legal reason for this. It’s a sop to the left, and very foolish.
    Obama should remember that what goes around comes around, and two sides can play the game of criminalizing the policy decisions of a previous administration.

    Reply

  5. nadine says:

    “How, Nadine, does the decision tarnish the
    credibility of Holder and Obama?”
    Because both Holder and Obama said that they would NOT do this. Holder got the votes of 17 Republican Senators for his confirmation by assuring them that he would not prosecute Bush era CIA agents. Obama announced in January that he would not look backwards and open prosecutions against the CIA. In April Obama made a speech at the CIA where he said that while he might make a case against the Dept of Justice lawyers like Yoo who had drawn up the legal memos which approved of the “enhanced interrogation techniques”, CIA agents who had operated under those Bush administration rules had nothing to worry about. Obama told them this explicitly, to their faces.
    All of Obama’s statements come with an expiration date. This one was shorter than most. The Washington Post reports that Leon Panetta pitched a fit when he heard what Holder intended to do; he should have resigned then and there.
    Does that answer the credibility question?
    As for the interrogation question, I think it is choice between evils. To torment a prisoner is an evil thing, even if you refrain from doing him lasting harm; but to let a mass murderer like Khalid Sheikh Mohammed keep his secrets and thus let thousands of innocent people die, is also evil. It’s a very slippery slope but on balance they definitely seemed to have prevented the planned second wave of Al Qaeda attacks.

    Reply

  6. Paul Norheim says:

    transprnt ashol why make it so damn complicted why don`t you just call this osamen guy
    bibi thats what those bearded desrt arab living in the caves call him oops sorry folks
    lol i think i got him mix up with some guy I read bout in the news at yahoo lol newth an
    yahoo no newth ginger damn it why the hll do these bloddy politians pick such compcated
    name ewri time IMHO thanx lol

    Reply

  7. Paul Norheim says:

    Despite a couple of problematic statements, I think
    your summary is basically valid, WigWag. However,
    your anger against Carter and Brzezinski is not
    convincing me entirely.
    Why don`t you fight Jimmy Carter`s current Middle
    East positions and criticism of Tel Aviv directly –
    instead of fighting a proxy war against Carter in
    the Afghan mountains?

    Reply

  8. Transparent Asshole says:

    Uh, well, uuuhm, I was gonna post something smart about Obama’s handling of the torture issue, but after I typed it out, I realized that you might not know who I was talking about unless I typed out his full name; Barack Hussein Obama. Then, while trying to figure out how to spell Hussein, I forgot what it was I wanted to say.
    But at least now you know who I was gonna talk about.

    Reply

  9. WigWag says:

    Jonst says,
    “I’m a lawyer, not the world’s greatest, but pretty good, just the same. You wrote:
    “A clear and convincing case can be made that there is an almost straight line connection between decisions he made in the late 1970s and the terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001″?
    I would love to see you make it.”
    My pleasure, Jonst.
    By his own admisstion, Zbignew Brzezinski is the architect of the Carter Administration’s policy on Afghanistan. Brzezinski is quite direct that he and Carter “tricked” the Soviets into attacking Afghanistan to give them their Viet Nam. Once they invaded, Brzezinski and Carter provided logistical, financial and military support to the Afghan mujahideen. I’ve posted it several times already. Here for your viewing pleasure is the interview Brzezinski gave to Le Nouvel Observateur, Paris in 1998. Feel free to consider it as a confession or at the very least, a “statement against interest.”
    “Question: The former director of the CIA, Robert Gates, stated in his memoirs [“From the Shadows”], that American intelligence services began to aid the Mujahadeen in Afghanistan 6 months before the Soviet intervention. In this period you were the national security adviser to President Carter. You therefore played a role in this affair. Is that correct?
    Brzezinski: Yes. According to the official version of history, CIA aid to the Mujahadeen began during 1980, that is to say, after the Soviet army invaded Afghanistan, 24 Dec 1979. But the reality, secretly guarded until now, is completely otherwise Indeed, it was July 3, 1979 that President Carter signed the first directive for secret aid to the opponents of the pro-Soviet regime in Kabul. And that very day, I wrote a note to the president in which I explained to him that in my opinion this aid was going to induce a Soviet military intervention
    Q: Despite this risk, you were an advocate of this covert action. But perhaps you yourself desired this Soviet entry into war and looked to provoke it?
    Brzezinski: It isn’t quite that. We didn’t push the Russians to intervene, but we knowingly increased the probability that they would.
    Q: When the Soviets justified their intervention by asserting that they intended to fight against a secret involvement of the United States in Afghanistan, people didn’t believe them. However, there was a basis of truth. You don’t regret anything today?
    Brzezinski: Regret what? That secret operation was an excellent idea. It had the effect of drawing the Russians into the Afghan trap and you want me to regret it? The day that the Soviets officially crossed the border, I wrote to President Carter. We now have the opportunity of giving to the USSR its Vietnam war. Indeed, for almost 10 years, Moscow had to carry on a war unsupportable by the government, a conflict that brought about the demoralization and finally the breakup of the Soviet empire.
    Q: And neither do you regret having supported the Islamic fundamentalism, having given arms and advice to future terrorists?
    Brzezinski: What is most important to the history of the world? The Taliban or the collapse of the Soviet empire? Some stirred-up Moslems or the liberation of Central Europe and the end of the cold war?”
    So lets see, Jonst, where did Al-Qaeda come from?
    Most experts will tell you that the origins of al-Qaeda can be traced back to 1979 when the Soviet Union invaded Afghanistan. Soon after the invasion, Osama bin Laden traveled to Afghanistan where, with American government assistance, he helped organize Arab mujahideen and established the Maktab al-Khidamat (MAK) organization to resist the Soviets. In 1989, as the Soviets withdrew, MAK was transformed into a “rapid reaction force” in jihad against governments across the Muslim world.
    How many Islamic fundamentalists first cut their terrorist teeth in the war in Afghanistan that Jimmy Carter and Zbig Brzezinski “tricked” the Soviets into? Here’s a very small list:
    Osama Bin Laden
    After leaving college in 1979 bin Laden joined Abdullah Azzam to fight the Soviet Invasion of Afghanistan and lived for a time in Peshawar.
    With Azzam, bin Laden established Maktab al-Khadamat, which funneled money, arms and Muslim fighters from around the Arabic world into the Afghan war against the Soviets.
    It was during his time in Peshawar that he began to wear camouflage-print jackets and carrying a captured Soviet assault rifle, which urban legends claimed he had obtained by killing a Russian soldier with his bare hands.
    Abdullah Yusuf Azzam
    A Sunni Islamic scholar and theologian, and a central figure in preaching for defensive jihad by Muslims to help the Afghan mujahideen against the Soviet invaders. He raised funds, recruited and organized the international Islamic volunteer effort of Afghan through the 1980s, and emphasised the political ascension of Islamism. He is also famous as a teacher and mentor of Osama bin Laden who persuaded bin Laden to come to Afghanistan and help the jihad against the Soviets.
    Mullah Mohammed Omar
    Omar fought as a guerilla with the Harakat-i Inqilab-i Islami faction of the anti-Soviet Mujahideen under the command of Nek Mohammad, and fought against the Najibullah regime between 1989 and 1992. It was reported that he was thin, but tall and strongly built, and “a crack marksman who had destroyed many Soviet tanks during the Afghan War.
    Following the Soviet withdrawal from Afghanistan and the collapse of the Communist regime in Kabul the country fell into chaos as various mujahideen factions fought for control. Mullah Omar started his movement with less than 50 armed madrassah students, known simply as the Taliban (Students). His recruits came from madrassahs in Afghanistan and Pakistan and from the Afghan refugee camps across the border in Pakistan.
    Of course, the list could go on and on. Virtually every major terrorist faction and terrorist leader active in the most dangerous parts of the world today, South and Central Asia, had its genesis in the war against the Soviets instigated by Carter and Brzezinski and continued by Reagan, Baker and that crew.
    Brzezinski’s complicity is clear. But for decisions he and Jimmy Carter made, the September 11th attacks would probably never have happened. Had September 11th not occurred it is reasonably possible that the Iraq War might never have occurred. Carter and Brzezinski have alot to answer for. The two of them, not George Bush are responsible for the biggest foreign policy blunder in American history.
    If Bush and Cheney should be in the dock, so should Carter and Brzezinski.

    Reply

  10. Paul Norheim says:

    “As I said, Holder had all the cover he needed to
    do nothing; the matter had already been
    investigated and cleared by special prosecutors.”
    If I understand you correctly, there are no legal
    reasons for Holder to do something?
    “Not to mention that this decision tarnishes his
    credibility and Obama’s.”
    How, Nadine, does the decision tarnish the
    credibility of Holder and Obama?
    “Not to mention what this decision will do to the
    CIA’s future intelligence-gathering abilities.”
    Is it impolite of me, Nadine, with reference to
    the last quote, to repeat the question I posed
    above:
    What do you think about the interrogation methods
    during the Bush administration?
    The question is highly relevant to your position
    on the Holder decision.

    Reply

  11. nadine says:

    Wigwag, I agree that opening a special prosecution, which if history is any guide will last for years and wind up far away from where it started, is a political blunder. However, I don’t conclude from this the motives are non-political. As I said, Holder had all the cover he needed to do nothing; the matter had already been investigated and cleared by special prosecutors. Not to mention that this decision tarnishes his credibility and Obama’s. Not to mention what this decision will do to the CIA’s future intelligence-gathering abilities.
    I daresay I am more cynical about this administration’s motives than you are, but I see this as a sop to Obama’s left-wing base, which is already seething over Obama’s failure to deliver. I wonder if something is coming down the pike that will really make the left-wing seethe, necessitating a distraction. Perhaps Obama will bail on the public option soon?

    Reply

  12. WigWag says:

    Wigwag, you forgot to mention the rendition program, which started under Clinton. Oh, yes, there are many rocks to turn over if you really want to go down this path.”
    During the Administration of Bill Clinton, extraordinary rendition was certainly practiced; more than once. But extraordinary renditions did not start during Clinton’s eight years in office; the practice had its genesis during the Reagan years.
    According to wikipedia (which is not always right) as far back as 1987 extraordinary rendition was used as part of “Operation Goldenrod.” Jordanian terror suspect Fawaz Younis, one of the individuals implicated in the 1985 hijacking of a Royal Jordanian airliner was the person who was “rendered.”
    I am also skeptical that the Obama Administration is changing its decision to examine these cases for political reasons. In fact, James Carville is right; opening these cases is likely to be a political disaster for Obama. You can be sure that Obama, Rahm Emmanuel and the rest of Obama’s team know it. Any indictments will be met with a Republican chorus of how Holder (and by extension Obama) are persecuting American heroes who protected our nation from terrorist attacks. Any prosecutions will undoubtedly prove to be very politically unpopular. The case most reminiscent of this situation was the indictment, trial and conviction by the Bush Administration of the border patrol agents who shot and wounded the Mexican drug smuggler a couple of years back. After the agents were sentenced to prison (Bush eventually commuted their sentences) there was a huge public outcry (led in part by the odious Lou Dobbs.)
    In fairness to the Obama Administration, and in particular to Attorney General Holder, they’ve been fair and non-partisan in the way they’ve run the Justice Department. Holder moved to dismiss the indictment against Ted Stevens because of prosecutorial misconduct despite the fact that the conviction was obtained by the Bush Justice Department and provided political advantage to Democrats especially in Alaska.
    Holder also dismissed the indictments against former AIPAC officials Steve Rosen and Keith Weismann. This was an extremely unpopular move within the FBI which had been working on making the case for years. Holder realized that not only was it a difficult case to win because of certain pre trial decisions by the trial judge, but that it also relied on an obscure provision of the “Espionage Act” that had never been used to prosecute anyone. Holder realized that it was a political show-trial and he put a stop to it; much to his credit. The Bush Administration brought the case; the Obama Administration correctly dismissed it.
    The point is that the Obama Administration Justice Department has behaved in an honorable manner so far; far more honorably than the Bush Justice Department,
    They are entitled to the benefit of the doubt on this matter.
    They’ve earned it.
    I trust them to do the right thing. If he believes people have broken the law, Holder will prosecute them; if he doesn’t, he won’t

    Reply

  13. nadine says:

    jonst, just saw Frances Townsend on video, who reminded me that a previous set of prosecutors had viewed this same CIA report, and had concluded that nothing in it warranted a criminal investigation. This by definition is perfect cover for Holder to have done nothing, had he so wished.
    I also saw James Carville, who had no opinion on the law but said that politically, appointing a special prosecutor was an enormous blunder, since the American people have little appetite for backward-looking prosecution.

    Reply

  14. nadine says:

    jonst, though I agree with POA on nothing, he’s right on this: the decision was political, not legal. It doesn’t matter what was in the reports, Holder’s hands would not have been “tied” to pursue an investigation absent strong political reasons. Holder could have kept it secret and ignored it.
    As reported in the WaPo, Holder said, “I fully realize that my decision to commence this preliminary review will be controversial,” Holder added. “As attorney general, my duty is to examine the facts and to follow the law. In this case, given all of the information currently available, it is clear to me that this review is the only responsible course of action for me to take.”
    Which is pure boilerplate for an AG. No new information, no orders from the Prez are cited. Obama replied through his press sec’y:
    “…the White House voiced support for Holder in a news conference held Monday on Martha’s Vineyard, Mass., where deputy press secretary Bill Burton told reporters that “ultimately, the decisions on who is investigated and who is prosecuted are up to the attorney general. . . . The president thinks that Eric Holder, who he appointed as a very independent attorney general, should make those decisions.”
    You are going to have to explain why Obama didn’t announce his change of heart, because having Holder announce this by himself gives the impression that he is running the show, not Obama. Why did Obama call him “very independent”? Is a free agent? Who is in charge of Obama’s WH?

    Wigwag, you forgot to mention the rendition program, which started under Clinton. Oh, yes, there are many rocks to turn over if you really want to go down this path.

    Reply

  15. jonst says:

    Wig Wag,
    I’m a lawyer, not the world’s greatest, but pretty good, just the same. You wrote:
    “A clear and convincing case can be made that there is an almost straight line connection between decisions he made in the late 1970s and the terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001”?
    I would love to see you make it. Because I would argue that “straight line” looks much more like this.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Sanfran_61_bg_032605.jpg

    Reply

  16. arthurdecco says:

    Bait and switch…Bait and switch…Bait and switch…Bait and switch…Bait and switch…

    Reply

  17. WigWag says:

    Personally I’m all for an investigation of the CIA interrogation methods and prosecution of anyone who broke the law; not only for the interrogators but for more senior officials who may have ordered the illegal behavior.
    But the idea that inappropriate and potentially illegal behavior had its genesis in the Bush Administration is preposterous.
    That great modern hero of foreign realists, Henry Kissinger, has been called a war criminal by Christopher Hitchens. In fact, Hitchens wrote a book indicting Kissinger for a number of potentially illegal acts as bad as anything alleged against the Bush Administration. His book is called “The Case against Henry Kissinger” and excerpts can be read on-line.
    And while we’re at it, why not consider an indictment against Zbignew Brzezinski? A clear and convincing case can be made that there is an almost straight line connection between decisions he made in the late 1970s and the terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001.
    There’s no statute of limitations on being an accessory to murder, is there?
    Well, maybe that’s a little too extreme.
    But I’m quite sure there’s no statute of limitations on examining the root causes of the foreign policy problems we face today.
    On that cause of action, Zbignew Brzezinski, Jimmy Carter, Ronald Reagan and James Baker are all unindicted co-conspirators.
    They should all be in the dock.

    Reply

  18. jonst says:

    Nadine,
    “He”, is Holder. If you don’t already know why Obama did not “announce” his change of position, there is very little I could explain to you about why.
    You wrote: “What changed?” I repeat: HOLDER READ THE GODDAMN DOCUMENTS (horror stories) AND HE SAW, DESPITE HIS EARLIER, LESS INFORMED, POLITICAL PRONOUNCEMENTS, THAT HIS HANDS ARE TIED ON THIS.

    Reply

  19. Paul Norheim says:

    Nadine,
    what do you think about the interrogation methods
    during the Bush administration?

    Reply

  20. Kathleen says:

    Jims post
    http://seminal.firedoglake.com/diary/7511
    Attorney General Holder: What Happened to KSM’s Children? Release All of Paragraph 95!

    Reply

  21. Kathleen says:

    Serious discussions going on over at Firedoglake about this document dump
    follow Emptywheels (many post the last couple of days about this critical issue)
    Jim White over at Seminal at Firedoglake has asked a very serious question and puts out a challenge
    Attorney General Holder: What Happened to KSM’s Children? Release All of Paragraph 95!
    “From the unredacted portion we can see that someone, in the course of interrogating Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, said “We’re going to kill your children” if anything else happens in the US. Lest anyone think this was an idle threat, it should be noted that KSM was captured and interrogated in March, 2003. In that same month, this report appeared in The Telegraph:
    Two young sons of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, the suspected mastermind of the September 11 attacks, are being used by the CIA to force their father to talk.
    Yousef al-Khalid, nine, and his brother, Abed al-Khalid, seven, were taken into custody in Pakistan last September when intelligence officers raided a flat in Karachi where their father had been hiding.”
    LINKS NOT WORKING
    GO CHECK IT OUT

    Reply

  22. Tom Degan says:

    Yeah. Let the investigations proceed and the chips fall where they may. In the course of destroying this country, George W. Bush (the First Fool as I loved to call him) undid DECADES of diplomatic protocol.
    Were these morons able to get information via torture? Sure they did. Most of that info was false. You see, under those circumstances, the person being tortured will say just about anything. It is quite interesting: no one in this administration (Excuse me, I meant to say, “THAT administration) was smart enough to figure this out.
    http://www.tomdegan.blogspot.com
    Tom Degan
    Goshen, NY

    Reply

  23. nadine says:

    “Maybe he finally read the documents? Maybe after doing so, he had no choice but to act?”
    Who is “he”? Holder or Obama? Why didn’t Obama announce his change of heart, if he had one? Obama is on record saying he didn’t want to do this. Now Holder is doing it anyway. What changed?

    Reply

  24. not nadine says:

    …So the question is, why the CIA investigation and why now? Especially after Obama said he didn’t want to do it and Holder assured the Senators at his confirmation that he had no intention of doing it?
    the answer to your question…
    is that all crying babies must be put to bed, the elites can not be seen as doing nothing…so an investigation takes place, afterwhich someone or something takes the fall and then things can go back to normal.
    right now the citizenry needs to see our fearless leaders making things right…so they will put on a good show, americans are starting to see through these show trials….the scales are falling off their eyes…its funny how economic conditions perk up the senses.
    all govt employess take an oath to the constitution of the united states not to the president or the fbi or the cia or any other secret govt body.
    the only thing special about america is our constitution, not working for the govt.
    either your are an american defending and protecting the constitution or you are a traitor to that document.
    many choose to work for the govt body rather than the constitution…i think its time for a gut check.

    Reply

  25. jonst says:

    Nadine wrote: “So the question is, why the CIA investigation and why now? Especially after Obama said he didn’t want to do it and Holder assured the Senators at his confirmation that he had no intention of doing it?”?
    Maybe he finally read the documents? Maybe after doing so, he had no choice but to act?

    Reply

  26. nadine says:

    “So, the bottom line, folks, is that “investigations” and “reports” are entirely motivated by politics, and have nothing to do with respect for the law, (domestic or international).”
    I think we have found a point of agreement.
    So the question is, why the CIA investigation and why now? Especially after Obama said he didn’t want to do it and Holder assured the Senators at his confirmation that he had no intention of doing it?

    Reply

  27. TonyForesta says:

    The depravity and perverted freakish barbarity of the fascists in the bushgov is overshadowed only by the rank stupidity, ignorance, and lockstep partisan support of the idiots in redneck Amerika. Unfortunately the socalled democrats are too cowardly, or perhaps complicit to dare to hold the bushgov accountable. Apply these techniques to that satanic beast cheney and see what develops, let’s all see what “high value intelligence comes out of that process, because if anyone knows what happened on 9/11 and how it happened, and why it happened, who responsible, and for allowing it to happen – it’s dick cheney.
    We are witness to the classic Hegellian dynamic, wherein and fiendish despicable statanic monsters are directly involved with one of the most brutal and heinous acts of massmurder against civilians in the history of the world, (utilizing longtime proxies and well documented deepstate operators {revisit the bin Laden links to the Carlyle group, the CIA links to bin Laden and other jihadist, the bushgoodfriends Saudi Arabian dirty dozen finance operation, and our humble hosts curious resistance to examining the incendiary claims of the infamously gagged Sibel Edmonds, and Indira Singh}) – use that horrorshow as an excuse to create and exploit the fictional “neverendingwaronterror”, and then misdirect all the nations warfighting assets away from that neverendingwaronterror to maraud Iraqi oil, and profiteer wantonly from both the deceptive misadventure in Iraq and the fictional neverendingwaronterror. The same monsters then brute and sell this fictional neverendingwaronterror and massmarketing, and selective perception management information warfare campaigns issuing dire warnings of phantom evildoers to terrorize the stupid and ignorant rednecks in Amerika to support the fictions myths, and bloody costly horrors conjured, supported and executed by said fiendish monsters, who then ghoulish exploit the horrors of the 9/11 massmurder operation (again that the fiendish monsters were directly involved in perpetrating) to terrorize and ultimately convince the stupid ignorant rednecks in Amerika that it is necessary to rape, pillage, dismember, and reengineer the Constitiion and the rule of law and give the fiends and monsters unlimited unaccountable power to dominate and control and wantonly profiteer from the markets, oil and energy distribution, and our intelligence and military and private intelligence and private military industrial complexes to confront the evildoers and the horrors of 9/11 the monsters in the bushgovernment planned and executed.
    All those idiots who support torture, should welcome applying those same perverted techniques to cheney, – and then all the answers will be found and revealed, and it will be proven that 9/11 was an inside job!!!! cheney and the fascists in the bushgov were directly involved, and they will directly involved in the even more heinous and horrible sequel!!!

    Reply

  28. PissedOffAmerican says:

    Its truly astounding that gross illegalities, crimes, human rights abuses, and war crimes are only exposed for their political utility.
    We just had an FBI translator testify, under oath, describing high crimes and treason, and describing an act of blackmail being committed by a foreign nation on one of our sitting Congresswomen. And not one God damned peep from our media, from any of the “thinkers” in the NAF, or from anyone in our government.
    So, the bottom line, folks, is that “investigations” and “reports” are entirely motivated by politics, and have nothing to do with respect for the law, (domestic or international).
    Wanna know what will happen with this “report”? ABSOLUTELY NOTHING. Oh, yeah, they might scapegoat some poor bastard or two. But do you think this White House whore Holder is really going to enforce the law? Hell no, and you’re a damned fool if you think he will. We KNOW crimes have been committed. That FACT is without question. Where are the indictments? We’ve seen blatant perjury, undeniable. Where are the indictments? We’ve seen this satanic sack of shit Cheney ADMIT to crimes. Where are the indictments?
    Remember the Downing Street Memos? Pffft.
    Remember paid propagandists masquerading as journalists to push certain policies? Pfffft.
    Remember Gonzales lyin’ his ass off, UNDENIABLY? Rice? Pffft.
    The only reasonable conclusion that can be drawn by this first year of Obama’s term is that once again we have an AG that marches to the White House’s drum, and screw the law, he’s Obama’s punk. Period.
    If the law mattered to these bastards, then every American with ears would know about the Torture Convention, and there would be a whole slew of Bush Administration clowns awaiting trial for a myriad of crimes.
    Its all political posturing, and absolutely NOTHING is going to come of it. Obama watched eight years of unopposed tyranny, and I think he liked what he saw. Not a bad gig, most powerful man in the world, with no checks and balances.
    Bend over America, you’re about to get screwed again.

    Reply

  29. Jason says:

    This is a great site that you have here. I have a site myself where people can freely express their opinions towards controversial debate topics. After looking at your site, I see that you have some valuable insight you can provide us. This is why I left this comment.
    Keep up the good work. Maybe we can do a link exchange.
    Sincerely,
    Jason

    Reply

Add your comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *