Home › Blogs › NextRightNando's blog ›

General Petraeus: close Gitmo, don't torture

Submitted by NextRightNando on Tue, 05/26/2009 - 16:34

For all of you who argue in favor of torture and against closing Gitmo - you can add General Petaeus to the list of those who disagree with you.

RFE/RL: As you know, General, the debate over Guantanamo and enhanced interrogation techniques has become "Topic A" in Washington. In your view, does the closing of "Gitmo" and the abandonment of those techniques complicate the U.S. mission in Iraq, Afghanistan, and in the overall struggle against violent transnational extremist groups or does it help it?

Petraeus: I think, on balance, that those moves help

I reported yesterday the fact that the Chairman of the Join Chiefs, Admiral Mullen, also supports closing Gitmo and not using torture.

Who knows more and is more honest about the challenges facing our nation and our troops - General Petraeus and Admiral Mullen, or the draft-dodging chicken hawks Dick Cheney and Rush Limbaugh?

0
Your rating: None

Comments

So I suppose

Submitted by FlyingScot on Tue, 05/26/2009 - 17:04.

you expect General Petraeus to say, "no way. I oppose the president , my Commander in Chief on this and I told him bluntly to his face he was flat wrong. I'm against closing Gitmo"

Yeah, sure.  

As I said before, military men follow orders. They are trained to do so.

Also, your implication that that those who want to close Gitmo are automatically "for torture" is jumping to conclusions.

If you were to actually read the words of either officer you

Submitted by NextRightNando on Tue, 05/26/2009 - 17:40.

I were to actually READ the words of either officer you would see that they both discuss both Gitmo and torture, and both say "close Gitmo" and "don't torture".

Let me help you. First, Petraeus:

As you know, General, the debate over Guantanamo and enhanced interrogation techniques has become "Topic A" in Washington. In your view, does the closing of "Gitmo" and the abandonment of those techniques complicate the U.S. mission in Iraq, Afghanistan, and in the overall struggle against violent transnational extremist groups or does it help it?

Petraeus: I think, on balance, that those moves help

See - he deal with both issues - close Gitmo, adandon torture.

Now, Mullen:

Well, the concern I've had about Guantanamo in these wars is it has been a symbol, and one which has been a recruiting symbol for those extremists and jihadists who would fight us. So and I think that centers -- you know, that's the heart of the concern for Guantanamo's continued existence, in which I spoke to a few years ago, the need to close it.

That is Mullen saying "close Gitmo".

I was specifically aware of the requirements of the Army Field Manual and very focused on that and sort of bounding the problem with respect to what the military does, and that's my responsibility. And from that point at no time have I ever supported torture, and that has been very clear and remains. I'd leave it at that.

That is Mullen saying "don't torture".

Are you clear on that now?

Now then, regarding your other contention:

you expect General Petraeus to say, "no way. I oppose the president , my Commander in Chief on this and I told him bluntly to his face he was flat wrong. I'm against closing Gitmo"

Yeah, sure. 

So then - you say that both men are out there granting interviews for the express purpose of telling lies in order to curry favor?

You don't get to rank of General and Admiral without considerable intelligence and a good skill set, including communications. If either man thought that Gitmo and torture were in the nation's interest they would have no problem signaling their disagreement - hell, even their neutrality - with regard to Obama's policies. (Don't give interviews where you know that the number one question will be Gitmo and or torture.  When asked, say "I'm a loyal soldier and I will do what my CiC orders.")

I realize it is embarassing for you to have set yourself up as an expert in what is good for the security of the nation and then have two heavyweights contradict you, but you should have the good grace to accept the situation without insulting their integrity.

 

 

"on balance, these moves help"

Submitted by Ironman on Tue, 05/26/2009 - 18:09.

Well, that's not too controversial. The question not posed to the flag officers is how to logistically accomplish these goals. 

90 U.S. Senators voted against funding the closure of Gitmo. I would suggest the logistical problem herein may prove to be insurmountable in the foreseeable future.

As for interrogation, the NY Times reports the Obama administration has found a form of outsourcing it likes--foreign intel services to do interrogation.

On balance, it would help me if my office moved to my hometown. But all the other lawyers would need to agree.  Should I enlist Petraeus to lobby for this? I  would need him to be a lot more adamant than this tepid sound bite.   

 

Selective reading

Submitted by NextRightNando on Tue, 05/26/2009 - 19:08.

Petraeus also said:

But doing that in a responsible manner, I think, sends an important message to the world, as does the commitment of the United States to observe the Geneva Convention when it comes to the treatment of detainees.

So, to indulge you in your solipsism, if you could make a strong case that it is good for national security and the standing of our nation in the eyes of the world that your office be moved, then by all means, drop the man a line.

 

Always an excuse

Submitted by skayne on Tue, 05/26/2009 - 17:31.

Just like they followed Obama on his initial decision to release the detainee photos.

Conservatives have an excuse for every piece of evidence against torture.

 

I'll say it again

Submitted by FlyingScot on Tue, 05/26/2009 - 18:07.

the president of the United States is the Commander in Chief and you don't don't buck your commander to the press.  

My contention is closing Gitmo, not torture (which was abandoned in 2002).

And you'll be wrong again

Submitted by NextRightNando on Tue, 05/26/2009 - 19:01.

Here is Admiral Mullen in January 2008, back when the world was writing off Obama as a flash-in-the-pan after the New Hampshire primary:

"More than anything else, I just think its been the images -- what Gitmo has become around the world in terms of representing the United States. I believe from the standpoint on how it reflects on us, it has been pretty damaging." 

Remarkable, isn't it, how he was saying "close it, it harms us" back then - and he is saying the same thing, now.

He isn't saying "I support President Bush/Obama". He is saying "Gitmo is bad."

If he wanted to present a more neutral face on the matter, he could have done so then, he could certainly be doing so now. Or, he just not got on the Sunday morning shows, now, couldn't he?

Your protestations are pathetic.

So what is it that you are privy to that makes you more an expert on this subject than him?

 

The only one I see inserting the word "torture"...

Submitted by davidfarrar on Tue, 05/26/2009 - 19:31.

...into your posts is you.

 

NextRightNando:  Let me help you. First, Petraeus:

As you know, General, the debate over Guantanamo and enhanced interrogation techniques has become "Topic A" in Washington. In your view, does the closing of "Gitmo" and the abandonment of those techniques complicate the U.S. mission in Iraq, Afghanistan, and in the overall struggle against violent transnational extremist groups or does it help it?

Petraeus: I think, on balance, that those moves help

NextRightNando:  See - he deal with both issues - close Gitmo, adandon torture.

 I am waiting with baited breath to hear Gen. Petraeus or Adm. Muller state that he, or anyone acting under the authority of the President of the United States, "tortured" anyone.

ex animo

davidfarrar

How willfully blind to you have to be

Submitted by NextRightNando on Tue, 05/26/2009 - 19:40.

How willfully blind to you have to be to not understand that torture is what is being discussed?

First, Petraeus:

RFE/RL: As you know, General, the debate over Guantanamo and enhanced interrogation techniques has become "Topic A" in Washington. In your view, does the closing of "Gitmo" and the abandonment of those techniques complicate the U.S. mission in Iraq, Afghanistan, and in the overall struggle against violent transnational extremist groups or does it help it?

Petraeus: I think, on balance, that those moves help it. In fact, I have long been on record as having testified and also in helping write doctrine for interrogation techniques that are completely in line with the Geneva Convention. And as a division commander in Iraq in the early days, we put out guidance very early on to make sure that our soldiers, in fact, knew that we needed to stay within those guidelines.

How can you possibly interpret this as anything but a condemnation of torture?

Now, Mullen

    • Q     But my question is actually -- I'm sorry, but the question is -- because so many people, including Senator McCain, have expressed the concern that these techniques could be used someday against Americans captured on the battlefield, and I'm sure that that would be a worry. So, do you believe that the things described by the Bush administration are torture?

    • ADM. MULLEN: I share Senator McCain's concern that these techniques could be used against us, and have for a considerable period of time. And I'd just leave it at that.

How can you possibly interpret this as anything but a condemnation of torture?

My interpretation is my own, not yours.

Submitted by davidfarrar on Tue, 05/26/2009 - 22:26.

You are welcome to your own interpretation.

Again, I see nowhere in your posts where Mullen or Petraeus ever state that EITs were used at Gitmo or that EITs, in, and of themselves, were ever legally defined as torture. Perhaps I am wrong. I have now given you two chances to present your case in toto and thus far all you have actually presented was your own dribble.

Do you want to try again?

ex animo

davidfarrar

So, when Admiral Mullen says he is concerned about "these

Submitted by NextRightNando on Wed, 05/27/2009 - 07:39.

So, when Admiral Mullen says he is concerned that "these techniques could be used against us", he is talking about what?  And when when a reporter asks General Petraeus about the so-called "EITs" and in response he emphasizes the need to abide by the Geneva Convention, he is talking about what?

You are in essence acting like a child - sticking your fingers in your ears and saying "LALALA, I can't hear the Admiral or the General becasue they haven't said the magic words in the right order."

For the rest of us, who have our basic language comprehension skills intact, the message is clear - the two top miliary men in the country says close Gitmo and don't torture, becasue it is bad for the country and bad for the troops.

I see. So someone has nominated you to speak...

Submitted by davidfarrar on Wed, 05/27/2009 - 09:36.

...for the rest of the us?

As far as your LALALA comment goes; I think you have me confused with Nancy Pelosi.

As far as EITs being used against us --- I only wish.

But since you have asked for my opinion, these EITs were used only three times against people who were directly responsible for killing thousands of innocent, non-combatant lives, the result of which also saved thousands more of innocent, non-combatant lives, and was done so with the full knowledge and consent of the appropriate legal and political authorities.

So go troll in someone else's beer over this one.

ex animo

davidfarrar

 

the evidence will show that these EITs as you

Submitted by Maleficent on Wed, 05/27/2009 - 09:48.

so deceptively wish to call them, were used at GITMO, Abu Gharib, Bagram, among others. There was a systematic pattern to the torture that was used on all prisoners.

Even the torturers, when they speak up, say that they were mostly torturing innocent people with no information.

I am speaking on behalf of everyone who has high school level

Submitted by NextRightNando on Wed, 05/27/2009 - 09:49.

reading comprehension skills.

Nice job trying to introduce the new rightwing meme to change the subject - however, the number of people who were tortured does not consistute a defense for the crime of torturing them.

 

 

Facts don't matter

Submitted by skayne on Wed, 05/27/2009 - 11:04.

Trying to make your case with facts isn't going to sway many conservatives. They will only ignore it or twist it to fit their intepretation.

Just stand by and watch them marginalize themselves.

Whatever....

Submitted by davidfarrar on Wed, 05/27/2009 - 11:00.

 

ex animo

davidfarrar

Defeated by logic, reason and facts

Submitted by NextRightNando on Wed, 05/27/2009 - 13:59.

out come the gifs.

We need to leave Gitmo open

Submitted by Lonestar Bill on Wed, 05/27/2009 - 10:59.

It is becoming clearer by the day.

The only reason to close it is that it is a symbol of "torture" to the left.

Common sense says that it is there, it is paid for, it is a state of the art facility, and it solves a lot of legal problems that have never been encountered in our nation's history (problems that Obama did not take the time to consider before declaring that it should be closed). And Obama has promised no more "enhanced interrogations".

Is it a perfect solution? Perhaps not. But it doesn't appear that Obama has any better ideas than Bush/Cheney had on the subject.

If anyone thinks that closing Gitmo will make us safer, they are wrong. 9/11 happened before Gitmo ever opened. 

Perhaps Obama was listening to the  Underwear Gnomes:

Consider the 1998 "Gnomes" episode -- possibly surpassing Milton Friedman's "Free to Choose" as the classic defense of capitalism -- in which the children of South Park, Colo., get a lesson in how not to run an enterprise from mysterious little men who go about stealing undergarments from the unsuspecting and collecting them in a huge underground storehouse.

What's the big idea? The gnomes explain:

"Phase One: Collect underpants.

"Phase Two: ?

"Phase Three: Profit."

Lest you think there's a step missing here, that's the whole point. ("What about Phase Two?" asks one of the kids. "Well," answers a gnome, "Phase Three is profits!") This more or less sums up Mr. Obama's speech last week on Guantanamo, in which the president explained how he intended to dispose of the remaining detainees after both houses of Congress voted overwhelmingly against bringing them to the U.S.

The president's plan can briefly be described as follows. Phase One: Order Guantanamo closed. Phase Two: ? Phase Three: Close Gitmo!

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124329131991652291.html

So, General Petreaus and Admiral Mullen are now "the left"?

Submitted by NextRightNando on Wed, 05/27/2009 - 14:00.

The only reason to close it is that it is a symbol of "torture" to the left.

So, General Petreaus and Admiral Mullen are now "the left"?

Did Petreaus say the U.S. used "torture"?

Submitted by Lonestar Bill on Wed, 05/27/2009 - 14:17.

Or have you been overcome by your own fumes again?

He said the US should NOT use torture.

Submitted by NextRightNando on Wed, 05/27/2009 - 14:25.

RFE/RL: As you know, General, the debate over Guantanamo and enhanced interrogation techniques has become "Topic A" in Washington. In your view, does the closing of "Gitmo" and the abandonment of those techniques complicate the U.S. mission in Iraq, Afghanistan, and in the overall struggle against violent transnational extremist groups or does it help it?

Petraeus: I think, on balance, that those moves help it. In fact, I have long been on record as having testified and also in helping write doctrine for interrogation techniques that are completely in line with the Geneva Convention. And as a division commander in Iraq in the early days, we put out guidance very early on to make sure that our soldiers, in fact, knew that we needed to stay within those guidelines.

When he says it is a good idea to abandon "enhanced interrogation techniques", and makes a double-barreled reference to the centrality of the Geneva Convention, what the hell do you think he is talking about? Again, basic failure of reading comprehension because you can't deal with the fact a man who knows one hell of a lot more about national security and the safety of our troops is saying that your pro-torture position is chicken hawk BS.

It is you that can not read

Submitted by Lonestar Bill on Wed, 05/27/2009 - 14:31.

I think if a man this well educated had meant to use the word "torture" he would have.

Once again, you read what you want into the discussion, and reach poor conclusions.

What branch of the military did Obama and Biden serve in again? It seems to be central to your argument.

 

Four sentences, two pieces of nonsense

Submitted by NextRightNando on Wed, 05/27/2009 - 14:40.

When he says it is a good idea to abandon "enhanced interrogation techniques", and makes a double-barreled reference to the centrality of the Geneva Convention, what is he is talking about if not torture, and the wisdom of not using it?

Obama and Biden served in the same branch of the military as Limbaugh, Hannity, Cheney and Gingrich. Only they have the wisdom to listen to military experts who say "don't torture".

General Petreaus and the current and two former COJCS says torture is bad and it puts our troops at risk. But you want to keep on arguing in favor of it. What makes you think you know more about national security than they do?

When he says it is a good

Submitted by Lonestar Bill on Wed, 05/27/2009 - 14:58.

When he says it is a good idea to abandon "enhanced interrogation techniques", and makes a double-barreled reference to the centrality of the Geneva Convention, what is he is talking about if not torture, and the wisdom of not using it?

Ummm . . .he is talking about enhanced interrogation techniques. You do read, don't you?

Obama and Biden served in the same branch of the military as Limbaugh, Hannity, Cheney and Gingrich. Only they have the wisdom to listen to military experts who say "don't torture".

So they never served in the military like Bush did. He was a pilot you know. So was his dad.So Bush, as a military man, would know more about this stuff than Obama.

General Petreaus and the current and two former COJCS says torture is bad and it puts our troops at risk. But you want to keep on arguing in favor of it. What makes you think you know more about national security than they do?

They did? Could you provide the link where they say "the U.S. has tortured (using the word torture) and we need to stop"?

Just another example

Submitted by skayne on Wed, 05/27/2009 - 15:07.

Your arguments are proof positive your ideology and defense of party means more to you than the truth.

 

If you are talking about the kind of truth

Submitted by Lonestar Bill on Wed, 05/27/2009 - 15:12.

you and NRN spew, then yes, you are correct.

Patraeus spoke the truth, and you ignore his words

Submitted by skayne on Wed, 05/27/2009 - 15:22.

No, just your willful disregard of what Patraeus was saying. Like NRN said, basic levels of comprehension would lead you to conclude what he means when specifically mentioning the Geneva Conventions.

He said, you don't like it, so you ignore it or try to play semantics and twist the meaning.

Pathetic.

Umm yeah dude

Submitted by Lonestar Bill on Wed, 05/27/2009 - 16:10.

whatever.

I use gifs...

Submitted by davidfarrar on Wed, 05/27/2009 - 21:58.

...when it becomes obvious the responder can't or won't read my posts. Sometimes you simply have to use pictures with  these people.

ex animo

davidfarrar

Funny

Submitted by Lonestar Bill on Wed, 05/27/2009 - 21:50.

I guess they are saying that in order to understand their version of the truth, you can't take what the man says at face value.

You are right, Lonestar Bill.

Submitted by davidfarrar on Wed, 05/27/2009 - 21:56.

These trolls get nervous when someone actually comes along and knocks them off their script.

 

exanimo

davidfarrar

davidfarrar and Lonestar Bill, you are a pair of the most

Submitted by NextRightNando on Wed, 05/27/2009 - 22:03.

dishonest and/or delusional people I've run across on this board.

You have arrayed against you the top 3 military men in the country - Gates, Mullen and Petreaus, all of whom want to close Gitmo and stop torture. And so you put up silly pictures and an INANE comment about W's time defending Texas' airspace, and declare yourselves the victors.

Go straight to RedState and collect your chickenhawk "Strike Force" badge.

 

Coming from you

Submitted by Lonestar Bill on Wed, 05/27/2009 - 22:22.

I consider that a compliment.

You are the most partisan Obama cheerleader on this board and you schtick is as tiresome as your endless attempts to point to public opinion as support for Obama's reckless approach to governing.

You are a mindless, vacuous Obama drone and you bore me to tears with you insipid rhetoric.

Most liberals at least have something that educates or at least causes one to consider his own opinion. You ma'am waste everyone's time as your opinions are known well before you ever state them, as we need only to listen to the latest Robert Gibbs press conference to know them beforehand.

So, quoting the words of the top military officers is rhetoric?

Submitted by NextRightNando on Wed, 05/27/2009 - 22:28.

That goes nicely with your assertion earlier in this discussion that Admiral Mullen and General Petreaus are now part of the "the left".

Waste of time

Submitted by skayne on Thu, 05/28/2009 - 08:19.

It's like I said, it's clear that ideology and defense of party is most important to Lonestar Bill. I realize now I was a fool to even try to debate him before, I was just wasting my time.

I said in an earlier post on another thread that evidence proving my point on something would be roundly ignored, or the meaning twisted to fit his world view.

NRN's posting of McMullen's an Patraeus's words are proof that I was right.

Quoting the words...

Submitted by davidfarrar on Thu, 05/28/2009 - 09:06.

...of the top military officers is not the problem. It's your conclusions that are being called into question.

I still haven't seen anything from either Mullen or Petreaus that supports your theory that EITs is torture, as torture is legally defined.

In addition, I am still waiting for that evidence you said you had that will show that "torture" was authorized and used at GITMO, Abu Gharib, Bagram, and others places.

ex animo

davidfarrar

 

I've posted links to the "torture was used" exposes

Submitted by Maleficent on Thu, 05/28/2009 - 09:17.

feel free to read them on your own time, they're hundreds of pages long.

The point is not that torture was authorized at each and every place, but that they used authorized torture techniques, that the CIA was authorized to use. The military was only given guidelines (that went against ALL their training) and told to "be creative".

These enhanced interrogation techniques fall under the legal definition of torture, according to people who have spent their entire life documenting torture in other parts of the world.

 

I see.

Submitted by davidfarrar on Thu, 05/28/2009 - 09:40.

So you are now stipulating that torture was not authorized, but that they used "authorized" torture techniques.

Well, I don't know about you, but that certainly clears up the point for me.

Please spare me from having to read hundreds of pages of your stuff and just give me one link where you say enhanced interrogation techniques is defined under U.S. law as torture and I think we can at last, at long last, carry this discussion forward to the three instances where they were actually authorized to be used to save thousands of innocent, non-combatant lives.

ex animo

davidfarrar

You've seen, you choose to ignore it

Submitted by skayne on Thu, 05/28/2009 - 09:25.

Elementary school arguments like, "he didn't say the word torture".

You haven't seen anything because you're willfully ignoring what they said.

 

See if you can follow this.

Submitted by NextRightNando on Thu, 05/28/2009 - 09:26.

See if you can follow this. The practices of the Bush Administration, cloaked by the euphimism "enhanced interrogation techniques" are prohibited by the Army Field Manual, becasue the "enhancement" part violates the Geneva Convention and makes them torture.

Now, read what Mullen and Petraeus say:

Mullen:

I was specifically aware of the requirements of the Army Field Manual and very focused on that and sort of bounding the problem with respect to what the military does, and that's my responsibility. And from that point at no time have I ever supported torture, and that has been very clear and remains. I'd leave it at that.

Mullen again:

Q     But my question is actually -- I'm sorry, but the question is -- because so many people, including Senator McCain, have expressed the concern that these techniques could be used someday against Americans captured on the battlefield, and I'm sure that that would be a worry. So, do you believe that the things described by the Bush administration are torture?  ADM. MULLEN: I share Senator McCain's concern that these techniques could be used against us, and have for a considerable period of time. And I'd just leave it at that.

Petraeus:

 I have long been on record as having testified and also in helping write doctrine for interrogation techniques that are completely in line with the Geneva Convention. And as a division commander in Iraq in the early days, we put out guidance very early on to make sure that our soldiers, in fact, knew that we needed to stay within those guidelines.

 Petraeus again:

Some may argue that we would be more effective if we sanctioned torture or other expedient methods to obtain information from the enemy. They would be wrong. Beyond the basic fact that such actions are illegal, history shows us that they also are frequently neither useful nor necessary.

 

What's the next great excuse?

Submitted by skayne on Thu, 05/28/2009 - 09:34.

Lonestar Bill and davidfarrar's excuse was he didn't say the word torture.

What's going to be the excuse now that NRN has shown a quote were he said the word torture?

 

Let me see if I have this right...

Submitted by davidfarrar on Thu, 05/28/2009 - 09:49.

...this is you, again, trying to interject your own interpretation into what other people are saying:

See if you can follow this. The practices of the Bush Administration, cloaked by the euphemism "enhanced interrogation techniques" are prohibited by the Army Field Manual, because the "enhancement" part violates the Geneva Convention and makes them torture.

Beyond your own statement, I find nothing in the following record that even remotely comes close to stating that anyone was ever officially authorized to use "torture" as defined under U.S. law.

ex animo

davidfarrar

That is not surprising

Submitted by NextRightNando on Thu, 05/28/2009 - 09:52.

I find nothing in the following record that even remotely comes close to stating that anyone was ever officially authorized to use "torture" as defined under U.S. law.

That is not surprising, because there is no way that anyone could be officially authorized to use torture.

Your Honor...

Submitted by davidfarrar on Thu, 05/28/2009 - 10:12.

... upon my esteemed opponent stipulating that: 

That is not surprising, because there is no way that anyone could be officially authorized to use torture.

I will rest my case. But before I do, I would also like the record to reflect, government officials sought for and received legal authorization and guidelines in their use of EITs, which goes to the culpability of any authorized use of EITs. With that duly noted for the record. I rest my case.

ex animo

davidfarrar

those were illegal rulings

Submitted by Maleficent on Thu, 05/28/2009 - 10:16.

that were falsely whitewashed inside the government and without. in fact, the rulings were so bad, they were revised, because by the initial rulings, they were Torturing people! (that's what waterboarding is, dipshit)

Ah! You have now run out of substantive arguments...

Submitted by davidfarrar on Thu, 05/28/2009 - 10:23.

...and must resort to infantile name-calling. Isn't that just like a liberal troll. How droll.

If the ruling was revised, again, in a court of competent U.S. jurisdiction,  did any of these so-called authorized "torture" episodes occur after said revision?

ex animo

davidfarrar

the ruling was never taken before a court

Submitted by Maleficent on Thu, 05/28/2009 - 10:43.

was not held befor ethe legally required Group of 8, and was a purely executive ruling that by means of not following any established procedure is illegal.

"Anything the president does is the law" ... according to George W Bush.

Okay, I'll give you a shot.

Submitted by davidfarrar on Thu, 05/28/2009 - 12:23.

I have no idea what the Group of 8 is, nor the legal requirement that requires the U.S. to submit to the Group of 8's jurisdiction.

There, you got your shot. Now go take it and show me what you got.

 

ex animo

davidfarrar

Legislative members of congress

Submitted by Maleficent on Thu, 05/28/2009 - 12:40.

specifically the Majority and minority leaders of the Senate, the Speaker of the house and the minority leader, the Chairs of the Intelligence Committees in both Senate and House, and the Ranking Members of the Intelligence Committe in both senate and house (err... this means the ranking member in the minority. not quite sure how to put it.)

We are governed by the Constitution and laws

Submitted by NextRightNando on Thu, 05/28/2009 - 11:07.

not memos from political appointees in the Justice Department.