NYT article on Bush war criminals' infighting over torture policy (Rice implicated herself and Bush)

[ProSense]

Interrogation Debate Sharply Divided Bush White House

By MARK MAZZETTI and SCOTT SHANE
Published: May 3, 2009

WASHINGTON — The proclamation that President George W. Bush issued on June 26, 2003, to mark the United Nations International Day in Support of Victims of Torture seemed innocuous, one of dozens of high-minded statements published and duly ignored each year.

The United States is “committed to the worldwide elimination of torture and we are leading this fight by example,” Mr. Bush declared, vowing to prosecute torture and to prevent “other cruel and unusual punishment.”

But inside the Central Intelligence Agency, the statement set off alarms. The agency’s top lawyer, Scott W. Muller, called the White House to complain: The statement by the president could unnerve C.I.A. interrogators he had authorized to use brutal tactics on Al Qaeda prisoners, Mr. Muller said, raising fears that political winds could change and make them scapegoats.

White House officials reaffirmed their support for the C.I.A. methods. But the exchange was a harbinger of the conflict between the coercive interrogations and the United States’ historical stance against torture that would deeply divide the Bush administration and ultimately undo the program.

The aftershocks of the interrogation policy continue today. President Obama’s recent decision to release Bush administration legal memorandums on interrogation and to fend off calls for a broad investigation has only fueled debate over the efficacy, legality and morality of what was done. Just last week, bloggers seized upon a new video clip of Condoleezza Rice, the former secretary of state, sharply defending the program to a Stanford undergraduate and saying nothing about the bitter internal arguments that accompanied the demise of the program.

more

Desperately trying to implicate Dems, Goss admits CIA broke the law, twice, in briefing Congress

Scott Horton on Condi Rice: "perhaps she’d better hire a good lawyer"


Edited title for clarity.

[HereSince1628]

1. Condi is learning that the world looks SO different from this side of the bubble...

I loved her claim that she was just following the orders of W. It was like 1958 watching Perry Mason. The Ah-HAH!!!! moment.

Unfortunately, we need a Spanish Inquisitor to get to the bottom of it. Oh! The irony!

[ProSense]

3. They have no rational arguments. n/t

[Supersedeas]

4. Ashcroft started with one line of reasoning with Abrams, then had to retract the whole thing

[pat_k]

2. kick!