Did anyone watch the torture hearing this morning? Some thoughts.

[beachmom]

First off, I have become spoiled watching Kerry hearings. Whitehouse simply is not as good, and most notably had his clock cleaned by Lindsay Graham. The most compelling part of the hearing was Ali Soufan, the FBI agent who would not go along with the torture, who is a hero to me. He did not want his face shown, so gave his testimony behind a panel. There were some pro-torture witnesses as well, one of whom even Graham thought went too far.

In light of the news that Obama is NOT going to release those photos:

http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/05/13/white-house-wants-a-delay-in-the-release-of-detainee-photos/?hp

I wanted to state my view on where I think we are. Ah, nowhere is where we are. I have come to the conclusion that Sheldon Whitehouse is an opportunist who is only taking advantage of this issue for liberal cred. He is making a name for himself on it. The way he put this hearing together, and the way he conducted himself (he cut off Ali Soufan and said he had a plane to catch, then let Lindsay Graham close out the hearing!!) leads me to believe that the point of this hearing was grandstanding, not to do anything with it. Not one witness favored prosecutions of anyone -- not officials, lawyers, NOBODY. The consensus was that the Justice Dept. should handle it. Well, that is the position of Democrats who are not trying to get publicity on this issue. Whitehouse is trying to have it both ways -- be the darling of the Left who hate torture while not really setting himself up to get hit on really wanting prosecutions. Personally, I think it is a cop out to throw it all on Eric Holder, but I can at least respect quieter Dems on holding that position over Whitehouse who wants to make this his defining issue.

So politically speaking, I think that Democrats, having viewed the polls, think this is a loser issue for them and want it to go away. I think that includes Kerry, although I think he is simply not going to discuss it, unless asked. I think the only viable solution is a truth commission, but based on the pie fight I saw today, I don't know how we could get a bipartisan commission to happen.

I highly recommend you listen to Ali Soufan who is quite compelling. I also heard from a commenter on DailyKos that Republicans have already come on TV to swiftboat him, saying he is just a "disgruntled employee". I wish that Kerry would defend this patriot's honor.

Soufan's opening statement:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=385x311735

[YvonneCa]

1. I did. I posted this...

...here: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=273&topic_id=156919&mesg_id=157338


Not JK related, but Senate Judiciary Subcommitee hearing this morning on C-Span 3 with Sheldon Whitehouse as chair and Lindsay Graham as ranking member was interesting.

Sen. Graham had said it was a 'foundational' hearing in an interview (Maddow) yesterday... with Zelikow(formerly of State) and a whistleblower on torture. Went as expected until Whitehouse had to leave at the end (to catch a plane, he said) and then Graham was to finish closing statement and close the hearing. He took full advantage of the cameras.

After ending the official proceeding, he talked to reporters and C-Span broadcast it live...they finally gave 'equal time' to Zelikow, who was also being intervied. JMHO, but I think Whitehouse blew it by trusting Graham.


Things you said that I agree with:

"Whitehouse simply is not as good, and most notably had his clock cleaned by Lindsay Graham."

"...based on the pie fight I saw today, I don't know how we could get a bipartisan commission to happen."

"I think it is a cop out to throw it all on Eric Holder.."

[beachmom]

2. Actually, I thought Whitehouse was outgunned for nearly the entire hearing.

Graham is a former prosecutor, and was able to befuddle witnesses or cut them off and so forth. Whitehouse did not frame his follow up questions as an admonishment of Graham's questioning. Big mistake.

As we have seen in Kerry hearings, if Kerry had to leave before a hearing ended he would give the gavel to another Democrat. Of course, only Durbin bothered with Q & A, and then I think he may have left. But Whitehouse clearly did not properly plan for the hearing. You don't take a knife to a gunfight. Interesting that Republicans didn't bother much with the hearing either. That was almost more telling than anything else. We've had obscure SFRC hearings with more questioners than this hearing today. The R's know that the D's don't want to deal with this issue anymore. So as they saw Dems stand down, they figured Graham could handle it. They were right.

[YvonneCa]

3. I agree with everything you said. The entire hearing...

...was a failure on the part of the Democrats. Whether it was because they see it as a losing issue for them or not, the fact that Whitehouse had to carry it on his own...and he wasn't prepared...reflects on ALL Senate Democrats. Experienced senators had to know what Graham would/could do...and stayed away.

Either Dems agree with Graham and wanted to let him make the 'Bush Administration case' for torture, or they put too much confidence in Senator Whitehouse, or they wanted to 'hang the prosecution Democrats' out to dry.

[beachmom]

4. Look what mischief Graham was getting himself into during a recess:

http://thehill.com/leading-the-news/graham-threatens-to-pull-pelosi-into-senate-torture-probe-2009-05-13.html

Sen. Lindsey Graham (S.C.), an influential Republican member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, has threatened to call House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) before the Senate for an investigation of abusive interrogation techniques used during the Bush administration.

“I don’t want to retry Nancy Pelosi — that’s not my goal — but if you’re going to accuse these people in the Bush administration of being evil and committing a crime, then if she was told about , I want to know what she was told,” Graham said during a break in a hearing on Bush-era interrogation practices.

...

Sen. John McCain (Ariz.), another leading Republican on the issue of torture, has said that Pelosi should have objected to interrogation practices when briefed on them when she served as a member of the House Select Committee on Intelligence.

Senate Democratic Whip Dick Durbin (Ill.), a former member of the Intelligence Committee who sits on Judiciary, appeared briefly to remind colleagues that lawmakers have few options to discuss or oppose policies they learn of during classified intelligence briefings.

I am of two minds here. First, this should be a nonpartisan issue. We should learn what happened no matter who was involved. OTOH, I think this was a manipulative trap the Bush Administration set. They INFORMED those members of Congress who were powerless to stop the policy.

I like this CNN article which focuses on Souban. Maybe I was too pessimistic and his compelling testimony will break through the noise:

http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/05/13/interrogation.hearing/index.html

[YvonneCa]

6. I agree it should be non-partisan and the truth should be...

...brought out, even if Dems are involved. I also agree it was a 'manipulative trap' which Dems should NOT let themselves be caught in. I think the Dems have the moral high-ground here...although some may fear that the public will not understand the difference (thinking about JK's vote on Iraq war). After 9/11, fear DID figure into decisions made by both Dems and Republicans.JMHO.

Senator Durbin did appear and made the case for Sen. Rockefeller and himself...about why they did not speak out.

Do you think there is any chance that this is all a PLANNED Dem strategy to break through the noise (what with the Obama non-release of pictures and all)? This will definitely get people's attention (of both parties) on the torture issue. THEN the public case can be made...not about whether torture 'works' or not...but that torture is against the values of our great country.

It reflects on US and who WE are going forward.

[beachmom]

7. No, there is no real plan. And frankly, the public backs torture.

Something would have to happen to change their minds, and I can't really think of anything that would.

[TayTay]

9. The public does not back torture

They back the concept of a "necessary evil" that amounts to allowing one bad thing to happen to prevent a worse thing from happening. The American public most certainly does not back torture as a routine event or without overwhelming justification and cause. Further, Americans feel that the actual people who carried out orders should not be prosecuted while those who issued those orders get away scot-free.

There is a difference. The American people admit that torture is a bad thing to do. They are not in favor of it, they are in favor of examining the circumstances under which it was used and deciding if those circumstances overrode the moral prohibition against torture. It is not that cut-and-dried.

[beachmom]

10. Well, we differ on this. Because of Hollywood and people like Dershowitz,

these feelings of ambiguity about torture were allowed to fester. Then when 9/11 happened, Bush/Cheney took advantage of those ambiguous feelings, and began the "EIT" program. I think it is a slippery slope. Once you think that it is SOMETIMES justified, then it becomes more acceptable. The ticking time bomb scenario is a strawman argument but most people buy it. No, I am not arguing that we have suddenly morphed into Egypt. But either you are a torturing nation or you are not. It is that cut and dried.

[TayTay]

11. I think we are talking about different things

No one has been prosecuted for a "24" type event. I don't think the American people are thinking about that when they discuss torture.

I think of Lindsay Englund when I think of torture prosecutions. She was a 19 year old from West Virginia. This was, after all, one of the only prosecutions for torture during the Bush years. There was no point to prosecuting this woman. I think most Americans feel that protections for people like her would be non-existant and that the punishment for what went wrong would devolve to the ordinary enlisted who would have no big name Democrats advocating for them.

This is what is perceived to have happened in Vietnam. It became a class issue and I think it could become one again.

[beachmom]

13. Well, I guess I wouldn't have a problem with England going down

if that was after Cheney, the lawyers, and Rumsfeld went down. To me there is an order to things. But this is quite frankly, an academic discussion. Based on the mood of our politics and the media, nobody else will be prosecuted. Given that reality, it is wrong that only the underlings went to jail for a system wide program to commit war crimes from the highest levels of government.

[YvonneCa]

14. You may be right about there being...

...no real plan. I always hold out hope. :) I think SOME in the public back what they think is 'enhanced interrogation' and are in denial that it is actually torture. They may have bought into the fear card that Cheney and other Repubs always play. I also think SOME do not believe the Bush Administration did torture...and think it is all made up by those 'liberals.'

But I also hold out the hope that much of the public...if presented with the facts...can grasp the truth. And, I hold out the hope that most of the public are GOOD PEOPLE who would knowingly NEVER back torture. Again, JMHO.

[beachmom]

5. The bullying of Lindsay Graham:

http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com/2009/05/lindsey_graham_browbeats_torture_witness.php

[TayTay]

8. I have mixes views on this

I saw parts of the hearing this morning. I thought that Lindsey Graham "outlawyered" Sheldon Whitehouse. I think it's a real shame that Sen. Feingold, a member of this http://judiciary.senate.gov/about/subcommittees/oversight.cfm">Judiciary subcommittee, did not attend. He has a passion for this subject and could have taken on Graham better than Whitehouse did.

Okay, I am afraid we are going to have another disagreement here. Sigh! Flat out, if I were advising Sen. Kerry on how to deal with this subject, I would tell him to not bring it up unless absolutely necessary and to then agree that torture is wrong and an independent commission should handle it. I don't think that the Congress can deal with the overall ramifications of what happened during the last Administration as well as an independent Truth Commission with subpoena power could. The only way to make this a non-partisan issue and treat it with the fairness it deserves is to remove it from the political arena as much as possible. (It is inherently political to ask a politician, including Kerry, about this issue. You can't have it both ways. Either it is political or it isn't.)

I agree with President Obama's decision to withhold those pictures. I think they show truly horrific images that would serve to place the lives of American troops in jeopardy. I do think the ACLU was right to file suit to get the pictures but I would like some sort of assurance that these potentially explosive images don't wind up getting people killed. Again, were I an adviser to Sen. Kerry, I would defer questions to Robert Gibbs, as it is not Kerry's job to comment on this. (He has no say in what happens here in the legal negotiations between the ACLU and the Obama Admin.) I would urge anyone who does get access to these pictures to think carefully about what they do with them, as lives could be at stake.

What happened during the last Administration was an abomination. We have to be careful in how we deal with the fallout from that. On the one hand, we have Republicans who think they can use this issue to paint Dems as weak on defense. (This is disgusting, but since when has being disgusting been repellent to Republicans.) Unless we proceed carefully, we run the risk of giving the Repubs a way to hide what happened and defame the very people who risked so much to bring this wrongdoing to light. I don't think this is an easy issue to deal with and I hope all of our legislatures are doing due dilligence on all aspects of this issue and the possible fallout for our nation.

[beachmom]

12. I have not weighed in on the pictures, but I think Andrew Sullivan makes a compelling

counterargument. That this amounts to a cover up, because it was ONLY pictures that came out of Abu Ghraib that exposed the war crimes being committed.

http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2009/05/obamas-uturn-on-the-torture-photos.html

Without photos, we would never have heard of the mass abuse and torture at Abu Ghraib. Bush and Cheney would be denying today that any of it happened at all. When the photos were uncovered, revealing clearly what the anodyne words "stress position", "mock execution", "forced nudity" etc actually meant, we finally were able to hold the government accountable for the abuse it authorized.

...

We now know that these Abu Ghraib techniques were imported from Gitmo and were used in every theater of war as Cheney constructed a secret war machine that used the capture, torture and abuse of prisoners as its central intelligence-gathering tool. But we only have the photos from Abu Ghraib and so people can continue to pull a Noonan and pretend that this didn't happen no a much wider scale. From my understanding, the photos would prove very similar techniques spread across the globe. And so it would be clear that any Muslim anywhere, upon seeing US troops, could be Abu Ghraibed. The photos would reveal more powerfully than the impressive documentation in countless reports that Bush and Cheney's torture and abuse machine was everywhere, in every theater. How do you run an effective counter-insurgency when all Afghans know that Americans bring torture along with "democracy"?

Obama inherits this legacy. He has two options: pull the lid right off it, and fuel more anger and anti-Americanism; or hunker down, acquiesce to the military and become an active accomplice to the cover-up. He's trying to straddle the divide but now realizes he cannot prosecute Bush's wars with Bush's military while exposing Bush's war crimes. Hence the cover-up.

There are ways to prove war crimes: top down (documents) and bottom up. The torture memos reveal that the leadership systematically implemented the torture, and photos from facilities all over the globe prove it was systematic from the bottom up.

The other thing we should think about is the original whistleblower of Abu Ghraib, who is a far braver soul than President Obama. He literally risked his life to get the truth out. He was paid back by getting death threats and a pariah in his own town in West Virginia (while Lynndie England was NOT a pariah). He was forced to leave his town for good and be under protection of the authorities. You could argue that he "endangered the troops" and really the homeland, as Abu Ghraib turned out to be the #1 recruitment technique for al Qaeda. Are you arguing that he did the wrong thing?

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/12/07/60minutes/main2238188.shtml

You may not remember the name Joe Darby, but you remember the impact of what he did. Darby turned in the pictures of prisoner abuse at Abu Ghraib in Iraq – pictures he had discovered purely by accident. Unfortunately for Darby, exposing the truth has changed his life forever, and for the worse.

Finally, there is an Afghanistan tie in to all of this. This is where we need Chairman Kerry's leadership. I don't want him being an errand boy for the Obama Administration -- he needs to assert his independent wisdom here.

http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/2009/05/bad_sign.php

It's hard not to view today's reversal by the White House, announcing that photos of detainee abuse in Afghanistan and Iraq will not be released to the public, as a sign of how long and hard they think the slog is ahead in Afghanistan -- and how crucial the outcome there will be for the future success of this Administration.

Obama has installed a new commander in Afghanistan who is steeped in counterinsurgency doctrine and devoted considerable resources and political capital to a new strategy there. I'm speculating, but the White House and Pentagon must not have cherished the idea of having their new start in Afghanistan undermined by the release of pictures that would further inflame the Muslim world.

It is also noteworthy to know that the general who Obama has now put in charge of Afghanistan was VERY complicit with the torture, making sure the Red Cross never saw that the armed forces were engaged in war crimes.

Kerry needs to have a gut check soon on whether he wants to go along with all of this. I will surprise you by saying I agree with you on what Kerry should do re: torture -- he does not serve on Judiciary or Intelligence, and from what I saw today, it would be fruitless for him to hold hearings in the SFRC as a similar pie fight would ensue. I think Congressional hearings are not going to help. A Truth commission would be good, but of course, the President does not back that.

[TayTay]

15. Actually, these are all compelling arguments against release of the pics

The ONLY compelling argument is to prevent harm to troops in the field. The arguments listed above are realistic and grounded as concerns not only Afghanistan, but Pakistan. I genuinely think there is a compelling case to be made that at this stage of the war, we have to be very careful and that we might need to delay releasing those pics.

The problem with what happened during the Bush years is that the corruptions was systemic and deep. The very arguments we are having show that.

[beachmom]

16. On the other hand (I can hear "Fiddler on the Roof" in my head), this

goes right to the heart of what President Obama said:

http://www.dailykos.com/comments/2009/5/13/14851/0768/313#c313

As a mother of a soldier overseas (3+ / 0-)

in Iraq, in fact, where the troops are in increasingly dangerous positions as we draw down - and they have to trust the Iraqis around them to NOT turn on them...I am thrilled that the pictures are not being released right now.

We know the US permitted horrible things to be done in the name of the American people - I simply do not see that the good of having Americans face more evidence of that in these pictures will outweigh the bad that these new graphic, viscerally disturbing images will be as anti-American propoganda tools. (akwardy phrased, I hope you can catch my meaning.)

Really - while we have troops truly in harms way in hostile lands, where their safety and success truly hinge on their ability to "win the hearts and minds" of the local people, in two difficult wars in places where they are really exposed - I do not think releasing these images worldwide right now is a good thing. I think they'll be great recruiting tools for their enemies, and will not do nearly as much to inspire the American public to investigate the top-level enablers of those policies.

At some point, their silent witness of what was allowed to happen will be exposed, but right now, I think it is wise to keep them under wraps. I just don't think they will add much to our understanding of what went on, but will inflame anger in a world where a small spark can ignite a firestorm of hatred, violence and misery.

This is probably not a popular opinion around here - but there are probably not too many posters that have children on the front lines, either. This decision really strikes very close to home for the families of those over there.

by blue armadillo on Wed May 13, 2009 at 12:38:31 PM PDT

I think the compelling argument Blue Armadillo makes is kind of a cost vs. benefit argument. Will these photos compell Americans to demand that our leaders be held accountable? I just don't think it will. I guess I don't have a lot of faith in the American people on this issue, at least yet. They might come around in another 5, 10, 20 years, but not now.

[YvonneCa]

17. That is a great post. I empathize with that mom and...

...her fears. If even HALF of what is rumored to be in those pictures is true...or even one TENTH of it...it will make things worse for our people in uniform. As much as I think the photos should be released, I don't want to add to danger for our troops. Maybe we just have to trust in our leaders' (Obama's, Kerry's and others we trust) to do this right.

I do differ with you on the reaction of the American public...I think they will come down FOR our values and AGAINST torture when all the facts are fairly laid out. But the timing may be important. Trust in Obama (from moms like in that post, who may have voted Bush) may need to be earned first. But I hope the time is sooner, rather than later. 5 to 20 years is too long to wait.

[beachmom]

18. Well, I believe in "trust but verify" when it comes to our leaders.

Remember how many GOP suckers shilled for Bush for far too long? I think their story is a cautious tale for all of us.

As far as the people are concerned, I base it on anecdotal conversations I have had coupled with the poll (50 - 46 narrowly thinking torture is justified). I still remember one friend of mine who was mad at CBS (60 Minutes II) for showing Abu Ghraib and the pictures. She is not political nor repeats talking points -- she just didn't like what she was seeing and blamed the media for showing it. Americans are very patriotic and nationalist -- they always say we are "the greatest country in the world" (I think more accurate is one of the best countries in the world, if we are talking quality of life). So when evidence like Abu Ghraib comes out they don't want to hear it.

[YvonneCa]

20. About the American people...

...you said:

"As far as the people are concerned, I base it on anecdotal conversations I have had coupled with the poll (50 - 46 narrowly thinking torture is justified). I still remember one friend of mine who was mad at CBS (60 Minutes II) for showing Abu Ghraib and the pictures. She is not political nor repeats talking points -- she just didn't like what she was seeing and blamed the media for showing it. Americans are very patriotic and nationalist -- they always say we are "the greatest country in the world" (I think more accurate is one of the best countries in the world, if we are talking quality of life). So when evidence like Abu Ghraib comes out they don't want to hear it."


We both probably have our reasons for our beliefs. As an advocate for accountability on the torture issue, I too have experienced much of what you shared. Many people are in denial about what happened with the torture situation. And, IMO, there will always be those who...when given overwhelming evidence of an event...will still deny it. But I think there is a middle group, sound asleep, that sided with Bush in the beginning...that is waking up. Some of them voted OBAMA. Given enough information, that could make all the difference. And I think we have to try.

[karynnj]

22. I think "pictures" and "knowing what happened" can be separated.

I would be happy if Obama continues to strongly say that these things were wrong and we will not do them again AND if he had a truth commission to write a sober report on what happened and how it happened. (The former is most important)

Pictures do not need to be public to get the truth out. Just as none of us need to see pictures of children abused to know that something despicable happened - we do not need to see these pictures. The descriptions of things done suffice. (consider that no one needed pictures to think the list of atrocities in Kerry's 1971 speech were not the way we wanted our military to act)

Now, it is true that pictures of Abu Ghraib woke up some people here - giving a reality that words did not have. It is not clear that more pictures will do more. The problem is that a photo can communicate more instantly than an entire report - and they can instantly inflame people in the Middle East. If Obama's decision were to name a truth commission AND withhold the pictures, I would think it a good balance. Denying what will be fodder for a hate campaign, but getting the truth out.

[YvonneCa]

24. I agree that there is a balance that could be...

...struck. And that it may be absolutely necessary to do so at this time. I just saw an interview (on ED) with Joe Sestak where he said he could support the choice not to release the pictures TEMPORARILY. I think that pretty much sums up where I am on this.

After eight years of Bush...I am most ready for transparency! :) But I trust Obama and his team to balance that and our security.

[karynnj]

21. That committee ended up being exactly as Kerry described when

he said that he didn't think a Congressional committee was the right solution because it would end up as partisan politics. This is exactly what happened - on both sides.

While some of the testimony will be worthwhile, it is almost in spite of the Senators. Graham should be ashamed of himself as he has in the past (with McCain) taken positions on this based on law - which he knows - and on morality. Here, he was a partisan Republican hack. Whitehouse, isn't guilty of that - but he clearly didn't put the effort into making this a hearing to calmly, systematically and soberly investigate what happened. The problem is this is the only option the Senate controls - and it looks like Holder will not take it on and Obama doesn't want a commission.

I agree that Whitehouse is no Kerry in terms of holding hearings - but, I doubt even Kerry could lead the SFRC to do the job needed - both parties want to use this issue to make points. If he attempted to do so, he would risk the tone and spirit that he is starting to get at the hearings - one that is consistent with what he said about the SFRC's history back in the dysfunctional 109th committee. What has impressed me is how well controlled - with a light hand - all the hearings have been. They have all had substantial debate, but with a warm, collegiate tone. (The newspaper hearing was the same - and that one, given the desperateness of the MSM and the personalities of Huffington and others - could have been a mess. What is amazing is how he constantly deftly influenced the focus of the questions, while creating a free enough environment for ideas to tentatively be expressed. He said this was the first of many - and what was good is that this opened the conversation.)

I agree that Kerry should not become an errand boy for the Obama administration. I don't think he has been one. On the the issue of torture, Kerry was pretty strong on the need for an independent commission - which Obama doesn't want. He also did not seem 100% in agreement on Pakistan - and he said so. If you go back to HRC's confirmation - there are some things where President Obama has since seemed to have move to Kerry's position - from the position HRC articulated, which was presumably the administration's position. I think that Kerry does have to balance the influence he can have behind the scenes with calling out policies he dislikes. He seems to prefer quietly stating his position - without making the point that it is not Obama's position.

[beachmom]

23. Yep, Kerry was right about that. But I sort of needed it illustrated

to completely understand his wisdom. It was a bad hearing except for Ali Soufan (and Zelikow to a lesser degree -- it was very interesting that WH officials would use the fact that Dems were briefed & did not object when trying to silence people like Zelikow who opposed the EIT. And Durbin was good trying to talk about how powerless he and other members of Congress felt when given such info. Zelikow sympathized with Durban's POV. That was a good moment.). They shouldn't have bothered with those professors who were fairly useless. Maybe they should have included military people instead. Of course, this is the Judiciary committee, so I am not sure what kind of witnesses they are supposed to have.

I think that Kerry is building good will in the SFRC with the Republicans. And there really is a degree of consistency that Kerry, Lugar, Crocker, and Feingold are going to show up. I prefer those kinds of hearings.

[YvonneCa]

25. The hearing today was interesting. Whitehouse had said...

... (on Maddow's show) last night that it was a hearing to lay the foundation for what would follow. But today, in the hearing, his goal was not at all clear. Maybe that was due to lack of experience, but he had too many participants and the questioning swung back and forth between Whitehouse and Graham, making the focus of the questioning fuzzy. As time ran out, he read a couple of things into the record and added in others that he didn't read...which added to the fuzziness.

After Whitehouse left, GRAHAM's focus was all that remained and HIS focus was clear: Make sure everyone watching C-Span knew that the techiniques had been useful (supporting the Cheney blitz) and that America had made some mistakes in protecting the American people, but now I is time to move on from this silliness...in other words, any furthur hearings are a waste of time.

So is Sheldon going to hold more hearings?

[YvonneCa]

19. "Outlawyered" is right. You said...

..."I thought that Lindsey Graham "outlawyered" Sheldon Whitehouse. I think it's a real shame that Sen. Feingold, a member of this Judiciary subcommittee, did not attend. He has a passion for this subject and could have taken on Graham better than Whitehouse did."

No kidding!

As to your Kerry advice and the pictures, you are probably right. There is no way this can be apolitical in the environment of a congressional hearing. You also said: "What happened during the last Administration was an abomination. We have to be careful in how we deal with the fallout from that." I think it is important to 'begin with the end in mind' (S.Covey) and know what our goal is. Is it just to foster truth? Is it to protect the Constitution? Is it about setting a precedent? Is it prosecution...with what consequence, and for whom?

I posted this here a couple of weeks ago, and it remains what is important to me:

I want the Bush Administration...Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Gonzales, Feith, etc...to be the ones held responsible. I think Obama is right...his administration needs to look forward. But Congress should do it's job...hold the hearings, do the investigative work, make the story public so that lessons are learned, and decide who made the mistakes and hold them accountable somehow. THAT, IMO, will be the tricky part. It has to be done in a way that helps re-unify the country...not in a way that tears it apart.

For me, holding them responsible is about making the truth clear...so that they can't keep spinning and spreading fear and frightening people I love for political reasons. And so this NEVER happens again. If a truth commission can do that, then so be it.

[Inuca]

27. "accountable SOMEHOW"

Agree. There were so many unforgivable abominations that happened under the previous administration, I just CANNOT accept te idea that they will end up being more or less swept under the rug. OTOH, I do not really care whether there are prosecutions or what not, I do not necessarily define accontability in this context as crime & punishment, I just want a shinning light over all that malfeasance and loud statements saying THAT WAS WRONG and NEVERMORE. That's why I am perfectly fine with Leahy's truth commission idea, unpopular as it seems to be in many places...

[YvonneCa]

28. Thank you for your words. I know that some people...

...probably want to "string 'em up" for what was done. I think that would hurt the country. BUT public truth-telling, admission of guilt and condemnation would really help. :7

[Inuca]

26. One thing I found kind of puzzling

(and not a good omen) was that Leahy was in for just a few brief moments at the beginning, a rather standard statement, and that was it. Or at least I assume he did not come back, I did not see it live, but watched some online at work later, listened to some in the car... I think I got the gist of it. More or less the same for Feingold. I got the same feeling mentioned up-thread I think that there was only a half-hearted participation from those involved on the Senate side, except for Graham who was quite assholish but successfully so from his own perspective. In spite of what some say here (not HERE here, THERE here :-)), that guy is far from stupid, and at times I think he even means what he says.