You want to know who should be held liable before a court of law?

How about the editors of the New York Times for publishing everything they can gett heir hands on that will harm their nation during a time of war?

How about you Sam Donaldson, shouldn't THEY be prosecuted publicly?

allanf - the entire MSM should be held accountable..

The media should consider how we got to this point. If indeed, they are truly opposed, or shocked, as they claim, by these revelations of  'we will not go beyond a certain point in interrogation’  then they should be taking a hard look at themselves for keeping quiet on the road to this point, and for not promoting (not allowing) an informed and intellectual conversation in the public involving the various leading views on who was comfortable with what.

From Pres. Clinton ranting in a NSA meeting:

'We're not inflicting pain on these fuckers,' Clinton said, softly at first. 'When people kill us, they should be killed in greater numbers.' Then, with his face reddening, his voice rising, and his fist pounding his thigh, he leaned into Tony [Lake], as if it was his fault. 'I believe in killing people who try to hurt you. And I can't believe we're being pushed around by these two-bit pricks.'"

From Clinton advising the CIA that he "didn't care what they did with them," to VP Gore (in pushing for extraordinary rendition, saying,.."of curse it's illegal - go grab their ass," to Obama's AG Eric Holder, the national media protected directives and stated views that "shocks their conscience His stated view (2002 interview on CNN): 

"One of the things we clearly want to do with these prisoners is to have an ability to interrogate them and find out what their future plans might be, where other cells are located; under the Geneva Convention that you are really limited in the amount of information that you can elicit from people."

Stop - Eric Holder has argued Bush's position. Is not he arguing that we can't be bound by others in what we must do to garner the information we must acquire to protect ourselves and others from this threat? He continued:

"It seems to me that given the way in which they have conducted themselves, however, that they are not, in fact, people entitled to the protection of the Geneva Convention. They are not prisoners of war. If, for instance, Mohamed Atta had survived the attack on the World Trade Center, would we now be calling him a prisoner of war? I think not. Should Zacarias Moussaoui be called a prisoner of war? Again, I think not."

The media knows this. They literally conspired, silently amongst themselves, not to make the discussion - any meaningful intelligent discussion available to the audience of a very wanting American public. Quite sad, indeed.

For the record - I suspect that a good clean polling of folks would have clearly shown that at least 70%, perhaps 75%, agreed with Holder. Does that mean that they would have agreed with Bush - had their been fairness and truthful reporting?

The hypocrisy out there is thick, and is everywhere!

(;~/ gary

Sit back and watch, it's just a show..

Liberal Zombies

P.R.I.N.T. Money   30 sec YT 

I've all but three or four of them.  The actor who played CK did not like the role, but too bad it was fun to watch...cept when they preempted for the WG hearings.  Too young to know who to kill for that ; )

I show my kids the NS series and they laugh at me, but one or two they like.

Too bad that dude was most likely a lib.

First, there's U.S. law:

http://www4.law.corn...

And then there's international law:

Where in the territory of a Party to the conflict, the latter is
satisfied that an individual protected person is definitely suspected
of or engaged in activities hostile to the security of the State, such
individual person shall not be entitled to claim such rights and
privileges under the present Convention [ie GCIV] as would ... be
prejudicial to the security of such State ... In each case, such
persons shall nevertheless be treated with humanity (GCIV Article 5)

Also:

If there is a question of whether a person is a lawful combatant, he
(or she) must be treated as a POW "until their status has been
determined by a competent tribunal" (GCIII Article 5).

I'm ugly, but I'm eloquaint... elaquent... elly... I tawk reel gud!

I mean I glanced at them, but I haven't been through them word for word.

And I don't know what you're asking about a congresswoman.

What I DO know is that waterboarding has been considered torture since the Spanish Inquisiton -- we Americans have prosecuted it as torture -- so if it came to court and the Bush peeps tried to say it was not, they would have years of case law in opposition.

I'm ugly, but I'm eloquaint... elaquent... elly... I tawk reel gud!

gc...

Bingo!

I guess we should be passing out sunshine and lollipops to the terrorists who would behead any of us in a second flat if they could...plus a work-pass to stay here until they have their day in court like Napolitano did with the illegal aliens that were busted in Washington State and go after ICE and other agencies...along with the companies....

This country is upside down...and the enemies on both sides of us are glad of it.

I want my country back...that is another reason we are going to a Tea Party Protest the 4th...we have had it!

Doubling down on stupid is not a particularly good idea. ~Andrew Breitbart

Did you read the part where they said they really didn't get any further information from him after they started torturing him?

I'm ugly, but I'm eloquaint... elaquent... elly... I tawk reel gud!