One question for ...

the little Eddie Munster look-alike. If not to be tortured, why then was he SENT to Syria.

They forgot to mention what Leahy said next....

"Well, Attorney General, I’ll tell you what I’ll do. I’ll meet you halfway on this. I’ll wait next week for that briefing. If we don't get it, I guarantee you there will be another hearing on this issue."

Let's see what happens next week. Granted CNN coverage was weak here.

Typical Tactic

This is a typical Gonzo tactic 1. Promise the information and then provide nothing.

Tactic 2 is saying he already provided the information when he didn't. Gonzo suggested he answered the question about how many US Attornies have been fired in a letter to Senator Feinstein. She shot back she read the letter and still did not have the answer. Gonzo then reverts back to tactic 1, promise the information.

This is a deeply dishonest and disingenious man. It's all the more troubling because he acts so smug. And when he smirks while giving an obvious boatload of BS to the senators is just overthe top.

Conservative Paper Calls Gonzales, Bush on"Baloney"

For what it is worth, NPR (National Public Radio) reported that Sen. Leahy missed a security briefing on these matters, last week I believe. Don't know it that is true -- or if the briefing was scheduled for a time the Bushies knew the senator could not attend ...

But this is refreshing: The traditionally conservative Manchester Union Leader(New Hampshire) on Friday blasted the Bush administration -- and in particular our very smug AG -- for its abrupt, duplititous reversal of its longstanding (pre-election) refusal to go to a court before wiretapping terrorism suspects.

A must read, I believe.

Please see "TSP, R.I.P.: Bush surrenders credibility" ([link to www.unionleader.com] edibility&articleId=fe65985d-b9af-4c3d-807d-5547234ddc65)

Let's try that link again

I don't remember how these outside links are supposed towork. But, here goes: [[link to www.unionleader.com] edibility&articleId=fe65985d-b9af-4c3d-807d-5547234ddc65]

Well, OK then. Care for some juicy excerpts?

U.S. Attorney General Alberto Gonzales would have Americans believe that, after years of asserting that national security depended upon the administration's ability to tap terror suspects' phone lines without waiting for the slow Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court to OK the spying, the court suddenly became capable of instantly approving such wiretaps the very same week Democrats took control of Congress. [...] The administration is backing out of a program and a constitutional argument it previously labeled essential to national security. It is doing so in such a way as to make its previous assertions appear entirely disingenuous. [...] Retreating from a program that until now he has claimed was absolutely essential to stopping terrorist attacks on U.S. soil is either an inexcusable dereliction of duty, or a tacit admission that his previous claim was utter baloney.

See what this looks like:

[link to www.unionleader.com]

Important point

With all the BS flying around in the media at a dizzying rate the obvious escapes us.

But as you said Leahy did bring it up, but it was ignored. Is exposing this obvious contradictions in our foreign policy between what we say and what we do considered unpatriotic? I wonder how much the sentiment "My country right or wrong" play into this selective reporting.

And another thing...

If Syria is a terrorist supporting country which is so bad we can't negotiate with them, then why did we hand over an alleged terror suspect to them and expect them not to torture him? (Another point Leahy made, and CNN omitted to report.)

This Media Endorses Torture . . .

The Corporate Media Oligopoly endorses torture - so long as it is performed in service of their Corporate/Repugnant agenda. That is why, after the initial burst of Abu-Ghraib prattle, lacking any serious inquiry as to how or why even then, the issue faded completely from the media; and why there was never any follow-up on the numerous fatal episodes, from Abu to Afghanistan to Guantanamo. That is why it is hard to uncover the outcomes of the few criminal investigations that public outcry has necessitated: most have already been dismissed.

Of course, Saddam's torture was deemed sufficient grounds for regime change in Iraq, once the WMD lies were no longer deniable.

Saddam's torture

backed by Raygun 15-20 years ago, was deemed worse than the much more recent Bush supported tort---, I mean "fraternity pranks".

Saddam WAS worse than our worst . . .

but how picky do you think Satan will be about granting admission to those who were torturers, just not quite as bad as some other torturers?

Or, to turn that query on its head, will St. Peter step aside if one is only a third degree torturer (say, less than 5% fatalities)?

Either question, even though I am not particularly a believer in either personification; for I AM a firm believer in the tendency of the universe to return to us in kind, and *I* don't want our current interrogation fatality rate on MY tab.

The Canadian media has reported that Canadian officials, like our Foreign Affairs minister, has looked at the US file on Arar, and there is nothing new. In other words, there is no reason to keep Arar on the no fly list. So why does he remain on the list?

There was no reason for Gonzales to refer the hearing to a "private" briefing, because there is nothing secret to reveal, unless it is a screw up by US security. Americans need to start asking themselves if the Bush administration is using extra constitutional methods to detain/torture/spy on terror suspects, is it more to cover up its own screw ups or is it actually more effective? In the case of Arar, someone was detained and tortured for a year, where he was interrogated with intelligence provided to Syrian police from Canadian/US sources.

What was unique in the Arar case is that he did have Canadian citizenship and the Canadian government was willing to stand up for him and get him released. How many have been detained who don't have citizenship in Britain, US or Canada who have simply been disappeared in the system?