Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I realize that many Bush supporters will rush to defend this administration, but I just finished reading the article in today's news about the CIA's destruction of videotapes of their interrogations which included waterboarding of terrorists. Since the 9-11 Committee and various intelligence committees in the House and Senate have repeatedly requested such information, this administration and the CIA have played a game of obfuscation, denial, pass the buck, and now, in the face of a court order to submit such materials, they apparently destroyed the videotapes. They claim they did so in the name of national security.
I'm all for national security, but I'm also for things like honor and truth and fair play, American values I was raised with. I frankly do not see this administration expressing these values in any way. And please, like it or not, this is a criticism of this administration and the secretiveness and contempt it has shown over and over for the other branches of government and for the American people. Past administrations are irrelevent.
The job of the President is to uphold the laws of the nation. Congress makes laws, the executive branch enforces them, and the courts interpret the laws. The President has tried to make his actions and the actions of the people who work for him above or outside the law. His signing statements have suborned the function of the judicial branch of government. His fights to keep the actions and directives of the executive branch have made his administration the most secretive in history. His Vice-President evidently operates an office that is extra-government, neither executive nor legislative, and therefore under no one's authority.
I just don't understand why more people are not more upset about ways Bush and his administration have tried to change the balance of power.
Personally, I wouldn't advise reading and believing 90% of any "secrets" that come from any source. There's no way that the FBI or CIA would publish/give out super-classified information over the internet, media, or any other outlet. If you and I can get ahold of it, then terrorists (they do exist) can easily get ahold of it.
Personally, I think the stuff published is being fed to us and the terrorists to make us believe that these organizations are just stupid.
This isn't about releasing information to the public. It's about releasing information to government bodies that have a direct interest in such information in order to effectively do their job. A court trying to determine the effectiveness of interrogation techniques and whether such techniques are torture or not has a direct interest in a videotape of the said interrogation.
The intelligence committees of both the House and Senate, when determining the quality of the information they are receiving via the executive administration from our intelligence services have a direct interest in viewing and hearing such tapes as well as reading transcripts of the interrogations in order to determine the dependability of such information.
I would assume that all parties concerned have the highest security clearances possible, so when the CIA destroys tapes, it is effectively destroying evidence. As a lawful citizen, I have a right to inquire why? And to want more of an answer than "national security." I don't necessarily want the information made public, but I also don't want a President and the members of his administration to perform functions on my behalf without the oversight of the other branches of government to ensure that any actions taken are lawful and proper. Bush and Cheney, it seems to me, have done everything possible to eliminate that oversight, and I find that, at the very least, disheartening.
The story this morning reminded me of the early warnings from Woodward & Bernstein. However, they came early enough in the Nixon Administration to make a turn-around difference.
The revelation of this, and other C&M of the Bush Administration come at a time when only posthumous action might occur.
And, I believe some of the issues are being looked at by this committee or that, and this chairman or that, but we may not be hearing of these nor will they be effective at this late date.
The nipping of a bud comes early, not after the fact(s). The legislative branch has failed us as the executive branch has screwed us.
The story this morning reminded me of the early warnings from Woodward & Bernstein. However, they came early enough in the Nixon Administration to make a turn-around difference.
The revelation of this, and other C&M of the Bush Administration come at a time when only posthumous action might occur.
And, I believe some of the issues are being looked at by this committee or that, and this chairman or that, but we may not be hearing of these nor will they be effective at this late date.
The nipping of a bud comes early, not after the fact(s). The legislative branch has failed us as the executive branch has screwed us.
The bolded line is CLASSIC!
Note that when Wood and Bern were investigating and reporting on the Nixon White House that despite Dick Cheney's insistence that Nixon resist, that at least Nixon had the dignity to do the right thing for his party and his country.
Also, concerning the bolded comment, I think the American people are also at some level accountable for the mere fact that many don't find the use of torture and the destruction of evidence wrong. When people cite Clinton's failure to release documents as some defacto of a crime, I have to use that same view here, no?
There is no doubt that the American people are also responsible for the re-election of the Administration, already knowing many of the implied issues, and known concerns. It is also clear that some virus has entered the people's bloodstream and they can't disentangle truth and fiction about simple issues like the constitution, torture, war-mongering, etc.
During the Nixon Administration I was abroad, and the lead-up seemed slow and steady, and with help from some advisors, and probably the Vice President and friends, he did step down with some measure of grace, all to his credit. But Nixon, unlike Bush, was his own man, and probably had a greater and broader understanding of what it meant to be a president--he wanted it badly, too much so, and it was his downfall.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
