Dems Demand Secret Interrogation Memos

[sabra]

Source: AP

(AP) House Democrats demanded Thursday that the Justice Department turn over two secret memos that reportedly authorize painful interrogation tactics against terror suspects -- despite the Bush administration's insistence that it has not violated U.S. anti-torture laws.

Spokespeople for the White House and the Justice Department said a memo written in February 2005 on this subject did not change an administration policy issued in 2004 that publicly renounced torture as "abhorrent."

House Judiciary Chairman John Conyers and Rep. Jerrold Nadler, D-N.Y., promised a congressional inquiry into the two Justice Department legal opinions that reportedly "explicitly authorized the use of painful and psychological tactics on terrorism suspects."

"Both the alleged content of these opinions and the fact that they have been kept secret from Congress are extremely troubling, especially in light of the department's 2004 withdrawal of an earlier opinion similarly approving such methods," Conyers, D-Mich., and fellow House Judiciary member Nadler wrote in a letter Thursday to Acting Attorney General Peter D. Keisler.

Read more: http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/10/04/terror/main3330989.shtml

[Bitwit1234]

1. Ho ho ho and I want a million dollars for Christmas

who thinks they'll get em. Not me.

[mikelgb]

2. yeah don't you guys already have subpoenas out?

take care of those why don'tcha

[robinlynne]

15. should be piling up to 40 or 50 by now....

[hootinholler]

17. Rice, Meyers are two I know for sure.

Who else hasn't answered? Rumsfeld? How about all those documents that haven't been produced?



Send the Sgt at arms already!

-Holler

[movonne]

3. This is becoming a daily joke...amendments, bills, investigations,

and none going anywhere...we look like such fools...

[fasttense]

4. Yeah, yeah, yeah.

So when do they plan to use inherent contempt to uphold those last set of subpoenas they issued?

[Hissyspit]

5. When they refuse, THEN can we impeach?

Jeeez...

[The Stranger]

6. They have been waiting for two years for the memos.

Can someone get impeachment back on the table, or is the Nancy still in bed with the War Criminals?

[rodeodance]

7. I saw most of the WH presser today-Maj. or questions addressed this. Dana was

in way over her head

[DavidDvorkin]

8. White House says, "Get lost."

Dems say, "Oh, okay. In that case, please pretend we didn't ask."

White House says, "That's exactly what we are doing."

[kestrel91316]

9. If Bush doesn't comply, what are they gonna do? Stamp their

widdle feet and write a strongly worded letter?

[Solly Mack]

10. I want a pony

[defendandprotect]

11. Dems Ask, Bushco refuses . . . Dems go away ---

[calimary]

12. For Heaven's sake, can they CUT with the "extremely troubling" crap?

JUST ISSUE THE FRICKIN' SUBPOENAS ALREADY. AND THEN MAKE THOSE SUBPOENAS STICK!!!!!

I don't know about you but I am thoroughly sick of these "strongly-worded statements" and "non-binding resolutions." I wanna see TEETH AND CLAWS - front and center, and being WELL-USED.

'Cause I'm only buying BACKBONE these days.

[rodeodance]

13. Leahy: lawyers had “reversed themselves & reinstated a secret regime, in essence reinterpreting th

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/04/washington/14cnd-interrogate.html?hp=&pagewanted=print

........Senator Patrick J. Leahy, the Vermont Democrat who heads the Senate Judiciary Committee, said it appeared that the Justice Department lawyers had “reversed themselves and reinstated a secret regime, in essence reinterpreting the law in secret.” He said his committee had been seeking information about the Justice Department’s legal interpretations of the law for two years without success and urged the administration to cooperate.

Representative John Conyers Jr. of Michigan, who heads the House Judiciary Committee, requested that the Justice Department’s opinions be turned over to the House panel as well and asked the department to make available for a hearing Steven G. Bradbury, of the department’s office of legal counsel, who signed the 2005 opinions.

Mr. Leahy also said his committee would hold confirmation hearings on the nomination of Michael B. Mukasey to be attorney general on Oct. 17.

Officials at the White House and the Justice Department said the 2005 legal memorandum did not change the administration’s statement in 2004 that publicly renounced torture as “abhorrent.”

[rodeodance]

14. DOJ: -he could not comment on classified legal advice,

The Justice Department’s spokesman, Brian Roehrkasse, said in a statement that he could not comment on classified legal advice, but he reiterated that any opinions by the department were consistent with the public 2004 memorandum on interrogations. He said the Bush administration’s “strong opposition to torture” had been consistent.

He expressed the department’s support for Mr. Bradbury, whose nomination to be permanent head of legal counsel’s office has been blocked by Senate Democrats. Mr. Roehrkasse said Mr. Bradbury “has worked diligently to ensure that the authority of the office is employed in a careful and prudent manner.”

In the areas of domestic surveillance and detainee issues, Mr. Roehrkasse said Mr. Bradbury’s “efforts have strengthened cooperation among the branches in these key national security areas.”

[Joanne98]

16. YAY!

[cyberpj]

18. Sorry. National Security Matters don'tcha know? Oh. Ok then. Nevermind........

With Democrats like these, who needs Republicans?

Just ordered that new bumper sticker.

[Kelvin Mace]

19. Yawn!

Bush will refuse. Conyers will threaten a subpoena. Bush will ignore him. Conyers will issue a Sternly Worded Letter™ and the issue will die the same death all the other scandals have died.