The Senate Democrats are not acting on their own and would not be issuing these new equivocal statements without first being signaled by the President-Elect's team and possibly Obama himself that they are considering some "alternative sets of procedures" for interrogations. Party members don't go off on their own in such a dramatic fashion without first checking with the leaders of their Party.
This shift by Feinstein and Wyden is, unfortunately, consistent with signals coming from the Obama team within the last few weeks on what they are planning to do about the Guantanamo detainees, about creating a new kind of court ("National Security Courts"), and about continuing "preventive detention." If they do go ahead with these plans, they will have joined unequivocally the no man's land realm that the Bush cabal has been occupying.
[Update: Feinstein's office added in a communication with Michael Scherer of Time magazine the following to what she had previously issued: saying "that she still wants a law that mandates the Field Manual as the sole interrogation standard, but that she may be willing to be talked back from that position by the Obama Administration, if it chooses to do so." This confirms my assessment that Feinstein and Wyden were reacting to signals from the Obama team - DL.
Feinstein further added in her comments to Scherer: "I plan to introduce legislation in January that would close Guantanamo, make the Army Field Manual the single standard for interrogations, prohibit contractors from being used to carry out interrogations and provide the International Committee of the Red Cross with access to detainees."
This "addition" of hers, however, does not add anything to what she said previously. It merely restates her vacillation - DL.]
The Times' piece, authored by Mark Mazzetti and Scott Shane, begins by describing the withdrawal of Brennan from consideration as the next CIA chief:"John O. Brennan, a C.I.A. veteran who was widely seen as Mr. Obama's likeliest choice to head the intelligence agency, withdrew his name from consideration after liberal critics attacked his alleged role in the agency's detention and interrogation program. Mr. Brennan protested that he had been a "strong opponent' within the agency of harsh interrogation tactics, yet Mr. Obama evidently decided that nominating Mr. Brennan was not worth a battle with some of his most ardent supporters on the left." [Boldfacing added].
Mazzetti and Shane "forgot" to mention that Brennan has also been an exponent of the massive warrantless surveillance of all of America.
By describing Brennan's role in supporting rendition and torture as "alleged" Mazzetti and Shane were engaging in the equivalent of declaring that 2+2 = 4 (allegedly).
It's like Hillary Clinton cagily saying during the campaign that Barack Obama isn't a Muslim, "as far as I know."-
This is what Brennan said in a March 8, 2006 Frontline interview: "I think George [Tenet] had two concerns. One is to make sure that there was that legal justification, as well as protection for CIA officers who are going to be engaged in some of these things, so that they would not be then prosecuted or held liable for actions that were being directed by the administration. So we want to make sure the findings and other things were done probably with the appropriate Department of Justice review."
Why was there concern of possible prosecution for CIA officers? There would be no concern if these CIA figures were following the Army Field Manual. There was only concern because they were engaging in practices prohibited by the AFM and that are unequivocally categorized by the Geneva Conventions as torture.
Mainstream media can't bring itself to name practices for what they are when it comes to calling out government officials for what they are doing, but Mazzetti and Shane have no trouble describing in derogatory terms the critics of rendition, torture and massive, felonious surveillance as "ardent supporters on the left."
I suppose that being opposed to torture makes you a lefty and hence all right-thinking, non-ardent, middle of the roaders or righties are for torture?
Brennan isn't an "ardent" supporter of rendition. No, ardent isn't good. He's merely an "alleged" supporter of such practices.
Is it then better that we be "allegedly critics of torture?"
