Jay Bybee John Yoo Cleared in Torture Memos

A Senior DOJ official, David Margolis, said Jay Bybee and John Yoo "simply showed poor judgment" when they drafted "legal theories" in August 2002 that led to waterboarding. The two men will not face further sanctions for professional misconduct. I'm glad this one is behind Mr. Bybee and Mr. Yoo.

Commentary from Harpers:

Three developments last week show the growing gap between the Obama Administration and its NATO allies with respect to the legacy of torture from the Bush era. They also demonstrate that, contrary to Obama’s promises faithfully to uphold the Convention Against Torture and Geneva Conventions, his Justice Department has no intention of doing so when crimes from the Bush era are in question. This attitude is not going over well with key allies.

This from NewsWeek:

While the probe is sharply critical of the legal reasoning used to justify waterboarding and other “enhanced” interrogation techniques, NEWSWEEK has learned that a senior Justice official who did the final review of the report softened an earlier OPR finding. Previously, the report concluded that two key authors—Jay Bybee, now a federal appellate court judge, and John Yoo, now a law professor—violated their professional obligations as lawyers when they crafted a crucial 2002 memo approving the use of harsh tactics, say two Justice sources who asked for anonymity discussing an internal matter. 

But the reviewer, career veteran David Margolis, downgraded that assessment to say they showed “poor judgment,” say the sources. (Under department rules, poor judgment does not constitute professional misconduct.) The shift is significant: the original finding would have triggered a referral to state bar associations for potential disciplinary action—which, in Bybee’s case, could have led to an impeachment inquiry.

I'm glad these two men have this behind them now, but take no comfort in the knowledge that this administration has not a clue about getting desperately need information from the terrorists that are even more determined today, than at anytime since 9/11/01 to hit America in a meaningful way. May those who use their law licenses to impede the freedom of America and safeguard the enemy, find sugar in their gas tanks, mice droppings in their Fruit Loops and their DISH network dithering.

Eric Holder and Sharon Malone Holder: Holders - The Uncommonly Elegant Pair

Drudge pointed me to the latest administration distraction in the form a Newsweek article on Attorney General Eric Holder and the decision weighing so heavily on his mind: do I, or do I not, prosecute the Bush administration for "brutal interrogation practices." In the midst of the diversion I was treated to the "uncommonly elegant pair," Eric Holder and his wife Sharon Malone Holder (or maybe it's just Sharon Malone).

Eric Holder and Sharon Malone Holder

If you are a non-confrontational and trusting person, in the mould of Eric Holder, you might believe that Barack Obama is hesitant to prosecute the previous administration. If you are a grown-up who has lived a bit of life, you've already made a fist and shoved it at something. My hubby is convinced that torture prosecutions are diversionary to keep the focus off of Pelosi, the CIA, Panetta, and the disasterous economy. I hope that's the case. We'll have to wait and see, but right now, I want to give some of the flavor of this piece of Newsweek garbage:

Holder is not a natural renegade. His first instinct is to shy away from confrontation, to search for common ground.

You may remember when Holder gave a speech for Black History Month and called America and our race relations, a "nations of cowards." Nothing confrontational, not to mention mean-spirited in that statement? Washington, D.C. is characterized as "famous for it's drabness," but the Obamas and the Holders have arrived:

When Holder and his wife, Sharon Malone, glide into a dinner party they change the atmosphere....they're an attractive, poised, and uncommonly elegant pair—not unlike the new first couple.

Holder says he has learned his lesson about the pardon of Marc Rich. No coincidence that when a politician make an egregious mistake, the path is to acknowledge how wrong you were and move on, but there's one thing to remember, Holder knew this pardon was wrong then...there was nothing to justify except for Marc Rich's wife's money in the Clinton bank account and he knows it was wrong today. Saying "I blew" it is an insult to Americans. Holder said:

...the notion that you would take actions based on political considerations runs counter to everything in my DNA.

And, the man takes solace in his AG confirmation hearing that made him talk about the Marc Rich pardon, allowed him to air his regret - he's feeling all better now:

But his wife says that part of what drives him today is a continuing hunger for redemption.

But she also casts the episode as a lesson about character, arguing that her husband's trusting nature was exploited by Rich's conniving lawyers. "Eric sees himself as the nice guy. In a lot of ways that's a good thing. He's always saying, 'You get more out of people with kindness than meanness.' But when he leaves the 'nice guy' behind, that's when he's strongest."

If you do not remember the details of the Marc Rich case:

In 1983, financier Rich was indicted for evading more than $48 million in taxes, and charged with 51 counts of tax fraud, as well as running illegal oil deals with Iran during the 1979-1980 hostage crisis. During his last week in office, President Bill Clinton pardoned Rich, who had fled the U.S. during his prosecution and was residing in Switzerland.

Today, the man is living freely in a villa on the shores of Lake Lucerne in Switzerland. At a speech at West Point in April:

Holder cited George Washington's admonition at the Battle of Trenton, Christmas 1776, that "captive British soldiers were to be treated with humanity, regardless of how Colonial soldiers captured in battle might be treated.

We are not fighting civilized nations. Our detainees follow a religion and a government that directs and demands beheadings, rapes, stonings, and hangings. Our interrogations were not battlefield brutality, for brutality's sake, but controlled attempts to get information from the enemy that might save lives elsewhere. After Holder "holed up" in his office to go over the CIA's classified report on interrogation abuses (Holder read it twice, once as a lawyer and once at a "more emotional level."):

He was "shocked and saddened," he told a friend, by what government servants were alleged to have done in America's name. When he was done he stood at his window for a long time, staring at Constitution Avenue.

What a vision. I can see him now, standing in the window, tall and "elegant," with saddened eyes and a heavy heart...the weight of the Bush administration on his sturdy shoulders. What to do? What to do?

Mark Steyn on Pelosi and Torture

...under Section 2340A(c) of the relevant statute, a person who conspires to torture is subject to the same penalties as the actual torturer. Once Speaker Pelosi was informed that waterboarding was part of the plan and that it was actually being used, she was in on the conspiracy, and as up to her neck in it as whoever it was who was actually sticking it to poor old Abu Zubaydah and the other blameless lads. That is, if you believe waterboarding is “torture.”

Mark Steyn - author of America Alone

by Mark Steyn for the National Review Online Fun with Dick and Nancy May 16 2009

Cheney has been entirely consistent on waterboarding. Pelosi has not.

Uh-oh. Nancy Pelosi’s performance at her press conference re waterboarding has raised, according to the Washington Post, “troubling new questions about the Speaker’s credibility.” The dreaded T-word: “troubling.” I doubt it will “trouble” the media for long, or at least not to the extent of bringing the Pelosi speakership to a sudden end — and needless to say I’m all in favor of Nancy remaining the face of congressional Democrats until November 2010. But her inconsistent statements do suggest a useful way of looking at America’s tortured “torture” debate: Question: What does Dick Cheney think of waterboarding? He’s in favor of it. He was in favor of it then, he’s in favor of it now. He doesn’t think it’s torture, and he supports having it on the books as a vital option. On his recent TV appearances, he sometimes gives the impression he would not be entirely averse to performing a demonstration on his interviewers, but generally he believes its use should be a tad more circumscribed. He is entirely consistent. Question: What does Nancy Pelosi think of waterboarding? No, I mean really. Away from the cameras, away from the Capitol, in the deepest recesses of her (if she’ll forgive my naivete) soul. Sitting on a mountaintop, contemplating the distant horizon, chewing thoughtfully on a cranberry-almond granola bar, what does she truly believe about waterboarding? Does she support it? Well, according to the CIA, she did way back when, over six years ago. Does she oppose it? According to Speaker Pelosi, yes. In her varying accounts, she’s (a) accused the CIA of consciously “misleading the Congress of the United States” as to what they were doing; (b) admitted to having been briefed that waterboarding was in the playbook but that “we were not — I repeat — were not told that waterboarding or any of these other enhanced interrogation methods were used”; (c) belatedly conceded that she’d known back in February 2003 that waterboarding was being used but had been apprised of the fact by “a member of my staff.” As she said on Thursday, instead of doing anything about it, she decided to focus on getting more Democrats elected to the House. It’s worth noting that, by most if not all of her multiple accounts, Nancy Pelosi is as guilty of torture as anybody else. That’s not an airy rhetorical flourish but a statement of law. As National Review’s Andy McCarthy points out, under Section 2340A(c) of the relevant statute, a person who conspires to torture is subject to the same penalties as the actual torturer. Once Speaker Pelosi was informed that waterboarding was part of the plan and that it was actually being used, she was in on the conspiracy, and as up to her neck in it as whoever it was who was actually sticking it to poor old Abu Zubaydah and the other blameless lads. That is, if you believe waterboarding is “torture.” I don’t believe it’s torture. Nor does Dick Cheney. But Nancy Pelosi does. Or so she has said, latterly. Alarmed by her erratic public performance, the speaker’s fellow San Francisco Democrat Dianne Feinstein attempted to put an end to Nancy’s self-torture session. “I don’t want to make an apology for anybody,” said Senator Feinstein, “but in 2002, it wasn’t 2006, ’07, ’08, or ’09. It was right after 9/11, and there were in fact discussions about a second wave of attacks.” Indeed. In effect, the senator is saying waterboarding was acceptable in 2002, but not by 2009. The waterboarding didn’t change, but the country did. It was no longer America’s war but Bush’s war. And it was no longer a bipartisan interrogation technique that enjoyed the explicit approval of both parties’ leaderships, but a grubby Bush-Cheney-Rummy war crime. Read the rest of Mark Steyn's article.

Newt Gingrich on Pelosi: Trivial, Despicable, Dishonest, Pelosi Lied, and She's a Loser

Former Speaker of the House, Newt Gingrich got his straight-talkin' on today and told ABC News that Pelosi's actions make her a "trivial politician," her efforts are "despicable," dishonest," and vicious. Newt claims Pelosi "lied," and even worse, she lied to the U.S. House of Representatives and "dishonors the Congress by her behavior."

Nancy Pelosi

Newt was not finished with the Speaker and the pride of San Franciso:

Speaker Pelosi's the big loser because she either comes across as incompetent, or dishonest. Those are the only two defenses,...

If you have been in the outback for the last couple of weeks, and missed the pitiful Pelosi performances, Nan has accused the CIA of lying to Congress and misleading Congress, but she clarified things a bit today when she said she wasn't speaking of the Obama CIA, only the George Bush CIA. Yeah, incompetent, viscious and despicable wraps it up fairly well for me. In the end, I suppose we'll hear that Speaker Pelosi "disremembered," like Hillary and a cast of many before her. And it's all just a big nothing. I'm jaded. No doubt about it. William Jefferson, John Murtha, Chris Dodd, Barney Frank and the pride of the liberal judiciary, Alcee Hastings - impeached for accepting bribes, racketeering and perjury - and now a Democrat member of the U.S. House of Representatives from Florida, have survived. Nevertheless, it is not short of wonderful that the Democrat Director of the CIA, Leon Panetta, a seasoned Washingtonian, says Pelosi was "briefed truthfully," and he says he has documents to back it up. Newt wrote a book with Senator John Kerry on global warming, and sat on a sofa next to Speaker Pelosi hawking the dangers of climate change. I can forgive him for putting the sale of millions of books before good, conservative sense, which he usually has. After all, Newt also said playing politics around anti-terror techniques could "get a lot of people killed. This is really, really dangerous, and it's going to get a lot of people killed, if we don't call a halt to it." Listen to Newt say all of the above, and more, here. He talks about our soldiers, and asks other piercing questions.

Pelosi was the ranking Democrat on the Intelligence Committee. She had an absolute obligation to know what was going on, and an absolute obligation to speak up. Men and women risked their lives all over this planet protecting us...

This is an important interview and it is inspiring to hear a conservative speaking so strongly. Sorry I cannot embed it for you here, but ABC is protecting this extraordinary interview. Can't say I blame them.

Dick Cheney -" Enough Already:" GOP Strategists Scold

Where does the Republican party dig up their strategists? Wherever that may be, they need to move on and start over. Enough Already! Enough already of the strategist's strategy, not Dick Cheney. We have GOP strategists scolding the one man in the party that knows a thing or two - the only man in the party that will speak out, and speak the minds of so many conservatives.

Dick Cheney

U.S. News and World Report has quite an article up, and it quotes ONLY unnamed sources, identified only as GOP strategists. The problem seems to be the fear that Cheney will be seen as a spokesman for the party. GOP strategists need to pull their heads out of the clouds and listen-up: true conservatives, those already under that Big Tent you're talking about, like it when Cheney talks. We like it when Cheney talks because he is a principled man, he can speak from personal experience, he can cut through the booking-mechanisms and turn-up on the most important media, and believes deeply that Barack Obama is wrong on many levels. Guess what? Many of us believe the same. He cares more about keeping America safe than he does about shallow, feel-good strategies. He doesn't care about bringing moderates into the fold if they have no deep-seeded desire to keep America safe, at all cost. If Cheney doesn't say it, we would never hear it! Without Cheney in these first long 100+ days of the Obama administration, we would have no defender. Conservatism would have not a single defender without former Vice President Dick Cheney. We have the fine thinkers, Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Laura Ingraham, Ann Coulter and more - we have an abundance of great thinkers and talkers, but they are not spokesmen. We have no one inside the party that speaks with authority. We listen. They listen. The outcry against Cheney is a roar - from the Left, but from the Right - we're out here cheering. The Left knows that he is right and they hate it, they are afraid of it. The more the Right embraces tough conservative talk, the stronger and more unified we become. There are millions of us. Drop your phone surveys. Get out among the people and hear what we have to say. Let us have a defender. Enough of your strategy already. To the author of this piece at U.S. News and World Report: You're talking about a former U.S. Vice President and these are serious times - name your sources. Your entire article had not one attribution.

Obama to Cheney: Torture Document Release Denied

Vice President Dick Cheney's request for the declassification of two CIA reports that, Cheney says, will prove the effectiveness of "enhanced interrogation techniques" has been denied.

Dick Cheney

The reason for denial according to the Weekly Standard is because the documents are "involved in a Freedom of Information Act court battle." This has the smell of deceit all over it.

White House officials have told reporters and members of Congress that the Cheney memos do not bolster the case for enhanced interrogation, as Cheney has suggested. But they have nonetheless refused to release them. President Obama has the legal authority to declassify the documents “with the wave of his hand,” according to one expert.

Attorney General Eric Holder said the administration does not intend "to play hide and seek or not to release certain things in a way that is not consistent with other things. It is not our intention to try to advance a political agenda or to hide things from the American people." The Weekly Standard:

But that is exactly what critics, with some justification, contend the administration has done. In a letter to his intelligence community colleagues sent to explain the release of the OLC memos, Director of National Intelligence, Dennis Blair, wrote: “High value information came from interrogations in which those methods were used and provided a deeper understanding of the al Qaeda organization that was attacking this country.” But when Blair’s office released parts of his letter as a public statement on the subject, that sentence was cut. Blair also noted that members of Congress had been briefed on the methods, but that section was also cut from the public statement. (Blair’s office claimed that the assessments were cut for space -- an odd explanation since such statements are released on the internet or over email. And, in a subsequent clean-up statement, said he supports Obama’s position because it might have been possible to extract that valuable information using other techniques.)

Can we say "arm twisting," or...worse? An unnamed senior Bush administration official questions using the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) to block information:

So, because Amnesty International has filed a broad FOIA request for detainee related materials, the American people are unable to see memos that document the effectiveness of our detainee program. Wouldn’t the legal memos previously released also, presumably, have been subject to this FOIA? Why wasn’t their release blocked under the same provision?

Jammie Wearin' Fool says this will only embolden Cheney. I'll wait for the ACLU to come to the rescue.

Nancy Pelosi CIA Accusations: Pelosi Hypocrisy (Video)

Nancy Pelosi is considered the most powerful woman in America (no apology to Hillary), and she is in it deep, and up against the CIA. It all goes back to the old canard that Congress was lied to about weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. See a video below. UPDATE: Former Speaker of the House, Newt Gingrich has spoken more precisely about Nancy Pelosi and her accusations than I have ever heard one politician speak about another. His comments are important, because as he says, this is about national security and she is playing a very dangerous game and placing America and our military at great risk. Here's what Newt said.

Nancy Pelosi: Photoshop credit: David Johnson Borrowed from Michelle Malkin

It doesn't matter who we are talking about at the highest levels of government, everyone with any power in the Senate and House believed that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction. That information came from the Clinton administration and from intelligence. If that information was incorrect, and I'm not persuaded that it was incorrect...it was not because the intelligence was simply a lie intended to mislead our leaders. It was because it was "incorrect." Why was the information incorrect? Probably because Jamie Gorelick and the Clinton administration so castrated the CIA and the FBI that agents were impotent to truly do a good work of "spying." Jean Pearce, writing for FrontPageMag.com and referring to Gorelick's infamous memo:

...she began acting as the point woman for a large-scale bureaucratic reorganization of intelligence agencies that ultimately placed the gathering of intelligence, and decisions about what – if anything – would be done with it under near-direct control of the White House.

After Gorelick was sworn-in as the Justice Department's Deputy Attorney General for the Clinton administration:

Bill Clinton issued Presidential Decision Directive 24. PDD 24 put intelligence gathering under the direct control of the president’s National Security Council, and ultimately the White House, through a four-level, top-down chain of command set up to govern (that is, stifle) intelligence sharing and cooperation between intelligence agencies. From the moment the directive was implemented, intelligence sharing became a bureaucratic nightmare that required negotiating a befuddling bureaucracy that stopped directly at the President’s office [emphasis Maggie's].

So, right here in America, according to Pearce:

...the only place left to go with intelligence information...was straight up Clinton and Gorelick’s multi-tiered chain of command. Instead, information lethal to the Democratic Party languished inside the Justice Department, trapped behind Gorelick’s walls.

Now, all these years later, Nancy Pelosi has been trying to disconnect from that intelligence and her belief in it, and really, there is no way for her to do so with any credibility. Of course, few Democrats are concerned with cred, but now Pelosi is up against the CIA and I hope they skewer her. Today, she drowning in her own smug abuse of America's military. She denies knowing that "enhanced interrogation techniques" included waterboarding. She can't keep her story straight, and that is a real liability when the world is watching. Here's a snippet from Michelle Malkin:

Pelosi had a particularly frozen look on her face throughout her presser as she repeated the “Bush lied about Iraq” mantra to justify her own inaction:

“They mislead us all the time,” she said. And when a reporter asked whether the agency lied, she did not disagree.

She also suggested that the current Republican criticism marked an attempt to divert attention from the Bush administration’s actions.

“They misrepresented every step of the way, and they don’t want that focus on them, so they try to turn the focus on us,” she said.

If Pelosi were so incensed about how the CIA misled her, why wasn’t this her response to news of the 2002 briefing a week ago?

Blink, blink.

Pelosi issued a renewed call for a “truth commission.”

Boehner’s response: “Let’s put it all on the table.”

Other Dems (including Harry Reid, who opposes the “truth commission” as, um, a distraction) aren’t happy about where this dangerous blame game might take them.

Malkin linked to William Jacobson who characterizes the Dems battle ahead with the CIA "a political death match...." Follow the link from Michelle Malkin to Jacobson whose profile says he is an Associate Clinical Professor of Law, Cornell Law School, Ithaca, NY." Along with today's video of Pelosi's press conference saying the CIA misled Congress, two more videos are some old history...a review of the support of taking down Saddam Hussein, which is what this is all about. Terrorism came to American soil, again, and had we not agreed that terrorism must be stopped, we would have no need of "enhanced interrogation techniques" and waterboarding would have never have been on the table. For all the posturing, let just one of these doves have their own family threatened, and be fortunate enough to have the resources to waterboard that "threat," you can be certain they would beg for it...beg for anything that might save the life of their loved one...and I'm not talking about friends that may have been lost in the World Trade Center, as horrible as that was and is, but what happens when your child's life might be snatched away, as extremist Islam seeks to do. By the way, if one of Pelosi's "loved ones" were being threatened, the CIA would not put her in the position of "deciding" to waterboard or not. The CIA would do the right thing (no apology to John McCain) make the decision, get the information and perhaps save a deserving life. Pelosi CIA Accusation: Says CIA Misled Congress (Video) Pelosi hypocrisy: No doubts that Iraq has weapons of mass destruction (Video) Democrat hypocrisy: proclaim the existance of weapons of mass destruction (Video)

Justifying the Bybee Torture Memos?

Judge Scott Bybee wrote the "infamous" Bush administration 'torture' memos. While infamous, many of us believe these memos and the power they passed to the CIA kept America safe for many years after September 11, 2001.

Jay Bybee - Torture Memos

As most of you know, I also write for Right Pundits, a news site with a definite tilt to the right. Podcasting, a new feature at Right Pundits, has been introduced today. Right Pundit Bryan McAffee has interviewed his father, Constitutional law professor Professor Thomas McAffe, who is a good friend of Hon. Jay Bybee. Bryan's podcast of his interview with his father about "torture," and about Judge Bybee's part in these enhanced interrogation memos is very interesting. You'll note that Bryan says his father is "a big liberal," but he considers his father fairly moderate on this particular subject. At one point, Prof. McAffee says that he read the memos and they "were carefully and thoughtfully" written, and he notes that two of the most important and damning [my term] memos were written within one year of 9/11, at a time when more attacks were believed, and rightly so, to be on the horizon. Visit Right Pundits and read Bryan's introduction, then click the link for the podcast and the interview. No matter your views on enhanced interrogation, Right Pundits would love to have your opinions about this new venture.

Turning Over America to World Control: Eric Holder Blames America Again

Attorney General Eric Holder is considering co-operating with a Spanish court wanting to try the U.S. military and U.S. officials for torture at Guantanamo. This is not the "World Court." The Spanish judge, Baltasar Garzon, reportedly made his decision to take us to court AFTER the Obama administration released the so-called "torture" memos.

Eric Holder

According to Douglas Feith, the complaint is made by an attorney who did his legal studies while serving over seven years in prison for kidnapping and terrorism. Feith is a former under-secretary of defense for policy 2001-2005, and may be implicated in the charges.

The allegation is not that any of us tortured anyone. And it is not that any of us even directed anyone to commit torture. The allegation is that, when we advised President George W. Bush on the Geneva Conventions and detainee interrogations, our interpretations were wrong -- in the view of the disapproving Spaniards. According to the complaint, these wrong interpretations encouraged the president to make decisions that led to torture.

His article provides a good overview of the charges and his own defense. According to the GuardianUK, the recent decision by the Obama administration to release documents about Guantánamo (so-called "torture memo") helped the judge conclude that a police investigation, which could lead to criminal charges, was necessary. Here's what Holder said:

Mistakes were made" in the creation of the Guantánamo programme, Holder said. "Obviously, we would look at any request that would come from a court in any country and see how and whether we should comply with it.

Spain isn't stopping with Guantanamo. They're looking into Bagram Air Base in Afghanistan as a suspected place for American torture, as well. In the meantime, another Spaniard is deciding whether the National Court (Spanish National Court, I assume - not the World Court) can also bring torture charges against six U.S. officials, including former attorney general Alberto Gonzales. These are dangerous days for America. Related: Watch Condoleezza Rice talk with a Stanford University student. He asks her how we can "win the hearts and minds" of the world with our past history of torture.

Condi Rice Does Some Teaching: Student Told to Do His Homework

In this video, former Secretary of State, Dr. Condoleezza Rice is queried by a student on enhanced interrogations and Abu Ghraib: how are we supposed to "win hearts and minds" in the world as long as we continue with these actions?" As Condi gets into her answer, listen as this very noisy room quiets down to listen. This is the feisty talk we need from Republicans NOW! Listen as this young man tries to speak intelligently about the threat of Nazi Germany and how Condi sets him straight on several levels:

No dear, your wrong. We did not torture anyone."

As the conversation progresses, she makes it clear to the student that:

"before you make allegations about Guantanamo you should read."

This haughty student is upset that Gitmo detainees were unable to defend themselves in court. Condi asks him if he knew who held up the court trials. He tells her he can't answer that question. She says:

"Do your homework first."

She saves his young rear-end and gives him the answer. What a refreshing video!

Every conservative Congressman should take the floor and follow the example set in this video by Former Secretary of State, Dr. Condoleezza Rice. After the speech on the Capitol floor, get to the hallway and find a mic. Put a copy of the speech on their website. Go to their home district and do it all over again, and then again and then again. Listen up, those of you in power, start standing up for Conservatism. Condi is showing you how to do it. Hat tips to GrEaT SaTaN's GiRlFrieNd - read her insightful commentary, and Right Truth.

Waterboarding in the "West Coast Plot"

While Liberals salivate over taking Bush Department of Justice officials to court and trying them for unsanctioned torture in the interrogation of Khalid Sheik Mohammad and others, Marc Theissen at National Review Online lays down a road map to what the results of "enhanced interrogations" did for Americans. Remember the disrupted plot to fly a airplane into L.A.'s Library Tower, now known as the U.S. Bank Tower? Now that the Obama administration has released the so-called "torture" memos, and will possibly open a door to 9/11-type inquiries, the Left is rewriting history again. Read Theissen's exhaustive report of what happened and didn't happen in the interrogations, and what Khalid Sheik Mohammad and others had in the works. Thanks to Pundit and Pundette for this story. Read thier short pithy post on the swine flu: Infectious disease: Another reason why our borders need to be secure.