public. i think they all should be made public, the ones i don t like this committee classification, what happened. but the chairman allowed me to make them public. in those documents, in one e-mail from march 2002, you discuss limits on contributions to candidates saying and i ve heard very few people say the limits on contributions to candidates are unconstitutional. although i for one tend to think those limits have some constitutional problems. i just want to know, the buckley v.valeo case being settled law, it seems like you have some issues with those rulings. how do you view the precedent created by buckley and would you respect it? the buckley divide, as you know, senator is that expenditures on the one side of congress does not have substantial authority to regulation contribution limits on the other side. congress does have authority to
finance, since those are the documents that i received and were able to make public. of course i think they all should be made public, the ones that and i don t like this committee classification, what happened, but the chairman did allow me to make those public. in those documents, in one e-mail from march 2002 you discuss limits on contributions to candidates saying, and i have heard very few people say that the limits on contributions to candidates are unconstitutional. although i, for one, tend to think those limits have some constitutional problems. i just want to know with the buckley v. vallejo case being settled law, it seems like you have some issues with those rulings. how do you view the precedent created by buckley, and would you respect it? the buckley divide, as you know, senator, is that expenditures on the one side, congress does not have substantial authority to regulate contribution limits.
organization, it may not have the mission, but to take something on and do it well, doesn t get better than cia. but because there was no collaborative process very early on in the early part of 2002, the report clearly points out all the different factors of what caused it to go wrong. do you think the cia director was being disingenuous when he said there s no way we could have known how to get information that s a terrifically important point and far be it from me to contradict or go against what mr. brennan says. but i ll point out one point in the findings. you have the case of abu zubaydah in march 2002 who was the earliest highest-ranking society member of al qaeda. you had a period there where two very close friends and colleagues of mine for the fbi with a few cia officers who had experience with terrorism interrogation got the biggest amount of take in that period, weeks and months before a
first subjected to the torture program captured march, 2002. the cia initially and wrongly believed to be an important al qaeda official. zubaydah spent 266 hours in a coffin-sized confinement box and told the only way he would leave the facility is in the coffin-shaped box. typically kept naked, sleep deprived and subjected to waterboarding. despite his hysterical pleas for mercy, zubaydah became so compliant, he would put himself into position to be waterboarded when his interrogator raised his eyebrow and snapped his fingers twice. he used to represent zubaydah and this seems like a broken human being.
first subjected to the torture program captured march, 2002. the cia initially and wrongly believed to be an important al qaeda official. zubaydah spent 266 hours in a coffin-sized confinement box and told the only way he would leave the facility is in the coffin-shaped box. typically kept naked, sleep deprived and subjected to waterboarding. despite his hysterical pleas for mercy, zubaydah became so compliant, he would put himself into position to be waterboarded when his interrogator raised his eyebrow and snapped his fingers twice. he used to represent zubaydah and this seems like a broken human being.