Pelosi & The CIA? Bush Was Still The Trigger Man
Tweet
My guess? Speaker Pelosi is, at best, being misleading about what the CIA did and didn’t tell her. In all likelihood? She’s probably lying. But does it really matter?
After 9/11, the Democrats not only lost their marbles the way the rest of us did at the horror, they also had their spines turn to jelly politically. After years of polling showing conservative superiority on national security issues, Democrats did the stupid thing and caved in to the right on security issue after issue – on issues ranging from the invasion of Iraq to the use of torture and warrantless wiretapping.
Now, many of us out there in liberalland did – and still – knew better than those in DC on our side of the aisle. We rejected the notion that conservatives know anything about national security, let alone the idea that they are more trustworthy on the issue.
Oh sure, around 2005-6 the Democratic party itself started talking a better game on these issues, but that doesn’t change the fact that from 01-04 they were limp noodles. They gave the Bush administration a free pass, and went along to go along. That doesn’t absolve them of guilt. They voted for things and supported policies no member of a liberal party should have done.
But.
We only have one President. He, and he alone, made the final decision on these issues – congressional authorization or not. Congress gave him the loaded weapon, but he chose whether or not to pull the trigger. George Bush authorized the torture of people, and while the congress turned a blind eye to it and authorized it and deserves some of the blame for it, it is Bush and his henchmen who committed the act itself.
I feel its probably likely that Speaker Pelosi was an accessory to these acts, but George W. Bush was the trigger man.
111 Responses to “Pelosi & The CIA? Bush Was Still The Trigger Man”
Red Front? “Center For American Freedom” Logo Echoes Communist Style
Romney Calls For Defunding Planned Parenthood, Wife Was A Donor
GOP Fundraising Email Asks Supporters To “Knock Out” Obama
Romney Comes Up Limp In Nevada
Obama Opens Lead On Romney In New Poll
What Time Is Super Bowl 2012 (Super Bowl XLVI)?
Republican Senate Candidate To Run Racist Ad During Super Bowl
Romney Biographer: Candidate Grew Up In A “Series Of Bubbles”
Latest Entries
Weekly Standard Rolls Out The Iraq Argument For Iran
Equal Polarization, My Ass
Some Crazy Stuff That Happened In World War II
Maryland Republican Campaign Funds Used To Defend Voter Suppression
The Obama Jobs Record In One Graph
Martin O’Malley All In For Marriage Equality
Newt Gingrich, Filled With More Excrement Than Your Average Politician
New Year, Powerline Still Stupid
Thanks Again
C.K.: November 22, 1999 – January 7, 2012
Meta
Blogroll
Disclaimer
The views on this site are mine and mine alone, and do not reflect the views of my employer, Media Matters for America
© 2000-2011 Oliver Willis
The loaded weapon analogy is apt. After all, we all know you don’t blame the gun, you blame the person who wields it (Guns don’t kill people, people kill people.) Right?
Unfortunately, Pelosi and the Dems do bear some of the responsibility. They may not have pulled the trigger but you don’t give a loaded weapon to a child and then escape all blame for what he did with it.
And, yeah, she’s lying her ass off about what she knew when.
Rule of Law!
Rule of Law!
Rule of Law!
Rule of Law!
Rule of Law!
Rule of Law!
Rule of Law!
Rule of Law!
Assign a Special Prosecutor. Find out who broke the law and hold them accountable, regardless of race, creed, or political party affiliation. Pronto. It’s important. Thanks in advance.
A key ingredient of right wing perfidy is getting others to be complicit with their crimes.
The right wing are using this as a threat to several of the top Dems in the Congress.
Round ‘em all up. Make it a big, open investigation where everyone is put under oath and asked the hard questions.
War Crimes and Torture Crimes are CRIMES whether it’s a Democratic leader or a Republican leader that committed the crime.
Republicans’ admissions of committing criminal torture and war crimes isn’t made ‘okay’ because, perhaps, some Democratic leaders maybe knew about ? something.
At the very most those Democratic leaders that knew about criminal acts done by the Republican leaders are accomplices to crimes committed by Republican leaders.
Republican leaders’ criminal torture and war crimes is still criminal torture and war crimes.
Having accomplices to a crime isn’t immunity from prosecution of the crime. It just means more people of guilty of crimes than just the Principals that committed and authorized the crimes.
[...] I have no way of knowing whether the reason for the the torture was to support the lies that sold the Iraq War. It is a commentary on the immorality of the proponents of that war that, at this point, no one other than the truest true wingnut believer would accept that as feasible, for it is consistent with the duplicity and venality of the Previous Federal Administration. [...]
Having accomplices to a crime isn’t immunity from prosecution of the crime.
It just means more people are guilty of crimes than just the Republican Principals that committed and authorized the crimes.
[corrected]
Damaging Pelosi Video: In her own 2002 words, she exposes her waterboarding lie. Watch, http://tinyurl.com/o54k7k
Assume the worst: Way back when, somebody from the CIA said, “Know what, Nan? We’re waterboarding the hell outta them terrists!”
Can someone please explain why that would matter?
Assume the worst: Way back when, somebody from the CIA said, “Know what, Madame Speaker? We’re breaking the law!”
Can someone please explain why that would matter?
Rule of Law!
As long as it’s not bankruptcy laws, right? Because as we have seen, in liberalland those laws are conveniently swept aside in order to reward your largest campaign contributors by moving them to the front of the creditor line. And publicly criticizing the people who are SUPPOSED to be first in line as evil “speculators” to get them to STFU and take the govt’s crappy deal.
Assign a Special Prosecutor. Find out who broke the law and hold them accountable, regardless of race, creed, or political party affiliation. Pronto. It’s important. Thanks in advance.
Then I look forward to your calls for an investigation into the Obama administrations involvement in the Chrysler bankruptcy process and whether any laws were broken.
Blame Bush!
Blame Bush!
Blame Bush!
Blame Bush!
Blame Bush!
Blame Bush!
Blame Bush!
Blame Bush!
Four months into a new administration and BDS has no end in sight. Pelosi first said she wasn’t briefed on waterboarding, proof surfaces that she was, she admits it but now says she was “misled” by the CIA (must’ve been buried deep in that great Bush/Cheney/Halibuton conspiracy to blow up the Towers). Bottom line, Barry and even Harry Reid are proving to be smart enough to know that any “Truth Commission” witchhunt is going to make the Dems look bad. But Nancy has to please her loon base no matter how dumb she looks backtracking, so what’s left but to….
….Blame Bush!
As long as it’s not bankruptcy laws, right?
You mean the ones that the Republican congress had changed to protect credit card companies from losing money due to usury by making it harder for people to declare bankruptcy?
Blame Bush!
Hmph. You so eager to take credit for torture when it was “in”. But now, you don’t want to be associated with it now that the people realize how evil it is? Sad.
As long as it’s not bankruptcy laws, right?
Translation: Look over there!
Dave in SoCal: As long as it’s not bankruptcy laws, right?
Nope.
If you look a bit above you post and actually bother to read what’s there, you’ll see News Ref pointing out that crimes “are CRIMES whether it’s a Democratic leader or a Republican leader that committed the crime”. A sentiment that has been expressed by several folks in other threads on OW’s site.
So “lefties” have said we should investigate and find out who has been bad regardless of which party they belong to. And all you and your ilk come up with when investigations are suggested is “It’s a witch hunt! You’re bad, too!”
Well bring it on, Dave. Let’s have full investigations and let the cards fall where they may. And if folks on “our side” go down so be it. Why are you so insistent on defending the lawlessness of your side?
I thought conservatives were supposed to be the law-and-order crowd.
What did she expect. Is that not what the CIA does? Lie for a living?
Did anyone happen to see her press conference today? She was HEATED!!!! I don’t ever think I’ve seen her become quite so undone…
“Jaxon” apparently doesn’t understand that most liberals, if shown compelling evidence that Pelosi knew about Republican President Bush’s criminal torture program, would be fine with her sharing an adjoining prison cell with war criminal Bush for her part in allowing torture war crimes.
The same goes for any other Democratic leaders that knew about torture war crimes.
Any and ALL the leaders who knew about it can share prison cells next to Republicans Cheney, Yoo, Bybee and the other Republican Principals that authorized torture war crimes.
The irony is, that had Republican President Bush, in 2002, demanded that the Torture Law and the War Crimes Law be deleted or amended, a Congressional majority would have likely done anything he wanted.
(With a small minority of genuine liberals in Congress voting NO, likely with a few or more principled conservatives voting NO as well.)
Republican President Bush might have even been able to compel a majority in Congress to renounce the Geneva Conventions.
REPUBLICAN PRESIDENT BUSH DIDN’T ASK TO HAVE THE US TORTURE LAW OR WAR CRIMES LAW CHANGED.
Nor did Republican President Bush lawfully attempt to change America’s legal obligation of living up to the Geneva Conventions.
WHAT REPUBLICAN BUSH DID WAS CLEARLY AND EXPLICITLY AGAINST THE LAW(S).
Nor am I aware that Republican President Bush wrote an (unconstitutional) “signing statement” saying that he could circumvent those American Laws and American Treaties.
Instead, Bush’s sleazy lawyers wrote him a fraudulent “get out of gym class” note that unlawfully circumvented multiple laws.
Republican’s weasel worded nonsense would make Orwell nauseous.
Republican Bush’s criminal torture lawyers Bybee and Yoo‘s weasel worded nonsense is not a “get out of jail free card.”
Republican President Bush and his Republican Principals‘ criminal authorization of torture and war crimes should be a “go directly to jail and do not collect $200 dollars” card.
Ultimately this isn’t a game and isn’t about vengeance, it’s about deterrence: deterring acts of criminal torture and war crimes from ever coming out of the White House in the future.
This is about deterring FUTURE war crimes.
It’s crucial to the maintenance of our Republic.
Let’s have full investigations and let the cards fall where they may.
Exactly. If the investigation reveals dems knew and approved of torture, they should face the consequences as well.
Assume the worst: Way back when, somebody from the CIA said, “Know what, Madame Speaker? We’re breaking the law!”
Then she would be guilty of not reporting someone else’s lawbreaking. Is that all there is? Then I say, fine. Let’s have an investigation.
And what’s up with that photo? Are Nan and George arm rasslin’? Looks like he’s going down.
GreyGhost, who else should we blame for the executive authorization of torture during the Bush administration?
As for Pelosi, it appears that she’s lying her ass off about this. And that is shitty. However, at what point did torture become Pelosi’s fault? It seems to me that she’s guilty of not reporting another person’s crime, and she’s guilty of lying about it. Meanwhile, there are other people who are directly responsible for our policies of torture – who actually authorized torture to be used as a matter of U.S. military policy.
I bet by the end of this story, a good 25-50% of people in this country blame Pelosi for torture. And that speaks to the irresponsibility of the media as well as the lack of critical thinking skills of the population.
“Assume the worst: Way back when, somebody from the CIA said, ‘Know what, Madame Speaker? We’re breaking the law!’”
Quaker in a Basement: “Then she would be guilty of not reporting someone else’s lawbreaking. Is that all there is? Then I say, fine. Let’s have an investigation.”
I have a horrible feeling someone said, ‘Know what, Madame Speaker? We’re breaking the law, but this is a national security meeting and if you report it, you will go to jail. And because there’s no evidence to back you up, you will be the only one who would go to jail’
The worst part of this complicity is that the Dems rolled over and played dead because of fears of political repercussions. “Oh noes, we might lose the next election cycle!”
And then, when the war was going badly, and the lies were becoming obvious, there was no one to stand up and say “we warned you beforehand!” (the more diplomatic version of “toldjaso!”)
I hope they’ve learned. I’m afraid they haven’t.
“C.S.Strowbridge”: “I have a horrible feeling someone said, ‘Know what, Madame Speaker? We’re breaking the law, but this is a national security meeting and if you report it, you will go to jail. And because there’s no evidence to back you up, you will be the only one who would go to jail’”
It’s a “Catch 22″.
Pelosi was given secret intelligence briefings during which, as I understand it, she wasn’t given or allowed a ‘hardcopy’, she couldn’t take notes, there was little opportunity to ask questions, she couldn’t discuss the issues, not even the legal issues, with her staff, and she couldn’t lawfully repeat any of the secrets she was told to anyone outside the briefing without being accused of treason.
Right wingers threw around the word “treason” and “traitor” a lot after 9/11 and often at people who just disagreed with them.
It’s important to remember that the right wing media corporations go on outrage overdrive at every opportunity to attack Pelosi.
Had Pelosi raised complaints back in 2002 through 2008 that Republican President Bush was committing war crimes, well, “red meat” to the base doesn’t adequately capture what would have happened to her.
More like: “red meat laced with meth to the base”.
What the right wing has been doing to Pelosi for years is much more than trying to ‘work the ref’, the right wing has been trying to terrorize Pelosi for years.
Now the right wing is getting shrill. It’s the ‘cornered dog’ analogy.
It’s the: ‘if we go down we’re taking you with us, defense.’
Republican Bush’s war crimes and torture authorizations are increasingly coming to light.
The recent photographic evidence of abusive behavior under Bush’s Presidency was from facilities other than the Abu Ghraib torture prison.
The torture war crimes authorized by Republican Bush’s administration weren’t just some ‘bad apples’, the torture war crimes came directly from orders from the top: Republican Bush’s inner circle of “Principals”.
While the authorization for torture war crimes by the Republican Bush administration is vile, it’s extra reprehensible that Republican Bush blamed and prosecuted American military troops for doing what he ordered to do.
A full and complete investigation is important for US as a Republic but it’s also important so that American military troops don’t get tarred with Republican President Bush’s criminal authorization of torture war crimes.
It was much more than just “fears of political repercussions”, “LongHairedWeirdo”.
There were genuinely real fears as well.
Democratic Governor Don Siegelman was attacked by Republican Karl Rove‘s politicized US Attorneys‘s and thrown in jail as part of a political attack.
TEN Republican Attorney Generals think Siegelman may have gotten a raw deal.
So far there have been a total of 75 former state Attorney Generals that have asked that Siegelman’s case be reviewed because of ““gravely troublesome facts” about his prosecution that raise questions about the fairness and due process of the trial.”
And remember, the Republican controlled government was kidnapping and torturing “suspects” using Communist torture techniques.
http://google.com/search?q=%22China+Inspired+Interrogations+at+Guant%E1namo.%22
Wicked people.
Here’s another interpretation, “unenhanced” by “Newsy’s” paranoia:
The CIA is told to get results. They have some techniques that could work very well on getting answers from uncooperative prisoners. But they’re questionable as to their legality, so the CIA decides to play CYA.
They go to the Justice Department — who will be prosecuting the CIA guys if they break the law — and ask them for a legal opinion as to whether these techniques are within the law or not. The Justice Department looks at it very carefully, and says yeah, they’re legal.
But that ain’t enough. The CIA knows that it’s gonna get second-guessed and scapegoated in the future, because that’s what happens in the past. So they obey the laws and rules and guidelines about Congressional oversight and make sure the Congressional leadership is fully briefed on it. The leadership of both parties, because sooner or later the pendulum is gonna swing and the party out of power will be in power. They don’t want this blowing up on them.
So they brief the leadership of both parties. They give them every opportunity to protest, to object, to raise issues. They lay it all on the line.
And to cover their asses, because they know politicians have no problems lying to suit their own purposes, they document the briefings six ways to Sunday, because they don’t want to get left out to dry — as has happened so often in the past.
Then, Obama decides that SOMEONE has to hang for it. Bush and Cheney are out of office, so he dumps out a bunch of the memos and tries to hang it on the attorneys at the Department of Justice who signed off on it in the first place. Criminal prosecutions are complicated, so instead he’ll just get them disbarred in their home states. That’s much tidier — especially since the legal profession that runs the bars is one of his bigger supporters.
The CIA sees the writing on the wall. Not only are they likely to be the next target, but they won’t get any more cooperation from the Department of Justice — it’s just too damned risky.
So they decide that they ain’t gonna be anybody’s victim. Pelosi is the readiest target — she’s been lambasting them, and they have the goods proving that she’s lying through her teeth now about what she knew and when she knew it. She’s calling people “war criminals” for having pretty much the same legal and moral culpability she has.
Pelosi decided to play hardball. The CIA said OK. Now she’s crying foul — “they started the fight when they hit me back!”
Set aside the whole “torture” issue for a moment. Pelosi, for doing this so ineptly, is clearly too frigging stupid to hold a position of such authority and power. Time for her to go.
J.
Oh, and “Newsy?” Rove has a rather compelling defense in the Siegelman case. In essence, he says “there’s one accuser who says I directed her to go after Siegelman. Why the hell would an evil mastermind like me take such a stupid chance as to directly contact this nobody, potentially incriminating myself, taking no precautions to protect myself? Why wouldn’t I use middlemen and intermediaries and maintain plausible deniability? And in the middle of such a contentious, important election, why would I trouble myself so intensely and personally with one governor’s race?”
Your theory only holds if you start off with the presumption that Rove is incredibly evil, incredibly stupid, and guilty of everything that anyone accuses him of. Nice fantasy.
J.
But does it really matter?
And there have the crux of the whole problem for the ideologues.
It doesn’t matter that Nancy Pelosi lied about the CIA to Congress. It doesn’t matter that she put crass political opportunism over everything else, not concerned with attempting to throw good people at the CIA under the bus.
None of that matters.
Because Bush is EEEEEVIL and that’s ALL that matters.
Because Bush is EEEEEVIL and that’s ALL that matters.
Cheney’s the evil one. Bush, Jr. is too stupid. Cheney tortured people to gin up a reason to invade another country. That’s evil. I’d like to see things set a-right.
Leon Panetta just called SanFranNan a liar –
http://thehill.com/leading-the-news/cia-director-fires-back-at-pelosi-2009-05-15.html
ed, go and read the authorization for the war. Nothing linking Iraq and 9/11. We didn’t NEED to “gin up a reason.”
And Leon stood up for his people. Will wonders never cease?
Blue on blue… such a lovely color.
J.
We didn’t NEED to “gin up a reason.”
Well gosh, I guess all that torture was for nothing. Thanks for endorsing monsters. Asshole.
So right wing extremist “Jay Tea”, a torture advocate and war crimes apologist who works for the psychopath Norman Podhoretz, decides to defend torture and war crimes with an fictional story of “what if” that is repudiated by a growing body of factual evidence.
“Jay Tea” asserts that the CIA briefed Congress and “document the briefings six ways to Sunday”, an assertion that the CIA has already had to backtrack on.
One of the Dems that the CIA falsely asserted was briefed has already forced the CIA to withdraw the CIA’s speculative report on who was briefed.
The CIA DID NOT “document the briefings six ways to Sunday”, and instead made a list of wishful thinking and then left a footnote saying: ‘Congress will need to fact check this’, because the CIA DID NOT correctly document the briefings.
THE DEMOCRATIC LEADER WHO DOES METICULOUSLY DOCUMENT EVERYTHING HE DOES, BOB GRAHAM, SAID THE CIA GAVE FALSE INFORMATION ABOUT THE INTERROGATION “BRIEFINGS”.
In fact, several of the claims of “briefing” Democratic leader Bob Graham DIDN’T HAPPEN AT ALL.
And the ONE briefing that did take place included regular Congressional staff members who wouldn’t have been included in the meeting if it had been a “covert action” meeting.
ed, (I’m sorry, “ed,”) that was me rejecting the stupid notion.
Saddam DID have connections with Al Qaeda. That is not disputable.
Saddam DID NOT have any proven connections to 9/11. That is not disputable.
Note that I am not saying Saddam was NOT involved with 9/11. I don’t believe he was. I think it would have made absolutely no sense for Al Qaeda to share that particular intelligence with Saddam — it would have been a tremendous risk of exposure for no gain whatsoever. There was every reason for Al Qaeda to keep it from Saddam, and no reason for them to share it.
But you can’t prove a negative, so you can’t definitively say Saddam wasn’t involved. I would call it “infinitely improbable,” though.
Also, if you actually read the article, the Iraq in question was captured in Baghdad — which was AFTER the invasion, so it wouldn’t have done much good in justifying the invasion beforehand.
J.
Saddam DID have connections with Al Qaeda. That is not disputable.
True, but only for certain non-standard definitions of “connections.”
It doesn’t matter that Nancy Pelosi lied about the CIA to Congress. It doesn’t matter that she put crass political opportunism over everything else, not concerned with attempting to throw good people at the CIA under the bus.
Holy cats, Jay. Have you been reduced to parroting Mr. Gingrich’s inanities now?
You have evidence that Ms. Pelosi lied? Didn’t think so. Her story differs. Who is telling the truth? I don’t know and neither do you.
Crass political opportunism? What political “opportunity” are you imagining she is trying to exploit? The opportunity to answer unnamed critics leaking unverifiable stories to the press? How dare she?
And “throwing the good people at the CIA under the bus?” Gracious. Seems like not all that long ago that the CIA was “trying to undermine the Bush administration.” How quickly our villains are rehabilitated when they’re attacking big Dems.
“Newsy” must be incensed — he’s going whole hog. Scare quotes, irrelevant vitriol, boldface, italics, and links to his own psychotic web site.
Caution: before visiting any links to “havenworks,” put on your Peril-Sensitive Sunglasses. It really is that hideous.
And “Newsy,” take it up with CIA Director Leon Panetta. He’s saying Pelosi’s lying — with all the versions of her story she’s come up with so far.
J.
We didn’t NEED to “gin up a reason.”
We didn’t? Why did we invade, then?
Saddam DID have connections with Al Qaeda. That is not disputable.
If by “connection”, you mean “held an Al Qaeda operative in prison”, then yeah.
BTW, this appears to have been triggered by Obama’s release of the interrogation memos against CIA advice — and this has Rahm Emanuel’s fingerprints all over it.
J.
Duros, like I told ed, go read the actual resolution authorizing the invasion. Lots of reasons spelled out there — enough to convince the sitting Vice President and Secretary of State to put their names on it.
Oddly enough, there’s no mention of Bin Laden, 9/11, or Al Qaeda in there at all…
J.
I have the feeling the sitting Vice-President’s name was already on it.
Oddly enough, there’s no mention of Bin Laden, 9/11, or Al Qaeda in there at all…
Yes, that is odd indeed.
“Because Bush is EEEEEVIL and that’s ALL that matters.”
Since “Jay” is offering a fantasy stereotype of “EEEEEVIL”, I’ll note that according to George Lucas, Republican Cheney is the elder Sith Emperor Sidious while Bush is just junior Darth Vader.
As channeled by Maureen Dowd: Republican Bush, like fictional character Anakin Skywalker, is “a promising young man who is turned to the dark side by an older politician and becomes Darth Vader”
Some disagree, asserting that Republican Bush is Jar Jar Binks.
When Republican Bush didn’t grant blanket pardons for his Principals, it did kind of feel like that moment when Vader pushed the Emperor down the hole.
Your podracer mileage may vary.
Oddly enough, there’s no mention of Bin Laden, 9/11, or Al Qaeda in there at all…
Why, it’s almost as if we invaded the wrong country entirely. Very odd indeed.
OK, Duros, I didn’t want to do this, but HERE is what is listed as the reasons for the invasion of Iraq:
frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=107_cong_public_laws&docid=f:publ243.107
And I was mistaken: there were a few mentions of Al Qaeda and, in a roundabout way, 9/11:
Dang it, screwed up the blockquotes there…
J.
Norman Podhoretz‘s sock puppet “Jay Tea”:
“Saddam DID have connections with Al Qaeda.”
Yeah. He hated them.
Saddam was a right wing secular dictator who never planned on giving up his power.
Al Qaeda was a right wing theocratic cult trying to takeover any Muslim country they could.
They were natural enemies.
Saddam’s “connections” with Al Qaeda were the same “connections” that Republican President Bush had with the 19 hijackers before 9/11.
Unless “Jay Tea” knows something we don’t, and as he says, “you can’t prove a negative”, I don’t believe that Bush was “involved with 9/11″ and think it’s weird that “Jay Tea” would imply an accusation like that.
Still, there is growing evidence that Republican President Bush’s administration used torture-waterboarding to attempt to force false confessions of an Al Qaeda/Saddam link that never exited.
Who made the final decision on torture, Iraq, etc.? This one.
Oddly enough, there’s no mention of Bin Laden, 9/11, or Al Qaeda in there at all…
So why torture to gin up a link?
Bloggers on Pelosi distraction:
Atrios: “Republicans Still Rule Their World “
Josh Marshall: “Reporters Gettin’ Played”
Greg Sargent: “CIA: We’re Right About Torture Briefings, But Please Don’t Take Our Word For It”
Steve Benen on having disgraced Newt Gingrich babble about Nancy Pelosi.
David Neiwert: “The Nancy Pelosi uproar is an absurd distraction from Bush administration culpability”
Greg Sargent: “Pelosi’s Claims Getting Much More Media Scrutiny Than CIA’s Assertions”
Media Matters: “Networks ignored Panetta’s caveats about CIA summary of Pelosi briefing”
Media Matters: ABC News ignores the facts in order to prop up the Pelosi story
d-day: “They Lie For A Living “
Aw, Newsy! You’re SO cute when you start channeling Olbermann. How the hell do you keep a straight face when putting on that “stern outrage?”
And you’ve promoted me to a “sock puppet!” Ain’t you clever! Never mind that I’ve been saying the same thing for years before I heard about him, you’ve got your little tin drum and you’re gonna bang it ’til everyone gets an Excedrin headache.
The essential point that no one wants to address is that at pretty much every step, Bush consulted and brought aboard the leadership of both parties. It’s just the Democrats don’t want to admit that now that it’s politically inconvenient.
As I recall, Hillary Clinton’s excuse now is “I voted for Bush to bluff with Saddam, not to actually do what was authorized in the resolution.” What is Buden’s current excuse?
Finally, as to Lucas… the first four Star Wars movies were released in 1977, 1980, 1983, and 1999. Attack of the Clones and Revenge of the Sith came out in 2002 and 2005. Amazing he laid all that groundwork for the Sidious/Anakin relationship on the Bush/Cheney team that hadn’t yet materialized for most of the movies’ history…
J.
The Justice Department looks at it very carefully, and says yeah, they’re legal.
No they didn’t look at it “carefully”, because looking at the precedent, and how the U.S. prosecuted Japanese interrogators for, guess what, waterboarding, that the torture would be illegal.
I know I’m right on this because the last time I brought it up you ran with your tail between your legs.
No, Zython, what that Japanese did was CONTROLLED drowning. What the CIA did was SIMULATED drowning. Not the same at all.
Think of waterboarding as “reality-based” — it’s not really real, just a simulation. Kind of like the “reality-based community.”
Let’s see what Wikipedia has to say about the Japanese waterboarding:
DAMMIT, I oughta just give up on block quotes… Oliver, can we have the preview function back?
J.
No, Zython, what that Japanese did was CONTROLLED drowning. What the CIA did was SIMULATED drowning. Not the same at all.
Dude. What the fuck are you talking about? From the Bybee memo:
What the Japanese and Germans did:
It’s the EXACT same procedure. The only difference is that Bybee memo’s description is a brilliant example of Orwellian Newspeak in which the whole thing sounds completely harmless and innocuous, and yet able to break even the most hardened terrorist suspect in seconds.
Note: The second graph is from the Bybee memo, the first from Jay Tea’s wikipedia article.
J.G.Thayer: “DAMMIT, I oughta just give up on block quotes…”
You ought to give up… period.
The waterboarding being used by Americans is the same that was used by the Japanese. It is also important to note, that the Americans went above and beyond what they were supposed to do when it came to waterboarding. That’s part of the reason why nearly 100 detainees died in American custody, some of which were known to be innocent when they were killed.
I have a horrible feeling someone said, ‘Know what, Madame Speaker? We’re breaking the law, but this is a national security meeting and if you report it, you will go to jail. And because there’s no evidence to back you up, you will be the only one who would go to jail’
And I have a warm and fuzzy feeling that you’re a total wackjob. Only tin-foil nut-case would even float such a stupid idea.
This is the proof. You’re not well.
You have evidence that Ms. Pelosi lied? Didn’t think so. Her story differs. Who is telling the truth? I don’t know and neither do you.
Her story does not ‘differ.’ It’s changed more than Joan Rivers face. She lied Quaker.
L-I-E-D. Deal with it.
She acknowledged she was briefed about it then tried to say she wasn’t briefed, but heard about it from somebody who was briefed. She then attempted to accuse the CIA of lying about it to Congress.
No wait! That’s not what she says today. Today’s story is, she wasn’t talking about the CIA lying to Congress. The CIA are her heroes! She was talking about the EEEVIL Bush administration.
http://www.politico.com/blogs/glennthrush/0509/Panetta_to_CIA_employees_We_told_Pelosi_the_truth.html
Of course, it’s hard to see how could she could possibly confused the two:
Q: Madame Speaker, just to be clear, you are accusing the CIA of lying to you in September 2002?
A: Yes, of misleading the Congress of the United States. Misleading the Congress of the United States.
If you want to stand by the head-in-the-sand “We don’t know” angle be my guest. But at that point, you’d have to acknowledge that even if she wasn’t lying, her actions (or lack thereof) show gross negligence and incompetence (Cue from others, “WELL WHAT ABOUT BUSH??” – Stuff it losers) for somebody that sits third in line for the Presidency.
She was talking about the EEEVIL Bush administration.
You mean the administration that tortured people to get them to say that al-Queda was in cahoots with Saddam Hussein and justify sending U.S. Troops to invade Iraq? You are correct, they are evil. That’s the very definition of evil.
L-I-E-D. Deal with it.
And this is so much worse than torture that the real villain here is Nancy Pelosi. Awesome.
Oh, Strowbridge… whatever would I do without you?
The Japanese “waterboarding” involved partial drowning and beatings. There is not a shred of evidence that the CIA “waterboarding” involved either. In fact, there is considerable evidence to the contrary.
And fafaroo, the reason why Pelosi is in so much trouble. It’s because the battle cry of the left is being used against them. “IT’S TEH HYPOCRISY!!!!!”
Pelosi was briefed on precisely what the CIA was doing with its highest-value detainees, as part of Congressional OVERSIGHT. That means they go in to Congress, call them “sir” and “ma’am,” and spell out precisely what they are doing under penalty of perjury and contempt of Congress. At that point, the members of Congress can ask whatever questions they like, express their approval or disapproval, or even take action if they are sufficiently irate.
Pelosi simply wasn’t told about waterboarding. Or was told about it, but was told that it wasn’t being used. Or maybe she was told that it was being used, kinda sorta, but she didn’t feel comfortable exercising her Congressional right and duty to object and act to stop it. Or… I dunno, I’ve been at work and haven’t heard the latest version of her story. I think I last heard #3.
Pelosi is in trouble because in the “is waterboarding torture” argument, she’s firmly on the “yes” side. And now it comes out that she assented to its use — or, at least, didn’t object when she was told about it. And, to use another cliche’ from the left, “silence equals assent.”
And if that isn’t enough, she’s now failing to learn the lesson of Watergate: “it’s not the crime, it’s the coverup.” If she had simply started off with the truth, she wouldn’t have to be constantly revising and correcting and modifying what precisely she knew and when. And she wouldn’t have declared that she had been misled by the CIA — which is a gross violation of federal law.
Whoops, now she says it was the Bush administration that misled her, not the CIA. Sheesh…
J.
Think of waterboarding as “reality-based” — it’s not really real, just a simulation. Kind of like the “reality-based community.”
Hey, I’m not the one who advocates hurting people to deal with my insecurities. Then again, I’m not a conservative.
The Japanese “waterboarding” involved partial drowning and beatings. There is not a shred of evidence that the CIA “waterboarding” involved either. In fact, there is considerable evidence to the contrary.
You must have skipped over fafaroo’s recent post.
J.G.Thayer: “Oh, Strowbridge… whatever would I do without you?
The Japanese ‘waterboarding’ involved partial drowning and beatings. There is not a shred of evidence that the CIA ‘waterboarding’ involved either. In fact, there is considerable evidence to the contrary.”
As Farfaroo points out, you are wrong. But then again, you are wrong about so many things.
That’s why the GOP only has 40 senators at the moment.
Do you know when the last time the Democrats had that few Senators?
Maybe if the GOP base wasn’t made up of idiots like you, they wouldn’t be in this position.
Maybe if the GOP was more concerned about the rule of law and less concerned about using semantic to cover for the murder of nearly 100 people, including some that were known to be innocent, maybe then the GOP wouldn’t be so far in the wilderness.
But maybe it’s because the GOP wasn’t conservative enough?
Maybe we are scared of teabaggers and Sarah Palin?
I guess we’ll find out in 2010. … Unless the GOP can come up with another excuse. You guys do have a year to do it.
Careful, Strowbridge, you’re straying off script. The White House won’t be pleased that you’re mixing up the message.
RUSH LIMBAUGH is the “leader of the Republican Party.”
I’m the “sock puppet of a psychopathic neocon.”
Don’t confuse us. Especially since I’m not a registered Republican.
I’m just following the time-honored tactic of assailing the dominant party — kind of like the journalist’s old credo of “comfort the afflicted and afflict the comfortable.”
It’s rather telling that you’ll draw your comfort from poll numbers and not principles or ideals. It’s almost as if you don’t care about the Speaker of the House lying her ass off to save said ass, because she has the magic “(D)” after her name. That forgives a multitude of sins, apparently.
This was the woman who rode to power promising to preside over “the most ethical Congress ever.” And what do we have? Charles Schumer and his tax problems. Barney Frank covering up for Fannie and Freddie. Jane Harman getting entangled in NSA wiretaps. Murtha and his profiteering. Jesse Jackson Jr. considering buying a Senate seat. And since it took the voters to remove William Jefferson before she did a damned thing about him, let’s toss him on her list, too.
So, what has Madame Speaker done about corruption? Well, she’s pushed for a new firewall protecting House members from Justice Department investigations, and she’s overseen the blocking of several House hearings on several instances of Murtha’s corruption.
Of course, Strowbridge, that’s all irrelevant. After all, elections cure everything. Who cares about how corrupt the Democrats are as long as they keep winning elections?
J.
Yes, Strowbridge, I did miss it. It looked too much like my own comment that it fooled me. Let me reprint fafaroo’s paragraphs, with the bolding slightly shifted:
The Japanese combined the water-pouring with forced aspiration of water and beatings. The CIA did not.
As I said before: the Japanese engaged in partial drowning and beatings. The CIA simulated the senaation of drowning without actually causing it.
By your standard, every kid that ever whacked off to Jessica Alba is a rapist.
J.
J.G.Thayer: “The Japanese combined the water-pouring with forced aspiration of water and beatings. The CIA did not.”
And you know this because… you were there?
“As I said before: the Japanese engaged in partial drowning and beatings. The CIA simulated the senaation of drowning without actually causing it.”
Two points…
1.) Waterboarding is not simulated drowning. It is drowning. It’s only a little bit of water, which means you recover much more quickly when it stops, but it is drowning. If continued, you will die because water got into your lungs causing asphyxiation. That is the dictionary definition of drowning.
2.) We already know the torture sessions went above and beyond what was described in Farfaroo’s post. We also already know that close to 100 people died. Or were those deaths merely simulations?
J.G.Thayer: “Careful, Strowbridge, you’re straying off script. The White House won’t be pleased that you’re mixing up the message.
RUSH LIMBAUGH is the ‘leader of the Republican Party.’
I’m the ‘sock puppet of a psychopathic neocon.’
Don’t confuse us. Especially since I’m not a registered Republican.”
Are you drunk? Or are you naturally this stupid? And that’s a serious question. I’m interested in what thought processes went into that part of your post. I’m sure it will be good for a laugh.
“I’m just following the time-honored tactic of assailing the dominant party — kind of like the journalist’s old credo of ‘comfort the afflicted and afflict the comfortable.’”
And you just decided to do this now after eight years of Republican rule?
Nope, it is a lot more likely that you are a fucking liar. You are a Republican, no matter what your registration says.
“It’s rather telling that you’ll draw your comfort from poll numbers and not principles or ideals.”
Poll numbers? When did I mention poll numbers?
Oh that’s right. I didn’t.
I merely mention that you are a loser. Your party is in the minority to a degree that the Democrats haven’t known in 80 years.
“It’s almost as if you don’t care about the Speaker of the House lying her ass off to save said ass, because she has the magic “(D)” after her name. That forgives a multitude of sins, apparently.”
Two points…
1.) Projection.
2.) I’m not stupid enough to fall for your… “LOOK OVER THERE!” bullshit.
Someone needs to tell Strowbridge that elections are also called “polls.” Hence “polling places” and the like. I said that he seems to think that election results absolve all. He responds by reaffirming that point — but calling me names in the process.
And I stand by the assertion that being a Democrat absolves people of all kinds of responsibility. I agree with Nancy Pelosi’s position of 2002-2003. She doesn’t. Miss California stated the precise same position on gay marriage as that put forth by Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton — but unlike them, she actually believes what she’s saying, while the Obama and Clinton supporters desperately convince themselves that they’re lying.
Pelosi is most likely not corrupt, personally. But she’s more than willing to cover up for her fellow Democrats who are astonishingly, disgustingly corrupt. She’s stupid, she’s inept, and she’s lying her ass off to protect herself politically.
On second thought, she should probably remain Speaker. She certainly emblemizes the contemporary Democratic party.
J.
J.G.Thayer: “Someone needs to tell Strowbridge…”
Someone needs to tell J.G.Thayer to answer a direct fucking question, or shut the fuck up.
Jesus. Dealing with this ‘tard is tiresome. No wonder his party is being voted out of office more and more.
How does it feel to be such a loser, Mr. Thayer?
How does it feel to have your principles rejected so thoroughly?
How does it feel to know your opinion doesn’t matter?
While you are ‘assailing the dominant party’, that party is working to make sure America recovers from what your party did to the country over the last eight years. And that should ensure it remains dominant for many years to come.
And fafaroo, the reason why Pelosi is in so much trouble. It’s because the battle cry of the left is being used against them. “IT’S TEH HYPOCRISY!!!!!”
Which is so much worse than “TEH TORTURE!!!!!”
And for fucksakes, Jay Tea, the CIA used the exact same waterboarding method as the Japanese and Germans.
They tied people to a board. Put a cloth over their faces. And poured water over the cloth.
This method produces the “forced aspiration of water” without beatings, you moron. If it didn’t, it wouldn’t produce the sensation of drowning, it would only produce the sensation of having a wet cloth on your face.
Which is not exactly the kind of effect that produces such fear and panic in people that they start confessing to shit.
You’re a moron.
By your standard, every kid that ever whacked off to Jessica Alba is a rapist.
Jay Tea, please. Just go away.
And for fucksakes, Jay Tea, the CIA used the exact same waterboarding method as the Japanese and Germans.
No, they didn’t. It was performed differently so STFU about that nonsense already.
It’s interesting. Navy Seals are subjected to waterboarding as part of their training. To the leftist dolts, we’re ‘torturing’ our own in the military.
No, they didn’t. It was performed differently so STFU about that nonsense already. It’s interesting. Navy Seals are subjected to waterboarding as part of their training. To the leftist dolts, we’re ‘torturing’ our own in the military.
Three sentences and so much stupid.
You tell me exactly what the differences are between how the way we waterboard is so much nicer and kinder than the way all the evil people waterboard.
All Jay Tea can come up with is that when we have someone tied to an inclined board with a water soaked cloth over their face so they can’t breathe and feel like they’re drowning, we don’t also beat them.
Jay, it ain’t the beating that makes waterboarding torture.
And jesus fucking christ, Jay, how many times does this need to be explained to you idiots? We train our military to resist torture by exposing them to torture but it ain’t really the same thing because:
1. Navy Seals voluntarily sign up for that training.
2. They know that, no matter what it feels like, the person applying the technique is not going to let them die.
3. At any point a soldier doesn’t want to experience torture, they can quit and leave.
None of those factors exist in the real world of torture. Indeed, training someone to resist torture is actually what Jay Tea calls “not really real, just a simulation.”
What we did to detainees was real. Not a simulation.
And to suggest that the way waterboarded people did not involve partial drowning is ridiculous. That’s what waterboarding is. It is not, simply, as is suggested in the insane language of the Bybee memo in which “air flow is slightly restricted for 20 to 40 seconds due to the presence of the cloth.”
So all you have to do to resist waterboarding is learn how to hold your breath for 40 seconds? Really? I don’t fucking think so. You have to learn how to resist the experience of fucking drowning for 40 seconds. Big difference there.
No, they didn’t. It was performed differently so STFU about that nonsense already.
And just in case Jay and Jay Tea think waterboarding can be done such that it doesn’t involve water entering the breathing passages, I encourage you both to lie down with a water saturated cloth over your faces and take a couple deep breaths.
Let us know who that works out for you.
First, if Pelosi and any other Democratic leader is complicit with Republican Bush and his Principals torture war crimes than they can all share adjoining cells.
Second, Pelosi is fine with a truth commission investigating allegations of torture war crimes which would mean that everything would (should) come out, all the memos, all the photographs, all the Principals discussions, all of the briefings, everything.
Third, “Jay Tea’s” claims that “Bush consulted and brought aboard the leadership of both parties”, is dubious at best and more likely flatly false, but the only way to know for sure would be to have a completely transparent and vigorous investigation that shined a bright light on what Republican Cheney explicitly stated was the Republican’s using the “Dark Side”.
Fourth, at most Republican President Bush may have informed a handful of Democratic leaders of his torture program. It may be as few as four Dems that were “briefed”.
This last point is the most contentious.
There are significant disputes about whether the Dems were actually informed.
Democratic leader Bob Graham has already shown that the CIA made false assertions as to whether the “briefings” the CIA claimed even took place. Of the four “briefings” the CIA claimed to make to Graham, three of them didn’t happen and one of them didn’t include any secrets.
There is evidence that the CIA has been repeatedly wrong about what they asserted. Keep in mind, this was the CIA being run by Republican Bush’s “Slam Dunk” Tenet who asserted that there were WMD in Iraq (there weren’t, the assertion was false).
And Republicans spent eight years burrowing into positions in the government, so I’d rather a fully transparent investigation rather than blindly trusting Republican bureaucrats trying to hurt Dems.
You guys don’t understand. Silly liberals.
Unless the “torture” was exactly as horrific as the techniques used by Nazis, Stalinist Russia, the Viet Cong, or Torquefuckingmada, it’s not “torture” at all.
Pussies.
No, they didn’t. It was performed differently so STFU about that nonsense already.
Shorter Jay: BECAUSE SHUT UP!
“And for fucksakes, Jay Tea, the CIA used the exact same waterboarding method as the Japanese and Germans.”
Jay Caruso: “No, they didn’t. It was performed differently so STFU about that nonsense already.”
Yes it is. It is the same. Saying it isn’t doesn’t change reality.
“It’s interesting. Navy Seals are subjected to waterboarding as part of their training. To the leftist dolts, we’re ‘torturing’ our own in the military.”
Yes. Yes the United States tortures it’s soldiers as part of a training program to help them resist torture.
How else could you help someone resist torture except by subjecting it to them?
Seriously. Answer that fucking question, or fuck off and die.
“Jay” “It’s interesting. Navy Seals are subjected to waterboarding as part of their training. To the leftist dolts, we’re ‘torturing’ our own in the military.”
The Navy Seals, despite being briefly tortured, have every confidence that the procedure is done by fellow Navy Seals that they can trust.
The specific reason that Navy Seals go through that very brief torture, done by their own fellow soldiers trying to train them to be better soldiers, is to prepare those Navy Seals for one of the worst torture techniques in the arsenal of torture techniques.
Torture-waterboarding has been used by the Inquisition, Nazi Germany’s Gestapo, Imperial Japan, and the murderous Khmer Rouge regime under genocidal Pol Pot.
Republicans and right wingers are advocating and justifying torture that is no different from those sadistic regimes.
The specific reason that Navy Seals go through that very brief torture, done by their own fellow soldiers trying to train them to be better soldiers, is to prepare those Navy Seals for one of the worst torture techniques in the arsenal of torture techniques.
My, you’re a delicate little hothouse flower, aren’t you, “Newsy?”
Waterboarding is “one of the worst torture techniques in the arsenal of torture techniques?”
I know a professional dominatrix who would laugh her ass of at that.
Even five seconds of casual research into REAL torture would probably send you into hysterics if you think waterboarding — whether the type practiced by the regimes you cited or the carefully-controlled simulation employed by the CIA — is anywhere near the worst.
Read up on the Inquisition for some truly creative tortures. The subsection on “maiming” alone shows what a complete and utter idiot you are.
J.
Jay Tea are you really comparing concentual BDSM “play time” with torture?
Please tell me I read that wrong.
- whether the type practiced by the regimes you cited or the carefully-controlled simulation employed by the CIA —
Jay Tea, when you tie someone to an inclined board, put a soaking wet cloth over their face and hold it there until they are forced to breath in water, you are not simulating waterboarding.
You are waterboarding.
And waterboarding is torture.
That’s it.
I know a professional dominatrix who would laugh her ass of at that.
Why does that not surprise me?
Grumpy, I’m not making the comparison, but my friend is. And considering my own distaste for the subject, I’m not going to argue with her — she will argue back, and I don’t wanna hear about that.
Fafaroo, it’s obvious that you and I disagree about whether or not the CIA’s technique qualifies as “torture.” But come on — you can’t let “Newsy’s” assertion that it’s among the WORST of tortures go unchallenged, can you? I mean, show a smidgen of sense here…
J.
Zython, we were friends before she discovered her vocation. And she occasionally tells me a little about it just to keep me uncomfortable. She finds that entertaining.
J.
Fafaroo, it’s obvious that you and I disagree about whether or not the CIA’s technique qualifies as “torture.”
And yet the facts are not on your side, are they?
You consider what the Japanese and Germans did, torture. We did the same thing. The exact same procedure described in the wikipedia article you linked to is the procedure described in the Bybee memo, almost word for word. There’s no difference, whatsoever.
But come on — you can’t let “Newsy’s” assertion that it’s among the WORST of tortures go unchallenged, can you? I mean, show a smidgen of sense here…
So now you’re arguing that torture is okay as long as it’s not, like, really bad torture? That’s awesome.
Grumpy, I’m not making the comparison, but my friend is.
Either you’re totally full of shit or your friend is a really fucked up “professional dominatrix.”
Ask her if she would do anything she normally does to one of her customers if it was against their will. Ask her if she uses safe words. Ask her if she would take money to perform her techniques on someone against their will.
All of these things are part of why there is no fucking comparison between torture and BDSM.
Fafaroo, the reference to my friend was hyperbole. A bit of dismissal — not intended seriously — to challenge “Newsy’s” statement, uttered — I presume — with the utmost of seriousness:
GOD DAMMIT, I screwed up the block quotes again. Only the first paragraph is Newsy’s.
J.
Fafaroo, the reference to my friend was hyperbole.
Right. Which is why you defended the comment, on its face, twice.
I’m going to go with you’re “totally full of shit” on this one, too, Jay Tea.
As to NRs comments, Jay Tea, I really don’t care if you think electrocuting someone is worse than waterboarding them. They’re both torture.
It’s also worth noting that now you’ve expanding your moral relativity to include what “the Islamic world calls “’justice.’”
So now it’s okay for us to torture people because in Iran they stone adulterers?
Is that really your position or is it just more “hyperbole”?
So, fafaroo, you’d consider the Islamist punishments I described as “OK” because… well, it’s done after a trial? It’s their culture?
And your arguments are based on a flawed presumption — that I consider the CIA’s technique as “torture.” I don’t consider 20-40 seconds of stimulating a drowning sensation “torture” — in fact, I consider it a misuse of the term and a dilution of a very powerful definition.
But I guess you and Newsy are right. I’d much rather have my fingernails pulled out and my testicles crushed than feel like I’m drowning for less than a minute. Good lord, that is just TOO MUCH.
J.
On the other hand, Pam had a line on The Office a few weeks back that I think is apt. Paraphrasing: “If an 8-year-old boy crashes a car into the side of a building, do you blame him? Or do you blame the 30-year-old woman who gave him the keys and said, go for it, kid?”
Pelosi, if possible, sickens me more than Cheney (and just slightly less than Lieberman). Cheney doesn’t pretend to be anything other than what he is.
So, fafaroo, you’d consider the Islamist punishments I described as “OK” because… well, it’s done after a trial? It’s their culture?
No, Jay Tea. It’s all equally horrific to me.
You, however, are suggesting that when we commit acts of torture it’s “OK” because 1) it’s not as bad as what other countries do and 2) it’s not as bad because we’re the ones doing it. In other words, it’s our culture.
I am not the one looking at the same exact descriptions of waterboarding and suggesting that one is tantamount to torture and that the other is not. You’re one playing that semantic game.
When you write, “I don’t consider 20-40 seconds of stimulating a drowning sensation “torture,”” you’re the one diminishing and distorting what torture is.
Forcing someone to breath in water for 20-40 seconds is torture, once is torture. Doing it repeatedly until the surrender information to you, is torture.
J.G.Thayer: “No, Zython, what that Japanese did was CONTROLLED drowning. What the CIA did was SIMULATED drowning. Not the same at all.”
It’s is not simulated drowning, it is drowning. People are forced to breath in water until they start to asphyxiate. This is the textbook definition of drowning. It’s the same fucking thing, just using different words to describe it.
And it is torture.
And yes, Navy Seals are waterboarded in order to train them to resist torture. This isn’t evidence that waterboarding isn’t torture. This is evidence that waterboarding IS FUCKING TORTURE
It might not be the worst thing out there, but it is probably the worst thing you can do to someone that won’t leave any permanent marks. … Assuming you ignore all the people who died because of it.
J.G.Thayer: “No, Zython, what that Japanese did was CONTROLLED drowning. What the CIA did was SIMULATED drowning. Not the same at all.”
It’s is not simulated drowning, it is drowning. People are forced to breath in water until they start to asphyxiate. This is the textbook definition of drowning. It’s the same fucking thing, just using different words to describe it.
And it is torture.
And no, this is not a double-post. I writing this again in the hopes that you will read it and actually understand it.
When you waterboard someone, you are drowning them. You are doing it under a controlled circumstance so that, theoretically, you won’t kill them, because when you are torturing someone, you don’t want them to die.
It is torture under every reasonable definition of the word.
Jay (Tea), if waterboarding is all hunky-dory, then why don’t we do it to our own prisoners?
In before Jay (Tea) advocates this, completely missing the point.
I’d much rather have my fingernails pulled out and my testicles crushed than feel like I’m drowning for less than a minute.
And I’d much rather my country not engage in any form of torture. Period.
Sort of like it doesn’t matter to me if lethal injection is considered more humane than electrocution.
I’m opposed to the death penalty itself, not the method by which its applied.
SO let me get this straight?
It is a matter of degrees?
Like saying killing someone by blowing them up is wrong.
Killing someone by slitting their wrists is fine with you?
Con logic boggles the mind.
It’s wrong, no matter who dose it no matter how long it is done.
And by any measure used by anyone thinking person it is against the law.
Then cite the law, Grumpy. The existing law has very, very high standards to qualify as “torture.” Legal experts said that the CIA’s technique did not meet the legal standard as defined by the US legal code.
Of course, for the horrific “crime” of giving legal advice, those lawyers are now looking at being disbarred and, possibly, deported for trial in Spain…
I’ll repeat what I said before: this means that the odds of a Justice Department official cooperating with a request for counsel from the CIA are down about zero right now. or, at least, any meaningful advice — the lawyers will toss out everything and say whatever they can to cover their asses, and say “no” to everything to avoid being punished by future administrations.
J.
And once again I say what is right in NOT a matter of degrees.
You have the right to repeat the illogical ruse as many times as you wish.
But wrong is wrong.
Doing it a little bit is wrong. Doing it a lot is wrong. Doing wrong by a Lib is wrong. Doing wrong by a con is wrong.
The fact that you are either unable or unwilling to admit that speaks volumes to me.
Peace Be with you.
And as far as those “persons” that gave a laughable excuse for it.
Disbarment is far too easy.
As you pointed out the “law” had no problem with slavery so by your own argument you have no problem with that wrong at all.
Or am I misunderstanding your “logic”?
Abortion is lawful as well so let me guess being a “law and order” kind of con your Pro-Choice right?
So where do you stand? Is there right and wrong?
Defend if one way or the other your wrong.
Grumpy, you’re sounding like the liberal stereotype view of conservatives. Talking in absolutes, right and wrong, good and evil.
No nuances. No room for compromise. No gray areas.
Sometimes life is about unpleasant choices. Not about doing the absolute good vs. the absolute evil, but choosing between two things that are neither very good, and finding the least bad path.
Three — THREE — Al Qaeda operatives were interrogated by the CIA using their most extreme measures. And even those methods were vetted by lawyers expert in interpreting the laws.
It was not done willy-nilly. It was not done indiscriminately. It was not done cheerfully. It was not done casually. It was not done carelessly.
The CIA covered themselves six ways to Sunday. They consulted with the Justice Department, the Executive branch, and briefed the Congressional leadership. At each step, they could have been told to knock it off. They wanted to be certain that there would be no one coming after them years later to punish them for what they did — and that’s happening anyway.
We went through this in the 1970′s. The results today will be the same as they were then: it’ll be a cold day in hell before the CIA (or anyone the CIA asks for advice) will ever take a single chance. They will play it safe — it’s always safer to say “no” than to say “yes.”
And we’ll suffer for it. Because the CIA played by the rules, and got burned anyway.
J.
Jay Tea was that an attempt at an insult?
If so be a man ans speak plain.
As to the rest of what you said I saw no attempt to defend your previous position.
Defend it please.
As to your defense of the inhuman acts you are once again falling on an argument of degrees only “THREE” people.
I will say it again.
Wrong is wrong no matter how many times it is done or who dose it.
As to your request for “proof’ that it is against the law look up the Geneva Conventions, U.S. law et. al.
Grumpy, no, that wasnt’ intended as an insult. I’m not quite as blunt as some of the regulars here, but when I’m intending to be insulting, I like to think it’s pretty clear. It was intended as a mild rebuke, but certainly not as an insult.
My position on the CIA’s technique of waterboarding is that it is a very unpleasant experience, should only be used rarely and as a last resort in the most extreme of cases. And I don’t think that it meets the US legal definition of “torture.” That law sets a very high standard — as it should — and I don’t believe it reaches that. Nonetheless, it should not be used except in the most extreme circumstances.
In the case of the three men waterboarded, I am satisfied that the law was followed and the need was great.
Let’s see if I can get the block quoting correct for once:
Source: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/18/usc_sec_18_00002340—-000-.html
It should also be noted that these interrogations were not done with the intent of an eventual criminal trial, so the legal admissibility is moot. They were being interrogated for information vital to the national security of the nation, so things like Miranda and Fifth Amendment protections don’t apply.
I don’t think that anyone should face criminal prosecution over those interrogations. But if there is, then it should start not with the interrogators or the Justice Department lawyers, but with those who hold the most responsibility — the Bush administration officials who signed off on it and the Congressional leadership that was briefed on it and said nothing.
J.
Hot diggety, I got the blockquoting right! Drinks on me!
J.
“torture” means an act committed by a person acting under the color of law specifically intended to inflict severe physical or mental pain or suffering
“severe mental pain or suffering” means … (C) the threat of imminent death; or
Many accounts I’ve seen describing waterboarding say that it is actual drowning in that water enters the breathing passages and the victim cannot breathe. Even those accounts which only describe it as “simulated” drowning says it’s purpose is to at least make the person feel like they are drowning so that the fear for their life.
In other words, it is an act “specifically intended” to cause the person “mental suffering” by convincing them that they are drowning and facing “imminent death”.
How does that not meet the definition of torture?
And I don’t think that it meets the US legal definition of “torture.”
Of course, because you believe that when we torture people it’s okay.
In the Bybee memo, the effect of waterboarding is described in the following way:
First, note the euphemistic wording in the first two bolded sections.
Air flow is not constricted because of the cloth. Air flow is constricted because the cloth is soaked with water which blocks air from getting through. When the person tries to breath wiht a water soaked cloth over their face, the natural suction action will draw water into their breathing passages. If they hold their breath, water still enters their nasal passages as they are held at an incline.
The whole point of the technique is to force water in the breathing passages of the person tied down. That’s it.
Then what about those three to four unimpeded breathes between water applications are not going to be clean, full breathes as there will be water in the air passages from the previous 40 seconds. So what you’re talking about is not “unimpeded breathes” but the spasmodic, gasping reaction to having water forced down one’s breathing passages.
Then repeat.
The approved technique described in the Bybee could be applied for up to 20 minutes.
The language of the Bybee memo is the language of functionaries looking for ways to authorize the rephrensible.
Simple as that.
Then cite the law, Grumpy. The existing law has very, very high standards to qualify as “torture.” Legal experts said that the CIA’s technique did not meet the legal standard as defined by the US legal code.
Who are these legal “experts”? And what are their qualifications? If I’ve learned anything from watching the news, its that the term “expert” has no meaning, as there is no qualification process to claim one self as such.
I’ll repeat what I said before: this means that the odds of a Justice Department official cooperating with a request for counsel from the CIA are down about zero right now. or, at least, any meaningful advice — the lawyers will toss out everything and say whatever they can to cover their asses, and say “no” to everything to avoid being punished by future administrations.
Or, more likely, it will discourage them from giving bad advice. You’re subsidizing failure, in the government. How socialist of you.
Grumpy, you’re sounding like the liberal stereotype view of conservatives. Talking in absolutes, right and wrong, good and evil.
The whole “you’re with us or against us” rhetoric from the past 8 years doesn’t exactly help your case.
But if there is, then it should start not with the interrogators or the Justice Department lawyers, but with those who hold the most responsibility — the Bush administration officials who signed off on it and the Congressional leadership that was briefed on it and said nothing.
I’m willing to accept this.
The “Law” you posted was passed in 2007. When the Bush “administration”. was attempting to justify what it had ALREADY DONE. (as with those “Memos”).
—————————————————————–
Torture is illegal under United States and international law. It is illegal under the U.S. Constitution, domestic law and international treaties to which the United States is a party.
This includes:
1. The United Nations Convention Against Torture (UNCAT), Articles 1, 2, 3 and 16 (ratified in October 1994). Article 2(2) of the Convention states that:
“No exceptional circumstances whatsoever, whether a state of war or a threat of war, internal political instability or any other public emergency, may be invoked as a justification of torture.”
2. The Geneva Conventions, Article 3, (ratified in August 1955). Hamdan v. Rumsfeld, 548 U.S. 557 (2006), held that the Geneva Conventions are applicable to accused members of al-Qaeda. Thus, due process protections apply to all detainees in U.S. custody, including those in military prisons.
3. The Eighth Amendment against “cruel and unusual punishment.”
4. The United States Criminal Code, Title 18, Prohibitions Against Torture (18 USC 2340A) and War Crimes (18 USC 2441).
—————————————————————-
As you should note those “interrogations” were done to get a “confession” about an AQ Iraqi link. NOT NATIONAL security. Torture has only one goal get someone to say what it is you want them to say not tell the truth.
Anyone involved needs to be tried, if convicted they need to face the music. Anyone.
I asked if it was an insult for clarification.
I was not sure so I asked.
You seem to be wanting to use excuses to defend the indefensible that is your right to try.
I see you decided not to attempt to defend other indefensible comments visa vi your present logic. Again is your right.
Thank you for the interaction.
Good day.
… and Jay Tea vanishes from the thread.