CIA 'Torture'

[Maggie]

Pelosi claims she was 'powerless'

Although I have serious thoughts on this particular subject, I have to admit that the first thing I did last night when I arrived home was fire up my computer and watch Madam Speaker’s weekly presser in its entirety.

I also have to admit that I took great pleasure in watching Miss Pelosi squirm, fumble, stammer, etc. in front of a suddenly relatively hostile press (not something I would normally do but the Speaker is an exception). It was like watching a child getting caught with her hand in the cookie jar only far more pathetic. If you have not taken the time you really should it is delicious television – the transcript alone does not do Miss Pelosi justice.

This article, from the Washington Post, provides a fair summary:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/05/14/AR2009051403991.html?nav=rss_opinion/columns

Nancy Pelosi is a woman of many talents. Yesterday, she performed the delicate art of backtracking while walking sideways.

Indeed; however, the Speaker had better be wary of the adjacent deep, deep hole she inexplicably continues to dig, for herself. There is, in fact, blood in the water.

[kcshocker11]

Yes and that blood is the memo that links the VP's office and the need to tie a link between Al Qaida and Iraq by the use of torture.

http://www.mcclatchydc.com/staff/jon...ory/68315.html 8)

[Maggie]

Yes and that blood is the memo that links the VP's office and the need to tie a link between Al Qaida and Iraq by the use of torture.

http://www.mcclatchydc.com/staff/jon...ory/68315.html 8)

I was writing about Pelosi and you bring up Cheney – which is, sadly, typical.

Correct me if I am wrong but the article you linked seems related to this one in which it is alleged by Lawrence Wilkerson, chief of staff for then Secretary of State Colin Powell that Cheney ordered EITs in order to prove a link between al-Qaeda and Iraq. Notably, according to Mr. Wilkerson:

"I couldn't walk into a courtroom and prove this to anybody, but I'm pretty sure it's fairly accurate," he told CNN.

http://edition.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/05/14/iraq.torture/

I am not sure that that means but needless to say – we will see where this goes. However, I will write this as I have stated in the past: If Cheney, or anyone else for that matter, directed that EITs be used to elicit a false confession, or a confession of any kind, from a prisoner as opposed to using EITs to obtain actionable intelligence to check against other intelligence I would have an issue with the former as I don’t believe it to be particularly useful.

Pelosi is an entirely different matter. Will she survive politically? Who knows but I’m sorry it was fun to watch her squirm.

[Maggie]

Back on topic here are a couple more articles related to this issue:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124243020964825531.html

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/05/15/AR2009051502916.html

[kcshocker11]

The topic is CIA torture ! Period. If Pelosi knew, it might hurt her politically but she did nothing that can be prosecuted. The drafters of those memos are what is important because they authorized methods that are against the law. Misdirection to Pelosi is a nice political trick but only clouds the issue of the orginators. Either you care about this issue or you wish to play politiical games the choice is yours. This isnt a Dem or Rep issue its a matter of law and the loss of American ideals and principles.

PBHO release those photos and appoint a special prosecutor.

[Maggie]

The topic is CIA torture ! Period. If Pelosi knew, it might hurt her politically but she did nothing that can be prosecuted. The drafters of those memos are what is important because they authorized methods that are against the law. Misdirection to Pelosi is a nice political trick but only clouds the issue of the orginators. Either you care about this issue or you wish to play politiical games the choice is yours. This isnt a Dem or Rep issue its a matter of law and the loss of American ideals and principles.

PBHO release those photos and appoint a special prosecutor.

I’m not really sure what point you are trying to make because I have never seriously discussed this issue in terms of party politics. Also, I was not, and have not been engaged in any serious effort to distract from the topic of this thread. Pelosi is a distraction from the larger issue but it is a fun one. So since you brought it up let’s talk for a second about your assertion that:

If Pelosi knew, it might hurt her politically but she did nothing that can be prosecuted.

Really? Let’s assume, for the sake of argument, that waterboarding is in fact an illegal act. Wouldn’t our Dear Speaker be guilty, by her own admission, of conspiracy to torture? For your edification, to establish a torture conspiracy, a prosecutor does not even have to prove an overt act in furtherance of the conspiracy. He or she would just need to show that two or more people agreed to commit the prohibited act. In other words, it makes no difference whether Pelosi knew the CIA was actively using waterboarding or simply knew that the CIA was planning on using waterboarding. No matter what you believe about Pelosi she was, at the very least, aware of a conspiracy to commit torture (according to her anyway), and did nothing about it, which is just as relevant under the law as the act itself.

Notably, American law regards conspiracy to commit torture as something exactly as serious, punished exactly as severely, as actual torture (unless the action rises to the level of the death penalty which is not an issue here). Please review Section 2340A(c) linked here for your easy reference:

http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/18/usc_sec_18_00002340---A000-.html

Now I think that an argument can be made that waterboarding, as conducted by the CIA, is not “torture” as defined by the statute (putting aside the relevant moral arguments I have discussed in detail). However, Pelosi and you apparently think it is torture. So I ask the following: How can you possibly argue that Pelosi could not be prosecuted for conspiracy to commit torture?

Finally, this statement of yours is particularly troubling:

The drafters of those memos are what is important because they authorized methods that are against the law.

I can speak personally to this: The fact that you would like to prosecute, or at the very least subject to disbarment, attorneys who offered their legal opinion is chilling. If this is how the government is going to operate, I would not be caught dead working for it in any capacity. And I wish you good luck finding any competent attorney who thinks otherwise. Rest assured those attorneys that remain won’t be interested in offering independent opinions: (1) They will either be politically motivated; or (2) serve no useful purpose because they will take no stance on any issue at all.

[WuDrWu]

The topic is CIA torture ! Period. If Pelosi knew, it might hurt her politically but she did nothing that can be prosecuted. The drafters of those memos are what is important because they authorized methods that are against the law. Misdirection to Pelosi is a nice political trick but only clouds the issue of the orginators. Either you care about this issue or you wish to play politiical games the choice is yours. This isnt a Dem or Rep issue its a matter of law and the loss of American ideals and principles.

PBHO release those photos and appoint a special prosecutor.

I cannot count how many times you are wrong here, it is too numerous.

The loss of American "ideals and principles" ......read the Constitution, that's all that matters and frankly, most of your stances aren't even close to that.

You get further and further away from the truth every day. A couple of weeks ago you were calling for Pelosi's head if she were involved...now you say no....which is it? Everything you do and say is politically motivated. You are no better than Nancy. 11=Nancy. Congrats, thanks for your insight Nancy.

I hope you stay in office. You'll make an outstanding target for quite some time.

[kcshocker11]

Personally I dont want any attorney who believes this was appropriate behavior working for the Govt. If Pelosi is guilty fine prosecute her, but from Bob Graham,s notes I think it will be hard to show the CIA was very accurate when they were wrong 3 out of 4 times, not much of a case.

Chilling, how about a group of people who believe a legal opinion is more important than human rights. Rem the Nazis did what they did and under their laws it was legal.

Finally Doc I still say appoint a special prosecutor and let the chips fall, always have!

As far as the Constitution very little of American day to day life is directly addressed by it! The constant vague use of the Constitution and the instance that your opinions are the true interpretation are ridiculous. 8)

Sorry Doc just cant agree with you here! 8)

[Maggie]

Personally I dont want any attorney who believes this was appropriate behavior working for the Govt. If Pelosi is guilty fine prosecute her, but from Bob Graham,s notes I think it will be hard to show the CIA was very accurate when they were wrong 3 out of 4 times, not much of a case.

Chilling, how about a group of people who believe a legal opinion is more important than human rights. Rem the Nazis did what they did and under their laws it was legal.

Finally Doc I still say appoint a special prosecutor and let the chips fall, always have!

As far as the Constitution very little of American day to day life is directly addressed by it! The constant vague use of the Constitution and the instance that your opinions are the true interpretation are ridiculous. 8)

Sorry Doc just cant agree with you here! 8)

I have been more than willing to discuss this issue, in a serious manner, because I have not made up my mind about what was or is the right thing to do. And because I am willing to recognize that a person can make a perfectly reasonable argument that ANY pain or discomfort inflicted on a prisoner is inherently evil and should not be done – and I even posted a link makes this very argument - quite well in my judgment.

By the way, thanks for insinuating that I am Nazi – very, very classy.

Your previous rants notwithstanding I find it disappointing that you don’t give this issue the attention and consideration it deserves. So off we go on another tangent. :roll:

Lets discuss your apparent reliance on the former Senator from Florida, Mr. Graham, who in an interview with the Huffington Post stated that, based on his renowned spiral notebooks, the CIA gave him wrong dates of three briefings he attended. Apparently, Graham was briefed only on September 27, 2002. The link is here for those of interested in reading Mr. Graham’s account:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/05/14/graham-cia-gave-me-false_n_203683.html

I found it interesting that Mr. Graham's recollection appears to contradict both Speaker Pelosi and CIA Director Panetta. Graham says he was briefed on only one occasion, on September 27, 2002, and the CIA now agrees that was the case. Super. However, Mr. Graham states that at that meeting he has "no recollection that issues such as waterboarding were discussed."

Notably, Pelosi acknowledges that waterboarding was discussed when she was briefed weeks earlier, on September 4, 2002 (she says it was discussed falsely, in the context of it not having been used). Is Graham saying that there was a conspiracy to tell the House about the Bush Administration's legal approvals for waterboarding, but to hide it from the Senate? Or is he just short on his recollections?

Graham goes on to rely on the presence of staff at the September 27 briefing as "proof" that waterboarding probably was not discussed. But Pelosi has acknowledged that her staff was present at a 2003 briefing in which waterboarding definitely was discussed.

So what is Graham really trying to say? You tell me.

[WuDrWu]

Personally I dont want any attorney who believes this was appropriate behavior working for the Govt.

Excellent. The United States of kc11. Just what we need.

Chilling, how about a group of people who believe a legal opinion is more important than human rights.

As long as it was your legal opinion you'd be fine with that (see special prosecutor comment below).

And yes, ignore the law for your version of human rights. Lest we forget that the unborn humans have no human rights....wouldn't want anyone to think you were inconsistent. God forbid we give the innocent unborn the same protection you feel compelled and wishful and even take delight in affording to murders and terrorists.

Rem the Nazis did what they did and under their laws it was legal.)

Another excellent point. Comparing our dissenting views to Nazis. 100% accurate and well done! At the same time you are comparing the Jews to terrorists. Again, very well done!

Finally Doc I still say appoint a special prosecutor and let the chips fall, always have!

Sorry, no sarcasm here. That's just plain old stupidity.

As far as the Constitution very little of American day to day life is directly addressed by it! The constant vague use of the Constitution and the instance that your opinions are the true interpretation are ridiculous.

Not that what you typed makes sense, but I get what you are trying to say and that is the coup de grace....we now know you want to abolish the Constitution and ignore the foundation upon which this country was founded. Brilliant!

In one post you have defined pretty much all that is wrong with left. I commend you on your effort.

[Maggie]

On the political side of this issue - Well, as anticipated by a great many, the inevitable “leaks” from the CIA have started, from the Washington Post:

Battered by recriminations over waterboarding and other harsh techniques sanctioned by the Bush administration, the CIA is girding itself for more public scrutiny and is questioning whether agency personnel can conduct interrogations effectively under rules set out for the U.S. military, according to senior intelligence officials…

The agency's defensiveness in part reflects a conviction that it is being forced to take the blame for actions approved by elected officials that have since fallen into disfavor. Former CIA director Michael V. Hayden said in an interview that CIA managers and operations officers have again been put "in a horrible position." Hayden recalled an officer asking, "Will I be in trouble five years from now for what I agree to do today?"

Although President Obama has said no CIA officers will be prosecuted for their roles in harsh interrogations if they remained within Justice Department guidelines in effect at the time, agency personnel still face subpoenas and testimony under oath before criminal, civil and congressional bodies…

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/05/18/AR2009051803126.html?hpid%3Dtopnews&sub=AR

Since Congress - both Democrats and Republicans - approved these EIT techniques in the aftermath of 9/11, after reading this article it now appears the CIA is publicly wondering what other procedures they had the go-ahead to follow might later be considered criminal. Which seems reasonable to me.

Put simply, this is a consequence of playing politics with national security. Certain leaders want their last pound of flesh from the Bush Administration and have ended up damaging the confidence of our intelligence agencies.

This issue, in my judgment, is far from being settled. Eventually, Speaker Pelosi will be forced to make good on her charges and the Democrats in Congress may very well set up some kind of commission to look at the CIA. The problem, however, with that is inquiries like this never stop at their mandate - they almost always go beyond it and delve into areas beyond their original authorization.

With certain folk salivating at the chance to haul Bush era officials before Congress, I fear the spectacle will not be an edifying one for the CIA or anyone else who cares about our national security.

[JohnnieBallgame]

Once again...the answer is "guns and ammo". Let the revolution begin! :whistle:

I can't wait to see which yellow belly lefties are willing to get it on! Whoops, they usually want someone like me to do their dirty work for them.

KC you may be a Shocker, but you are sadly mistaken on many issues!

[ABC]

I still don't understand what is wrong with waterboarding a terrorist in order to get information that can save innocent lives.

[kcshocker11]

Personally I dont want any attorney who believes this was appropriate behavior working for the Govt.

Excellent. The United States of kc11. Just what we need.

Chilling, how about a group of people who believe a legal opinion is more important than human rights.

As long as it was your legal opinion you'd be fine with that (see special prosecutor comment below).

And yes, ignore the law for your version of human rights. Lest we forget that the unborn humans have no human rights....wouldn't want anyone to think you were inconsistent. God forbid we give the innocent unborn the same protection you feel compelled and wishful and even take delight in affording to murders and terrorists.

Rem the Nazis did what they did and under their laws it was legal.)

Another excellent point. Comparing our dissenting views to Nazis. 100% accurate and well done! At the same time you are comparing the Jews to terrorists. Again, very well done!

Finally Doc I still say appoint a special prosecutor and let the chips fall, always have!

Sorry, no sarcasm here. That's just plain old stupidity.

As far as the Constitution very little of American day to day life is directly addressed by it! The constant vague use of the Constitution and the instance that your opinions are the true interpretation are ridiculous.

Not that what you typed makes sense, but I get what you are trying to say and that is the coup de grace....we now know you want to abolish the Constitution and ignore the foundation upon which this country was founded. Brilliant!

In one post you have defined pretty much all that is wrong with left. I commend you on your effort.

Gee is this from the same Doc who has countless posts calling people names,communists, socialists , Facists etc.


Dissent all you want if you torture and use the laws to justify it you are doing the same thing as the Nazis did.

Unborn children there is another thread please read.

Congratulations on another vague reference to the Constitution and assumption that anyone who disagrees with you is trying to shred it.

Stupid comments well thats the pot calling the kettle black (sarcasim implied


:D 8)

Watch that blood pressure 8)


Oh Johnnie rem to point the end with the hole away from you(sorry couldnt resist) :D Glad to see your back Johnnie!

[WuDrWu]

Gee is this from the same Doc who has countless posts calling people names,communists, socialists , Facists etc.


Dissent all you want if you torture and use the laws to justify it you are doing the same thing as the Nazis did.

Unborn children there is another thread please read.

Congratulates on another vague reference to the Constitution and assumption that anyone who disagrees with you is trying shred it.

Stupid comments well thats the pot calling the kettle black (sarcasim implied


:D 8)

Watch that blood pressure 8)

First, please work on the postings....grammar, punctuation etc make the usual knuckleheadedness even more hard to understand.

Second, I don't think you can find one post where I called anyone a "Facist"...as for a socialist, it's your dream so is that really offensive? I mean if it's the truth is it really name calling? Seriously, calling some of you socialists is like calling me a patriotic conservative constitutionalist. That doesn't offend me.

It's not torture. Sorry you are incapable of understanding that. Again you compare me to Hitler.

What's so vague about my reference to the Constitution? It is what it is....do I have to read it to you every day? I know you would certainly benefit from that....but it is obvious you want it scrapped and obviously I want the country to follow it closely.