Well, I'm waiting to see how this all goes down, who's at fault, where the truth is. Very messy so far.
(I just posted the first few paragraphs)
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/30760398/
Pelosi raises detainee debate to a new level
Accusation that Bush team lied is either calculated, reckless — or both
WASHINGTON - House Speaker Nancy Pelosi's extraordinary accusation that the Bush administration lied to Congress about the use of harsh interrogation techniques dramatically raised the stakes in the growing debate over the Bush administration's anti-terrorism policies even as it raised some questions about the speaker's credibility.
Pelosi's performance in the Capitol was either a calculated escalation of a long-running feud with the Bush administration or a reckless act by a politician whose word had been called into question. Perhaps it was both.
For the first time, Pelosi (D-Calif.) acknowledged that in 2003 she was informed by an aide that the CIA had told others in Congress that officials had used waterboarding during interrogations. But she insisted, contrary to CIA accounts, that she was not told about waterboarding during a September 2002 briefing by agency officials. Asked whether she was accusing the CIA of lying, she replied, "Yes, misleading the Congress of the United States."
Yeah, there's no way she didn't know about this. Even if it wasn't said to her in black in white surely it was so heavily implied that she must have known.
This is why I think be an investigation of some sort would be a good idea. And I think there should be one here to see how much the UK knowingly cooperated.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on May 15, 2009, 11:20:39 AM
Yeah, there's no way she didn't know about this. Even if it wasn't said to her in black in white surely it was so heavily implied that she must have known.
I watched on The Daily Show that she backslid and started saying that she was briefed that they could do it, but not that they would. Of course, that's from news clips shown on the Daily Show, so who knows.
*And no, I don't not frequently watch the daily show, maybe like once a year.
Quote from: garbon on May 15, 2009, 11:48:21 AM
*And no, I don't not frequently watch the daily show, maybe like once a year.
You should, it is excellent.
:lol: Unbelievable.
Pff, she knew.
Oh Hod please let this force the Democrats to remove her as Speaker.
Actually, please let something, anything, lead the Democrats to remove her as Speaker.
Quote from: Valmy on May 15, 2009, 12:49:48 PM
Oh Hod please let this force the Democrats to remove her as Speaker.
Actually, please let something, anything, lead the Democrats to remove her as Speaker.
No, no, she needs to stay right where she is. Too bad she didn't succeed in making Murtha Majority Leader. :(
Quote from: Sheilbh on May 15, 2009, 11:27:09 AM
This is why I think be an investigation of some sort would be a good idea. And I think there should be one here to see how much the UK knowingly cooperated.
Why bother investigating? It's not like waterboarding and whatnot is a big deal. All that fake outrage has served its purpose: A Democrat is in the White House.
Quote from: Valmy on May 15, 2009, 12:49:48 PM
Oh Hod please let this force the Democrats to remove her as Speaker.
Actually, please let something, anything, lead the Democrats to remove her as Speaker.
Amen, Brother Valmy!
I just can't believe ANYONE would believe a word this lying sack of facelifts says. :rolleyes:
Quote from: Caliga on May 15, 2009, 02:18:19 PM
I just can't believe ANYONE would believe a word this lying sack of facelifts says. :rolleyes:
On the other hand, if I were the CIA, I would probably lie to her.
Quote from: grumbler on May 15, 2009, 02:14:16 PM
Quote from: Valmy on May 15, 2009, 12:49:48 PM
Oh Hod please let this force the Democrats to remove her as Speaker.
Actually, please let something, anything, lead the Democrats to remove her as Speaker.
Amen, Brother Valmy!
Agreed! Really, I'd love it if they could find some way to remove her as my rep.
Quote from: Berkut on May 15, 2009, 02:33:12 PM
Quote from: Caliga on May 15, 2009, 02:18:19 PM
I just can't believe ANYONE would believe a word this lying sack of facelifts says. :rolleyes:
On the other hand, if I were the CIA, I would probably lie to her.
I like your sig. :D In fact I just wrote a similar line of code:
select * from dba_jobs where (job >= 205 and job <= 210) or (job >= 311 and job <= 312);
select * from dba_jobs where failures > 0
Quote from: garbon on May 15, 2009, 02:43:22 PM
Agreed! Really, I'd love it if they could find some way to remove her as my rep.
Spread a rumor that she's a homophobe? :)
The woman still had credibility? Seriously?
Quote from: Neil on May 15, 2009, 01:02:31 PM
Why bother investigating? It's not like waterboarding and whatnot is a big deal. All that fake outrage has served its purpose: A Democrat is in the White House.
I think it's very important to open it out so that we know who knew what was going on and who approved it. But in particular, I think that if the CIA misled Congress then that's very worrying and deserves a lot more inveestigation, and if Pelosi's lying to Congress now she deserves to lose her seat.
Quote from: Sheilbh on May 15, 2009, 03:19:55 PM
I think it's very important to open it out so that we know who knew what was going on and who approved it. But in particular, I think that if the CIA misled Congress then that's very worrying and deserves a lot more inveestigation, and if Pelosi's lying to Congress now she deserves to lose her seat.
Yeah. I guess we should applaud her for shaking up the status quo, even if that's simply losing her seat. "He said, she said," and whoever's lying gets to walk.
Quote from: Sheilbh on May 15, 2009, 03:19:55 PM
Quote from: Neil on May 15, 2009, 01:02:31 PM
Why bother investigating? It's not like waterboarding and whatnot is a big deal. All that fake outrage has served its purpose: A Democrat is in the White House.
I think it's very important to open it out so that we know who knew what was going on and who approved it. But in particular, I think that if the CIA misled Congress then that's very worrying and deserves a lot more inveestigation, and if Pelosi's lying to Congress now she deserves to lose her seat.
Aww, that's so cute and principled. :D
The Hammer of Krauts:
QuoteThe Torture Debate, Continued
By Charles Krauthammer
Friday, May 15, 2009
This month, I wrote a column outlining two exceptions to the no-torture rule: the ticking time bomb scenario and its less extreme variant in which a high-value terrorist refuses to divulge crucial information that could save innocent lives. The column elicited protest and opposition that were, shall we say, spirited.
And occasionally stupid. Dan Froomkin, writing for washingtonpost.com and echoing a common meme among my critics, asserted that "the ticking time bomb scenario only exists in two places: On TV and in the dark fantasies of power-crazed and morally deficient authoritarians." (He later helpfully suggested that my moral deficiencies derived from "watching TV and fantasizing about being Jack Bauer.")
On Oct. 9, 1994, Israeli Cpl. Nachshon Waxman was kidnapped by Palestinian terrorists. The Israelis captured the driver of the car. He was interrogated with methods so brutal that they violated Israel's existing 1987 interrogation guidelines, which themselves were revoked in 1999 by the Israeli Supreme Court as unconscionably harsh. The Israeli prime minister who ordered this enhanced interrogation (as we now say) explained without apology: "If we'd been so careful to follow the [1987] Landau Commission [guidelines], we would never have found out where Waxman was being held."
Who was that prime minister? Yitzhak Rabin, Nobel Peace laureate. The fact that Waxman died in the rescue raid compounds the tragedy but changes nothing of Rabin's moral calculus.
That moral calculus is important. Even John McCain says that in ticking time bomb scenarios you "do what you have to do." The no-torture principle is not inviolable. One therefore has to think about what kind of transgressive interrogation might be permissible in the less pristine circumstance of the high-value terrorist who knows about less imminent attacks. (By the way, I've never seen five seconds of "24.")
My column also pointed out the contemptible hypocrisy of House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, who is feigning outrage now about techniques that she knew about and did nothing to stop at the time.
My critics say: So what if Pelosi is a hypocrite? Her behavior doesn't change the truth about torture.
But it does. The fact that Pelosi (and her intelligence aide) and then-House Intelligence Committee Chairman Porter Goss and dozens of other members of Congress knew about the enhanced interrogation and said nothing, and did nothing to cut off the funding, tells us something very important.
Our jurisprudence has the "reasonable man" standard. A jury is asked to consider what a reasonable person would do under certain urgent circumstances.
On the morality of waterboarding and other "torture," Pelosi and other senior and expert members of Congress represented their colleagues, and indeed the entire American people, in rendering the reasonable person verdict. What did they do? They gave tacit approval. In fact, according to Goss, they offered encouragement. Given the circumstances, they clearly deemed the interrogations warranted.
Moreover, the circle of approval was wider than that. As Slate's Jacob Weisberg points out, those favoring harsh interrogation at the time included Alan Dershowitz, Mark Bowden and Newsweek's Jonathan Alter. In November 2001, Alter suggested we consider "transferring some suspects to our less squeamish allies" (i.e., those that torture). And, as Weisberg notes, these were just the liberals.
So what happened? The reason Pelosi raised no objection to waterboarding at the time, the reason the American people (who by 2004 knew what was going on) strongly reelected the man who ordered these interrogations, is not because she and the rest of the American people suffered a years-long moral psychosis from which they have just now awoken. It is because at that time they were aware of the existing conditions -- our blindness to al-Qaeda's plans, the urgency of the threat, the magnitude of the suffering that might be caused by a second 9/11, the likelihood that the interrogation would extract intelligence that President Obama's own director of national intelligence now tells us was indeed "high-value information" -- and concluded that on balance it was a reasonable response to a terrible threat.
And they were right.
You can believe that Pelosi and the American public underwent a radical transformation from moral normality to complicity with war criminality back to normality. Or you can believe that their personalities and moral compasses have remained steady throughout the years, but changes in circumstances (threat, knowledge, imminence) alter the moral calculus attached to any interrogation technique.
You don't need a psychiatrist to tell you which of these theories is utterly fantastical.
Quote from: Scipio on May 15, 2009, 05:18:26 PM
Aww, that's so cute and principled. :D
When it involves the potential ousting of Pelosi, I hope we all feel motivated to be cute and principled. :swiss:
Quote from: Hansmeister on May 15, 2009, 05:31:10 PM
The Hammer of Krauts:
You're shitting me, Hans. Krauthammer? You like combating a lack of credibility with an even bigger lack of credibility? The man who so believes in the spirit of the law that the letter of the law is an unpleasant formality? Gimme a break.
Quote from: DontSayBanana on May 15, 2009, 09:03:03 PM
Quote from: Hansmeister on May 15, 2009, 05:31:10 PM
The Hammer of Krauts:
You're shitting me, Hans. Krauthammer? You like combating a lack of credibility with an even bigger lack of credibility? The man who so believes in the spirit of the law that the letter of the law is an unpleasant formality? Gimme a break.
I guess making a coherent argument is beyond you.
I have said before that there prbably are circumstances in which torture is morally permissable, even if there are none in which it is legally permisable. If someone really thinks they are in a "ticking time bomb" scenario or one in which innocents are in iminent danger, they probably should torture, and have their careers ruined, but be forgiven and pardoned (but not reinstated) should they prove correct.
If the situation is not one worth assuredly ending a career over, or one in which the evidence isn't clearly that of one worth assuredely ending a career over, then torture is neither legally nor morally tolerable.
In short, no one should be allowed, in my name, to torture without suffering consequences. I would ask no less of constituents if I were in a position to torture the likes of Al Quaeda-types. The temptation would be too great.
KC Hammer thinks that the "ticking bomb scenario" encompasses cases where mere single lives are at stake? So he's either a retard or a liar or both.
Hans, there is no substance to the post you provided. In both exception scenarios, there needs to be a reasonable belief that a party larger than the interrogator and the questioned will be served positively by the use of extreme methods. Applying either situation on the individual level is nothing more than a Hamurabi-esque, state-sanctioned form of vigilante justice.
This is why I normally ignore Krauthammer; he claims that the law can be bent or broken virtually every time it interferes with his own personal moral compass.
Quote from: garbon on May 15, 2009, 07:53:43 PM
Quote from: Scipio on May 15, 2009, 05:18:26 PM
Aww, that's so cute and principled. :D
When it involves the potential ousting of Pelosi, I hope we all feel motivated to be cute and principled. :swiss:
The Demoncrats in the House, unfortunately, are neither.
Quote from: Valmy on May 15, 2009, 12:49:48 PM
Oh Hod please let this force the Democrats to remove her as Speaker.
Actually, please let something, anything, lead the Democrats to remove her as Speaker.
This is one of those examples where Obama needs to drop the academic persona and channel LBJ on her ass.
Honestly though, not just on this topic but others, Obama needs to drop the hammer on the Dems in Congress and remind them who is the party boss, and who should be pushing who's agenda.
Quote from: DontSayBanana on May 16, 2009, 08:14:14 AMThis is why I normally ignore Krauthammer; he claims that the law can be bent or broken virtually every time it interferes with his own personal moral compass.
The Hammer of the Krauts is usually correct on such issues, however.
Quote from: Scipio on May 16, 2009, 08:41:07 AM
The Demoncrats in the House, unfortunately, are neither.
Let me cling to my desperate hope that Pelosi would get the boot, k? :(
Quote from: garbon on May 17, 2009, 04:47:18 PM
Quote from: Scipio on May 16, 2009, 08:41:07 AM
The Demoncrats in the House, unfortunately, are neither.
Let me cling to my desperate hope that Pelosi would get the boot, k? :(
This is huge what she's doing, making the claims she is. This is not going to go away quietly at all. It should lead to larger investigations given that the House Speaker is making these claims. I just hope we don't get the Kangaroo courts ala AIG or the Auto company execs type thing. If she is proven wrong in this, and is seen as being untruthful in her statements, or trying to cover up for her actions, errors and misstatements, I would think her being removed as Speaker would be necessary by the Dems. After all, she'll lose huge credibility after something like this, and would get politically hammered over and over, as is already happening, by Dems and Repubs.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on May 16, 2009, 08:44:51 AM
Honestly though, not just on this topic but others, Obama needs to drop the hammer on the Dems in Congress and remind them who is the party boss, and who should be pushing who's agenda.
He's had enough practice doing that to Republicans, so yeah :D
Quote from: KRonn on May 18, 2009, 08:35:07 AM
This is huge what she's doing, making the claims she is. This is not going to go away quietly at all. It should lead to larger investigations given that the House Speaker is making these claims. I just hope we don't get the Kangaroo courts ala AIG or the Auto company execs type thing. If she is proven wrong in this, and is seen as being untruthful in her statements, or trying to cover up for her actions, errors and misstatements, I would think her being removed as Speaker would be necessary by the Dems. After all, she'll lose huge credibility after something like this, and would get politically hammered over and over, as is already happening, by Dems and Repubs.
:hug:
Panetta says nobody lied to Pelosi. Obama Administration to Nancy: Shut the fuck up.
Quote from: The Hill
CIA director says Pelosi received the truth
By Sam Youngman
Posted: 05/15/09 02:19 PM [ET]
CIA Director Leon Panetta challenged House Speaker Nancy Pelosi's accusations that the agency lied to her, writing a memo to his agents saying she received nothing but the truth.
Panetta said that "ultimately, it is up to Congress to evaluate all the evidence and reach its own conclusions about what happened."
Pelosi (D-Calif.) infuriated Republicans this week when she said in a news conference that she was "misled" by CIA officials during a briefing in 2002 about whether the U.S. was waterboarding alleged terrorist detainees.
Panetta, President Obama's pick to run the clandestine agency and President Clinton's former chief of staff, wrote in a memo to CIA employees Friday that "CIA officers briefed truthfully on the interrogation of Abu Zubaydah, describing 'the enhanced techniques that had been employed,'" according to CIA records.
"We are an agency of high integrity, professionalism and dedication," Panetta said in the memo. "Our task is to tell it like it is — even if that's not what people always want to hear. Keep it up. Our national security depends on it."
In the pep talk-style memo titled "Turning Down the Volume," Panetta encourages CIA employees to return to their normal business and not to be distracted by the shout-fest Pelosi's remarks created.
"My advice — indeed, my direction — to you is straightforward: Ignore the noise and stay focused on your mission," Panetta wrote. "We have too much work to do to be distracted from our job of protecting this country."
In what may be the most critical moment of her speakership, Pelosi is under fire about what she knew of the enhanced interrogation techniques used by the Bush administration and when she knew it.
At the same news conference where she accused the CIA of misleading her on the topic, Pelosi acknowledged for the first time that she knew in 2003 that terrorism suspects were waterboarded. She said she learned that from an aide who sat in on a briefing in February 2003.
For weeks, Pelosi had dodged questions about what she knew about waterboarding and when she knew it. Republicans have called her a hypocrite for criticizing techniques as "torture" when she tacitly agreed to the practices after the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks. At least one lawmaker — Rep. Steve King (R-Iowa) — called on Pelosi Friday to step down as Speaker.
At the same time, liberal groups could question why she didn't push back harder against the Bush administration. Pelosi defended herself for not speaking out at the time about information disclosed in a classified briefing. Asked why she didn't co-sign a formal objection by Rep. Jane Harman (D-Calif.), who attended the briefing with Pelosi aide Mike Sheehy, Pelosi said any objection would have done little good.
"No letter could change the policy," she said on May 14 at a news conference. "It was clear we had to change the leadership in Congress and in the White House. That was my job, the Congress part."
Pelosi should stay right where she is. If she's controversial enough to get my mom to start talking about politics, she's just what the GOP needs :D
Sorry grabon :(
Quote from: derspiess on May 18, 2009, 12:16:18 PM
Pelosi should stay right where she is. If she's controversial enough to get my mom to start talking about politics, she's just what the GOP needs :D
Sorry grabon :(
:angry:
Leon Panetta, CIA Director appointed by Pres Obama, and long time Democrat was also Pres Clinton's Chief of Staff, spoke about the controversy. I have to give the guy credit for coming out regardless of politics as he's a long time Democrat, in support of his agency.
http://thehill.com/leading-the-news/cia-director-fires-back-at-pelosi-2009-05-15.html
CIA director says Pelosi received the truth
By Sam Youngman
Posted: 05/15/09 02:19 PM [ET]
CIA Director Leon Panetta challenged House Speaker Nancy Pelosi's accusations that the agency lied to her, writing a memo to his agents saying she received nothing but the truth.
Panetta said that "ultimately, it is up to Congress to evaluate all the evidence and reach its own conclusions about what happened."
Pelosi (D-Calif.) infuriated Republicans this week when she said in a news conference that she was "misled" by CIA officials during a briefing in 2002 about whether the U.S. was waterboarding alleged terrorist detainees.
Panetta, President Obama's pick to run the clandestine agency and President Clinton's former chief of staff, wrote in a memo to CIA employees Friday that "CIA officers briefed truthfully on the interrogation of Abu Zubaydah, describing 'the enhanced techniques that had been employed,'" according to CIA records.
"We are an agency of high integrity, professionalism and dedication," Panetta said in the memo. "Our task is to tell it like it is — even if that's not what people always want to hear. Keep it up. Our national security depends on it."
In the pep talk-style memo titled "Turning Down the Volume," Panetta encourages CIA employees to return to their normal business and not to be distracted by the shout-fest Pelosi's remarks created.
"My advice — indeed, my direction — to you is straightforward: Ignore the noise and stay focused on your mission," Panetta wrote. "We have too much work to do to be distracted from our job of protecting this country."
In what may be the most critical moment of her speakership, Pelosi is under fire about what she knew of the enhanced interrogation techniques used by the Bush administration and when she knew it.
At the same news conference where she accused the CIA of misleading her on the topic, Pelosi acknowledged for the first time that she knew in 2003 that terrorism suspects were waterboarded. She said she learned that from an aide who sat in on a briefing in February 2003.
For weeks, Pelosi had dodged questions about what she knew about waterboarding and when she knew it. Republicans have called her a hypocrite for criticizing techniques as "torture" when she tacitly agreed to the practices after the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks. At least one lawmaker — Rep. Steve King (R-Iowa) — called on Pelosi Friday to step down as Speaker.
At the same time, liberal groups could question why she didn't push back harder against the Bush administration. Pelosi defended herself for not speaking out at the time about information disclosed in a classified briefing. Asked why she didn't co-sign a formal objection by Rep. Jane Harman (D-Calif.), who attended the briefing with Pelosi aide Mike Sheehy, Pelosi said any objection would have done little good.
"No letter could change the policy," she said on May 14 at a news conference. "It was clear we had to change the leadership in Congress and in the White House. That was my job, the Congress part."
This should be investigated and if she lied to Congress she has to stand down.
Is lying to Congress a big thing in the US? In the UK 'misleading the House' is theoretically the worst thing a Minister can do and is, theoretically, a resigning offence.
I expect congress members to lie with impunity. -_-
Lying to Clowngress is just horrible. Horrible.
Quote from: Sheilbh on May 20, 2009, 04:50:01 PM
This should be investigated and if she lied to Congress she has to stand down.
Is lying to Congress a big thing in the US? In the UK 'misleading the House' is theoretically the worst thing a Minister can do and is, theoretically, a resigning offence.
It is a big problem for her, probably mainly political. Not sure about if charges would be brought against her or anything, but Congress would at least take measures to punish her politically, censure or what ever, aside from whether she loses her Speakership. And if the charges she's leveled aren't sunstantiated in investigation, she'd really have to lose her Speakership, at the least. I don't see how she could reamin so very politically damaged. Her party won't be able to stand behind her.
She's third in line to the Presidency, and has made significant charges that CIA lied to her, misled her, and that they do it routinely to Congres. That's big, and can not stand without investigation. So, this is just getting going, and could get messy. If her allegations stand then she could be exonerated, but that looks like a tough road for her right now. I'm willing to hear her out, have to, as is fair and she is Speaker of the House.
Quote from: Sheilbh on May 20, 2009, 04:50:01 PM
Is lying to Congress a big thing in the US? In the UK 'misleading the House' is theoretically the worst thing a Minister can do and is, theoretically, a resigning offence.
Perjury isn't a big deal for American politicians.
Quote from: Sheilbh on May 20, 2009, 04:50:01 PM
This should be investigated and if she lied to Congress she has to stand down.
Is lying to Congress a big thing in the US? In the UK 'misleading the House' is theoretically the worst thing a Minister can do and is, theoretically, a resigning offence.
What do you mean by lying to Congress? She has never testified under oath as far as I know.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on May 20, 2009, 11:37:52 PM
What do you mean by lying to Congress? She has never testified under oath as far as I know.
I don't think parliament has the power to make people swear an oath. But if a minister stands at the dispatch box and 'misleads the house' and it's discovered then they will probably be asked to resign.
Why would you need an oath to lie?
Quote from: Sheilbh on May 21, 2009, 04:27:23 AM
I don't think parliament has the power to make people swear an oath. But if a minister stands at the dispatch box and 'misleads the house' and it's discovered then they will probably be asked to resign.
Pelosi is making these comments to the press, not from a dispatche boxe.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on May 21, 2009, 11:55:18 PM
Pelosi is making these comments to the press, not from a dispatche boxe.
The important question here is: does she know the difference.