Nancy Pelosi was an accomplice to 'torture.'

[JBond]

Nancy Pelosi was an accomplice to 'torture.'

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124226863721018193.html

Someone important appears not to be telling the truth about her knowledge of the CIA's use of enhanced interrogation techniques (EITs). That someone is Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi. The political persecution of Bush administration officials she has been pushing may now ensnare her.

Here's what we know. On Sept. 4, 2002, less than a year after 9/11, the CIA briefed Rep. Porter Goss, then House Intelligence Committee chairman, and Mrs. Pelosi, then the committee's ranking Democrat, on EITs including waterboarding. They were the first members of Congress to be informed.

In December 2007, Mrs. Pelosi admitted that she attended the briefing, but she wouldn't comment for the record about precisely what she was told. At the time the Washington Post spoke with a "congressional source familiar with Pelosi's position on the matter" and summarized that person's comments this way: "The source said Pelosi recalls that techniques described by the CIA were still in the planning stage -- they had been designed and cleared with agency lawyers but not yet put in practice -- and acknowledged that Pelosi did not raise objections at the time."

When questions were raised last month about these statements, Mrs. Pelosi insisted at a news conference that "We were not -- I repeat -- were not told that waterboarding or any of these other enhanced interrogation methods were used." Mrs. Pelosi also claimed that the CIA "did not tell us they were using that, flat out. And any, any contention to the contrary is simply not true." She had earlier said on TV, "I can say flat-out, they never told us that these enhanced interrogations were being used."

The Obama administration's CIA director, Leon Panetta, and Mr. Goss have both disputed Mrs. Pelosi's account.

In a report to Congress on May 5, Mr. Panetta described the CIA's 2002 meeting with Mrs. Pelosi as "Briefing on EITs including use of EITs on Abu Zubaydah, background on [legal] authorities, and a description of the particular EITs that had been employed." Note the past tense -- "had been employed."

Mr. Goss says he and Mrs. Pelosi were told at the 2002 briefing about the use of the EITs and "on a bipartisan basis, we asked if the CIA needed more support from Congress to carry out its mission." He is backed by CIA sources who say Mr. Goss and Mrs. Pelosi "questioned whether we were doing enough" to extract information.

We also know that Michael Sheehy, then Mrs. Pelosi's top aide on the Intelligence Committee and later her national security adviser, not only attended the September 2002 meeting but was also briefed by the CIA on EITs on Feb. 5, 2003, and told about a videotape of Zubaydah being waterboarded. Mr. Sheehy was almost certain to have told Mrs. Pelosi. He has not commented publicly about the 2002 or the 2003 meetings.

So is the speaker of the House lying about what she knew and when? And, if so, what will Democrats do about it?

If Mrs. Pelosi considers the enhanced interrogation techniques to be torture, didn't she have a responsibility to complain at the time, introduce legislation to end the practices, or attempt to deny funding for the CIA's use of them? If she knew what was going on and did nothing, does that make her an accessory to a crime of torture, as many Democrats are calling enhanced interrogation?

Senate Judiciary Chairman Pat Leahy wants an independent investigation of Bush administration officials. House Judiciary Chairman John Conyers feels the Justice Department should investigate and prosecute anyone who violated laws against committing torture. Are these and other similarly minded Democrats willing to have Mrs. Pelosi thrown into their stew of torture conspirators as an accomplice?

It is clear that after the 9/11 attacks Mrs. Pelosi was briefed on enhanced interrogation techniques and the valuable information they produced. She not only agreed with what was being done, she apparently pressed the CIA to do more.

But when political winds shifted, Mrs. Pelosi seems to have decided to use enhanced interrogation as an issue to attack Republicans. It is disgraceful that Democrats who discovered their outrage years after the fact are now braying for disbarment of the government lawyers who justified EITs and the prosecution of Bush administration officials who authorized them. Mrs. Pelosi is hip-deep in dangerous waters, and they are rapidly rising.

[Phrozen Phil]

As soon as I saw who wrote the article, I laughed. Talk about self serving. Rove has a teeny bit of a credibility gap.:rolleyes:

[Doomsday101]

No doubt and I have heard she played a big role. After showing nude pictures of herself to Terrorist they all were willing to talk and even under go water boarding if the interrogators would only put the pictures away. :laugh2:

[JBond]

As soon as I saw who wrote the article, I laughed. Talk about self serving. Rove has a teeny bit of a credibility gap.:rolleyes:


So you can dispute the facts in the article? Please do. I would love to hear it. Or are you just going to do a drive by roll the eyes deal instead of addressing Pelosi's lies?

[BrAinPaiNt]

As soon as I saw who wrote the article, I laughed. Talk about self serving. Rove has a teeny bit of a credibility gap.:rolleyes:

Rove is self serving without a doubt, he does have credibility issues and I will go one step further and say he is trying to deflect blame.

HOWEVER....he is right, she is guilty like the rest in this.

Now the funny thing I see with the republicans vs democrats on this torture issue is the following...

If the dems say it is wrong, and it is, and the repubs say it is not wrong...then why are the repubs also blaming the other side if it is not wrong.

I think we all know the answer to that question. But that does not take away from the fact that she has her share of the blame in this situation.

[JBond]

Rove is self serving without a doubt, he does have credibility issues and I will go one step further and say he is trying to deflect blame.

HOWEVER....he is right, she is guilty like the rest in this.

Now the funny thing I see with the republicans vs democrats on this torture issue is the following...

If the dems say it is wrong, and it is, and the repubs say it is not wrong...then why are the repubs also blaming the other side if it is not wrong.

I think we all know the answer to that question. But that does not take away from the fact that she has her share of the blame in this situation.

I am not sure they are "blaming" the dems. They are just letting it be known Pelosi lied about her knowledge of enhanced techniques. I do not understand the blame angle you are taking.

I understand you are against enhanced techniques but they did save lives. What if it was your family that was saved, or if Obama was president murdered, would you feel any differently?

[BrAinPaiNt]

I am not sure they are "blaming" the dems. They are just letting it be known Pelosi lied about her knowledge of enhanced techniques. I do not understand the blame angle you are taking.

I understand you are against enhanced techniques but they did save lives. What if it was your family that was saved, or if Obama was president murdered, would you feel any differently?

What if pigs flew out of my butt, would you eat the pork chops from them?

Sorry...that is some wise crack I say to people sometimes when they play the what if game.:laugh2:

I guess I am a man of responsibility and do not try to hide or deflect blame.

In your what if scenario I would know it was illegal, do it anyways and then face the consequences of my actions afterward...not try to act like it is not torture, try to deflect blame or practice personal responsibility.

What these cats want to do is have their cake and eat it too.

They want to take a history of the US defining waterboard as torture, change it by canoodling some legal memos to make it ok but then deny that it is torture and definitely not man up and take responsibility for doing something we prosecuted others for doing.

You want to do it...fine, man up and admit it and take your punishment for doing it...but they don't want to do that.

[trickblue]

If the dems say it is wrong, and it is, and the repubs say it is not wrong...then why are the repubs also blaming the other side if it is not wrong.

I think we all know the answer to that question. But that does not take away from the fact that she has her share of the blame in this situation.

I don't think the Repubs ARE saying it's wrong...

I think they are saying for the Dems to categorize it however they want, but be it known they were involved as well. "If I was involved with torture, then so were you"...

Chuckie Schumer has no problem with torture privately, he's just attempting to demonize the opposition for political gain... same with Nancy...

[BrAinPaiNt]

I don't think the Repubs ARE saying it's wrong...

I think they are saying for the Dems to categorize it however they want, but be it known they were involved as well. "If I was involved with torture, then so were you"...

Chuckie Schumer has no problem with torture privately, he's just attempting to demonize the opposition for political gain... same with Nancy...

I know what they are doing, they are exposing the hypocrisy of the other side on this issue but by doing that they are exposing their own.

It is pretty funny that while slamming others they are slamming themselves just like the dems are doing over this issue.

[JBond]

What if pigs flew out of my butt, would you eat the pork chops from them?

Sorry...that is some wise crack I say to people sometimes when they play the what if game.:laugh2:

I guess I am a man of responsibility and do not try to hide or deflect blame.

In your what if scenario I would know it was illegal, do it anyways and then face the consequences of my actions afterward...not try to act like it is not torture, try to deflect blame or practice personal responsibility.

What these cats want to do is have their cake and eat it too.

They want to take a history of the US defining waterboard as torture, change it by canoodling some legal memos to make it ok but then deny that it is torture and definitely not man up and take responsibility for doing something we prosecuted others for doing.

You want to do it...fine, man up and admit it and take your punishment for doing it...but they don't want to do that.

Here is the problem I have with Pelosi especially. She knew the entire time and made a conscious decision to lie about it and attack the other side when she privately condoned the actions taking place. It is pure political bs at it's worse.

I have issues like you do about water boarding because anything a previous administration has done becomes justification for another administration to do it. But the question becomes the who, what, why and where are they doing it and that is open to whatever the current administration interpretation is. Lincoln suspended many rights of Americans in times of great upheaval and danger. His army tortured, raped and pillaged fellow Americans yet he is revered in history. Would our country be different today if the south had won the war? Of course it would. Was Lincoln justified? Many say he was. It all depends on your perspective, I guess.

[iceberg]

she contributes to torture every time i have to see her picture anywhere, that's for sure.

[Doomsday101]

Rove is self serving without a doubt, he does have credibility issues and I will go one step further and say he is trying to deflect blame.

HOWEVER....he is right, she is guilty like the rest in this.

Now the funny thing I see with the republicans vs democrats on this torture issue is the following...

If the dems say it is wrong, and it is, and the repubs say it is not wrong...then why are the repubs also blaming the other side if it is not wrong.

I think we all know the answer to that question. But that does not take away from the fact that she has her share of the blame in this situation.


Because the Dems are calling for a cherry picked investigation, like the dog and pony show of yesterday. Dems bring in the wittness that agrees with their side and bring no counter views to the table.

[BrAinPaiNt]

Because the Dems are calling for a cherry picked investigation, like the dog and pony show of yesterday. Dems bring in the wittness that agrees with their side and bring no counter views to the table.

And both sides are exposing their hypocrisy on this issue.

:laugh2:

[JBond]

And both sides are exposing their hypocrisy on this issue.

:laugh2:

I get confused easily. What exactly have the Republicans done that was hypocritical in this particular situation. They said they water boarded and used other enhanced techniques that got results. They are not denying it. The Dems on the other hand lied about even knowing it was going on. I don't get it.

[BrAinPaiNt]

I get confused easily. What exactly have the Republicans done that was hypocritical in this particular situation. They said they water boarded and used other enhanced techniques that got results. They are not denying it. The Dems on the other hand lied about even knowing it was going on. I don't get it.

Because the Republicans said they did not torture, the dems said they did, now they are saying well if we did the dems knew about it...so either they never tortured anyone or they did.

No not enhanced techniques...torture.

[ConcordCowboy]

Pelosi: Bush team misled her on waterboarding

Speaker of the House says she learned of waterboarding in 2003


WASHINGTON - Under strong attack from Republicans, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi accused the CIA and Bush administration of misleading her about waterboarding detainees in the war on terror and sharply rebutted claims she was complicit in the method's use.

"To the contrary ... we were told explicitly that waterboarding was not being used," she told reporters, referring to a formal CIA briefing she received in the fall of 2002.

Pelosi said she subsequently learned that other lawmakers were told several months later by the CIA about the use of waterboarding.

"I wasn't briefed, I was informed that somebody else had been briefed about it," she said.

The House's top Democrat made her comments at a news conference where she was peppered with questions about her knowledge of a technique she and others have called torture. Republicans have insisted in recent weeks that Pelosi and other Democrats knew waterboarding was in use but made no attempt to protest.

Pelosi's comments Thursday were her most pointed yet on the topic of what she learned about waterboarding.

CIA's view

In a written response issued moments after Pelosi spoke, an official at the CIA neither disputed nor accepted the California Democrat's statements.

Instead, George Little, head of the CIA office of public affairs, said it would be up to Congress to determine whether notes made by agency personnel at the time they briefed lawmakers were accurate. He said the notes could be made available at the CIA "for staff review."

House Republican Leader John Boehner dismissed Pelosi's account.

"When you look at the number of briefings that the Speaker was in and other Democrat members of the House and Senate, it's pretty clear that they were well aware of what these enhanced interrogation techniques were," said the Ohio lawmaker. "They were well aware that they had been used, and it seems to me that they want to have it both ways. You can't have it both ways."

Despite Boehner's comments, CIA records show Pelosi attended only one briefing — the one in the fall of 2002 where she says she was told that waterboarding had not been used. A chart released by the CIA detailing its briefings for lawmakers is vague on what transpired at that session. It says Pelosi and the top Intelligence Committee Republican, then-Rep. Porter J. Goss of Florida, were given a "description of the particular (enhanced interrogation techniques) that had been employed," without further details.

The chart specifically notes a discussion of waterboarding in 13 briefings between February 2003 and March 2009, most attended by Democrats as well as Republicans.

'They mislead us all the time'

Pelosi renewed her call for a so-called truth commission to investigate the events in the Bush administration that led to the use of waterboarding and other harsh interrogation techniques. While President Barack Obama has banned waterboarding, calling it torture, he has been notably cool toward an independent inquiry that might distract attention from his domestic agenda.

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., also has expressed opposition, as have congressional Republicans.

Pelosi was particularly harsh in describing the CIA.

"They mislead us all the time," she said. And when a reporter asked whether the agency had lied, Pelosi said yes.

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

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

Pelosi contended that Democrats did what they could to stop the use of waterboarding. The senior Democrat on the Intelligence Committee, who received the 2003 briefing on the practice, sent the CIA a formal letter of protest, she said.

But Pelosi defended her own lack of action on the issue, saying her focus at the time was on wresting congressional control from Republicans so her party could change course.

"No letter could change the policy. It was clear we had to change the leadership in Congress and in the White House. That was my job — the Congress part," Pelosi said.

When Pelosi first addressed the question in late April, she said only that those present at her 2002 briefing were not told that the practice had been employed.

"We were not — I repeat, were not — told that waterboarding or any of these other enhanced interrogation methods were used," she said at the time.

Later, her spokesman elaborated, saying Pelosi had been told the methods were legal but that they had not yet been used.

On Thursday, Pelosi accused the CIA of having lied during that session by explicitly telling her that waterboarding was not used.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/30745095

[TheCount]

I am not sure they are "blaming" the dems. They are just letting it be known Pelosi lied about her knowledge of enhanced techniques. I do not understand the blame angle you are taking.

I understand you are against enhanced techniques but they did save lives. What if it was your family that was saved, or if Obama was president murdered, would you feel any differently?

Is that the new branding for torture? Enhanced Techniques?

Sounds like something Michael Phelps might have done to shave a 10th of a second off his lap time. I like it!

[BrAinPaiNt]

Is that the new branding for torture? Enhanced Techniques?

Sounds like something Michael Phelps might have done to shave a 10th of a second off his lap time. I like it!

It sounds like some Frank Luntz game play going on.

[ShiningStar]

If she knew she was being misled, if she knew they were lying to her or she knew ahead of time they were playing games, why didnt she make a big deal back than? Ooo thats right because it all didnt happen. Actually it was all a big dream she had.

Yeah, you just keep talking Pelosi, looking more and more truthful after every time they refute your claim and than you go and make a new one.

Pelosi: I wasn't there.

Reporter: Video showing you were there.

Pelosi: They didnt give us the memo.

Reporter: heres the memo they handed out to everyone.

Pelosi: They misled us.

Reporter: Heres the memo of you telling them showing you what was being used or would be used in the near future.

Pelosi: I was on the moon.

Reporter: Heres video of you being on the moon while being briefed.

Pelosi: Do i get any dragons in my next story?

Reporter: Puff is available, not the dragon.

[Doomsday101]

Is this the newest line by Nancy? As Lou Dobbs said her story keeps changing

[JBond]

Because the Republicans said they did not torture, the dems said they did, now they are saying well if we did the dems knew about it...so either they never tortured anyone or they did.

No not enhanced techniques...torture.

We did not torture we used enhanced techniques. Go watch the History channel on Sadam if you want to see torture. Look at the vid last week of a Muslim prince using a electric cattle prod on a guy that was short on his grain order. That was torture. Ask Nick Berg's family about torture. Thinking you may drown is uncomfortable to say the least, but it is a far cry from what our enemies do.

[TheCount]

We did not torture we used enhanced techniques. Go watch the History channel on Sadam if you want to see torture. Look at the vid last week of a Muslim prince using a electric cattle prod on a guy that was short on his grain order. That was torture. Ask Nick Berg's family about torture. Thinking you may drown is uncomfortable to say the least, but it is a far cry from what our enemies do.

I imagine that's what drowning people often think right before they go, "Boy, this sure is uncomfortable."

If our level of civility goes up and down based on the enemies we face, that's utterly shameful.

[burmafrd]

Yeah torture is so easily thrown around by those that have never seen examples of REAL TORTURE.

[burmafrd]

And the Count is right at the bottom o f the list.

[BrAinPaiNt]

We did not torture we used enhanced techniques. Go watch the History channel on Sadam if you want to see torture. Look at the vid last week of a Muslim prince using a electric cattle prod on a guy that was short on his grain order. That was torture. Ask Nick Berg's family about torture. Thinking you may drown is uncomfortable to say the least, but it is a far cry from what our enemies do.

We used torture.

Just like the soldier did in the Spanish American War used water boarding methods and was punished.

Just like the Japanese soldier that used waterboarding methods in WWII and was punished.

Just like a US soldier used Waterboarding methods in Vietnam and was punished.

Waterboarding was and is torture.

I am not talking about enhanced techniques like stress position or making someone stand naked with their underwear on their head....that is something different.

But you keep on living in denial all you want, it does not make it true because there is past and present conditions that say waterboarding is torture no matter how many times you say other wise.

[ShiningStar]

When did it become rule we had to treat our enemies so fairly. Let me ask the question, if these people had killed anyone you cared about, would you really be upset that they were being tortured?

[TheCount]

And the Count is right at the bottom o f the list.

Still speaking your usual brand of gibberish, I see. I'd place you on ignore, but you're always good for a laugh. :bow:

[burmafrd]

sadly you are not even good for that....

[Jarv]

We used torture.

Just like the soldier did in the Spanish American War used water boarding methods and was punished.

Just like the Japanese soldier that used waterboarding methods in WWII and was punished.

Just like a US soldier used Waterboarding methods in Vietnam and was punished.

Waterboarding was and is torture.

I am not talking about enhanced techniques like stress position or making someone stand naked with their underwear on their head....that is something different.

But you keep on living in denial all you want, it does not make it true because there is past and present conditions that say waterboarding is torture no matter how many times you say other wise.

Sorry Brain, that is an opinion.

[burmafrd]

Never did find out if Brain was able to find that this happened as far back as the 1890's....

[BrAinPaiNt]

When did it become rule we had to treat our enemies so fairly. Let me ask the question, if these people had killed anyone you cared about, would you really be upset that they were being tortured?

I would not cower behind others saying it is not torture and that I was innocent of any wrong doing.

I would man the heck up and do what I needed to do and accept the consequences that came with it instead of being a COWARD and hiding behind others or denying that it was torture.

[BrAinPaiNt]

I also find it funny that so many are willing to say....well they do worse so it is ok.

NO it is not ok.

We have prosecuted our soldiers and other soldiers in the past for doing it because it is wrong and against the law.

Even when Vietcong were torturing our soldiers we still prosecuted our own for torture.

So that lame excuse is out the window.

Wrong is Wrong and if you are going to do it than be a freaking man and admit to it and accept the consequences that come with it.

[JBond]

We used torture.

Just like the soldier did in the Spanish American War used water boarding methods and was punished.

Just like the Japanese soldier that used waterboarding methods in WWII and was punished.

Just like a US soldier used Waterboarding methods in Vietnam and was punished.

Waterboarding was and is torture.

I am not talking about enhanced techniques like stress position or making someone stand naked with their underwear on their head....that is something different.

But you keep on living in denial all you want, it does not make it true because there is past and present conditions that say waterboarding is torture no matter how many times you say other wise.


Just because you believe something does not make it so. If we are going to go back in history, lets take a look at what Lincoln's army did. Shouldn't he be hated for the suspension of civil liberties of fellow Americans? We know the horrible atrocities he caused. The murders. the rapes. The torture. In fact we should blow that stinking monument up and apologize to the south. Should Lincoln be held to the same standard you are holding modern day administrations to?

[iceberg]

Sorry Brain, that is an opinion.

would anyone going through it a few times disagree?

[ShiningStar]

would anyone going through it a few times disagree?


If i snap your finger back, not break it, is it torture? Define torture? The act of being cruel? The act of doing cruel things to someone, if so lets haul those college kids in.

[Doomsday101]

If i snap your finger back, not break it, is it torture? Define torture? The act of being cruel? The act of doing cruel things to someone, if so lets haul those college kids in.

Paying taxes and then wasting it that is torture. :laugh2:

[ShiningStar]

Paying taxes and then wasting it that is torture. :laugh2:


Nope, spitting soda on your monitor. Thanx for the laugh man.

[BrAinPaiNt]

Sorry Brain, that is an opinion.

Actually it is not.

Prior to the W admin changing things it was indeed legally torture and it is again now.

Not an opinion...Fact.

[BrAinPaiNt]

Never did find out if Brain was able to find that this happened as far back as the 1890's....

Probably because as usual you don't have good reading comprehension.

I have already posted what happened to the soldier in the spanish american war that was punished for water torture.

[BrAinPaiNt]

If i snap your finger back, not break it, is it torture? Define torture? The act of being cruel? The act of doing cruel things to someone, if so lets haul those college kids in.

There was already guidelines and precedent for water board being torture so your argument is moot.

[BrAinPaiNt]

Just because you believe something does not make it so. If we are going to go back in history, lets take a look at what Lincoln's army did. Shouldn't he be hated for the suspension of civil liberties of fellow Americans? We know the horrible atrocities he caused. The murders. the rapes. The torture. In fact we should blow that stinking monument up and apologize to the south. Should Lincoln be held to the same standard you are holding modern day administrations to?

Has nothing to do with water boarding being torture.

I have already told you it is and given you examples, that it was illegal prior to the W administration and again is illegal.

[ABQCOWBOY]

I also find it funny that so many are willing to say....well they do worse so it is ok.

NO it is not ok.

We have prosecuted our soldiers and other soldiers in the past for doing it because it is wrong and against the law.

Even when Vietcong were torturing our soldiers we still prosecuted our own for torture.

So that lame excuse is out the window.

Wrong is Wrong and if you are going to do it than be a freaking man and admit to it and accept the consequences that come with it.

I understand what you are saying Brain. I don't agree with it at all but I do understand. The biggest problem I have with this whole thing is that it's not being done for the noble reasons you are attaching to this issue. This is being done because of Politics.

Nobody is going to get prosecuted on this thing because both sides are dirty, so to speak. All that will happen here is that we will weaken our Intelligence Service and we will be forced to use friendly assests to perform the same interrogation techniques, and worse, on behalf of the United States. I can't help but ask myself, what's worse, conducting IIT ourselves or hiring foreign countries to do it on our behalf? Are we less responsible if we do it that way?

The singular truth here is that no matter what is said or done, this sort of intelligence gathering is not going to go away. It will continue to happen because regardless of if anybody likes it or not, it is effective and it does produce results when done correctly. I think everybody should remember back to when all of this began. WOMD were reported to have been present in Iraq. The Britts MI6 gave us that intelligence. It was apparently incorrect. Look where it lead. We are going down the same road we went down in the mid to late 90s and we can expect the same sort of results.

That's all I'm saying.

[trickblue]

Because the Republicans said they did not torture, the dems said they did, now they are saying well if we did the dems knew about it...so either they never tortured anyone or they did.

No not enhanced techniques...torture.

I disagree... they are saying that if they dems consider it torture, then they are culpable as well since they knew about the techniques. I don't think the military or Bush administration consider it torture in any way...

[iceberg]

If i snap your finger back, not break it, is it torture? Define torture? The act of being cruel? The act of doing cruel things to someone, if so lets haul those college kids in.

depends on how far you snap it back, if i asked you to stop, and if you kept going on and on.

there. now i answered your question. i'll try again.

do you think those who were waterboarded would consider it torture? KEEP IN MIND i'm not saying they didn't deserve it, did deserve it, should have been teabagged as well, or should have been given a cookie -

just what they'd say about it.

[iceberg]

I disagree... they are saying that if they dems consider it torture, then they are culpable as well since they knew about the techniques. I don't think the military or Bush administration consider it torture in any way...

some people wouldn't consider rap torture either, but i disagree. : )

[burmafrd]

Brain you said Water Torture. Did it describe in detail what it was. You said WATERBOARDING went b ack to the 1890's. So I call you out- i bet water torture and water boarding are only connected by the word WATER.

[sacase]

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0509/22531.html

Dems: CIA briefers may have broken law

Democrats on the House intelligence committee said Thursday that CIA officers broke the law in 2002 if they told Nancy Pelosi then that they had not yet engaged in waterboarding.

"If they make a false report, absolutely it's illegal," said Adam Schiff (D-Calif.), a member of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence. "If they fail to make a report when they're obligated to that is also illegal - a violation of the National Security Act."

Schiff said that the "question of recourse [against the CIA] has come up actually a number of times - not just in this context." But he said it's "very difficult because for one thing you can't publicly disclose the information and to actually bring perjury charges or bring an action under the National Security Act without making it public is probably not possible."

The act provides little in the way of recourse, but the committee is seriously looking at revising the law so that there are ramifications for failing to brief Congress on critical intelligence matters, aides said.

At a press briefing Thursday, Pelosi denied that the CIA told her in Sept. 2002 that the United States had waterboarded al Qaeda operative Abu Zubaydah.

Pelosi was the ranking Democrat on the House intelligence committee at the time of the 2002 briefing. The current chairman, Silvestre Reyes (D-Texas), acknowledged Thursday that the "committee does not keep any records" about briefings that leaders of the committee and Congress receive.

Reyers and other Democrats currently on the committee told reporters Thursday that the GOP is waging a politically motivated attack on the speaker - and that she has received an unfair ride in the press.

"I tell you who you need to get - that's Hoekstra, who is running for governor with irresponsible undertakings, and you tell him I said so," said Rep. Alcee Hastings (D-Fl.), referring to Rep. Peter Hoekstra, the ranking Republican on the committee and a leading Pelosi critic.

The Democrats also defended Pelosi's decision not to raise objections to waterboarding in 2003, when she says she first learned of the practice second-hand from an aide who attended a briefing with Rep. Jane Harman (D-Calif.), then the ranking Democrat on the intelligence committee. Harman wrote a letter of protest - a letter with which Pelosi has said she "concurred," although she is not mentioned in it.

"She's away from Intel now, she's not focused on it, it's not her priority," Rep. C.A. Ruppersberger (D-Md.) said OF Pelosi in 2003. "We have all these committees we go to, we get briefed on hundreds and hundreds of things. The specialist, though, was the chairman, or the ranking AT the time, Jane Harman. And she did what she had to do, and we couldn't get a response back."

---------------------------
Man there must be something here, cause the Dems are really going after the CIA to protect Pelosi

[iceberg]

Brain you said Water Torture. Did it describe in detail what it was. You said WATERBOARDING went b ack to the 1890's. So I call you out- i bet water torture and water boarding are only connected by the word WATER.

i lose my breathe in such genius.

[burmafrd]

Nicest thing you have said about me in a long time Ice

[JBond]

Has nothing to do with water boarding being torture.

I have already told you it is and given you examples, that it was illegal prior to the W administration and again is illegal.

You do understand that we used water boarding during the Vietnam war, right? It was not wide spread but it was used a a pretty regular basis in some areas depending on what was at stake. I know people who used it and yes, their superiors officers knew it too.

We are not fighting a conventional war. These people are not US Citizens so they do not get the rights and protections afforded to United States Citizens. They are not part of a standing army that represents a country in battle, so the Geneva Convention does not apply either. I could give a rats *** about international laws. They mean nothing to me if someone wants to quote them. We are fighting a relatively small group of nut jobs that are very dangerous people.

The one thing the Constitution does require of the federal government is to provide for the common defense. I do not need to know every single little detail about how it's done. I just want those lunatics kept out of my country at any cost. If a poor little dirt bag terrorist gets some water poured down his throat, I really don't give a crap.

[ShiningStar]

depends on how far you snap it back, if i asked you to stop, and if you kept going on and on.

there. now i answered your question. i'll try again.

do you think those who were waterboarded would consider it torture? KEEP IN MIND i'm not saying they didn't deserve it, did deserve it, should have been teabagged as well, or should have been given a cookie -

just what they'd say about it.


id say anything is torture KNOWING full well you will stop it to appease me. This country has made it clear, we will do anything to appease the most voters, so being an enemy of the country, you know our politics. If i scream what you are doing is wrong, tends to show that that is true.

Now i would say its not torture. Am i saying that because i have never been waterboarded, one can make the argument. TWO and this is the big one, i never took aim to try and kill a bunch of Americans and if I did, i dont think i have the right to complain about my punishment.

Than again, im thinking we're going to be sport fisherman. You do something bad to our country, we catch you (like a fish), show you around (Like a fish) and throw you back (like a fish).

That way you can do it again.

Like i posted, this about how one perceives torture, if people are willing to die and you accompany them, did you do wrong? If people are fulling prepared to blow up someone you care about and YOU catch them, is TORTURE the least of their worries?

[BrAinPaiNt]

Brain you said Water Torture. Did it describe in detail what it was. You said WATERBOARDING went b ack to the 1890's. So I call you out- i bet water torture and water boarding are only connected by the word WATER.

http://www.npr.org/templates/common/image_enlargement.php?imageResId=15886835&imageStoryId=15886834

It was around LOOOONG before 1890 the above image is from a wood carving print from the 1500's.

[BrAinPaiNt]

I disagree... they are saying that if they dems consider it torture, then they are culpable as well since they knew about the techniques. I don't think the military or Bush administration consider it torture in any way...

:laugh2: If they never considered it torture in any way shape or form...then why did they have to go the long route by getting lawyers to fudge around the law and make new memos regarding the procedures? Why did they only do this for the CIA and dismiss it from the army field manuels?

They knew it was torture and wanted to work around it...unless they were all ignorant of the history of this country punishing those using it in the past and even then that is not a valid excuse.

[BrAinPaiNt]

You do understand that we used water boarding during the Vietnam war, right? It was not wide spread but it was used a a pretty regular basis in some areas depending on what was at stake. I know people who used it and yes, their superiors officers knew it too.

We are not fighting a conventional war. These people are not US Citizens so they do not get the rights and protections afforded to United States Citizens. They are not part of a standing army that represents a country in battle, so the Geneva Convention does not apply either. I could give a rats *** about international laws. They mean nothing to me if someone wants to quote them. We are fighting a relatively small group of nut jobs that are very dangerous people.

The one thing the Constitution does require of the federal government is to provide for the common defense. I do not need to know every single little detail about how it's done. I just want those lunatics kept out of my country at any cost. If a poor little dirt bag terrorist gets some water poured down his throat, I really don't give a crap.

I would I knew about waterboarding in Vietnam since I have brought it up about a half dozen times in this forum. And since you must have missed me bringing it up did you also miss that we punished soldiers getting caught doing that in vietnam? Kind of proves the point I was making up all along.:laugh2:

Also read this link...

http://www.hrweb.org/legal/cat.html

[sbark]

Does a SCOTUS opinion bear any weight...........

In a 60 Minutes interview, Justice Scalia says torture does not violate the 8th amendment ban on "cruel and unusual punishment."
www.youtube.com/watch?v=T72vgAEX66M (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T72vgAEX66M)

.........Maybe Justice Souter should weigh in on this in his last days.........would then be the one single momentus decison he made as a S.Court Justice..........vrs. just punching the clock in time to take lunch....

[VietCowboy]

Does a SCOTUS opinion bear any weight...........

In a 60 Minutes interview, Justice Scalia says torture does not violate the 8th amendment ban on "cruel and unusual punishment."
www.youtube.com/watch?v=T72vgAEX66M (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T72vgAEX66M)

.........Maybe Justice Souter should weigh in on this in his last days.........would then be the one single momentus decison he made as a S.Court Justice..........vrs. just punching the clock in time to take lunch....

not agreeing with what he said, but apparently, his opinion is that anything that is not "punishment" doesn't violate the 8th amendment. The 8th amendment is strictly applied to punishment, and naught else. Basically torture (and anything under the sun) during interrogation is okay as long as it isn't used as punishment, but torture as a sentence for a guilty verdict is. Of course, it may violate other amendments...

[Hoofbite]

When did it become rule we had to treat our enemies so fairly. Let me ask the question, if these people had killed anyone you cared about, would you really be upset that they were being tortured?

You're being sarcastic, right?

[Hoofbite]

http://www.npr.org/templates/common/image_enlargement.php?imageResId=15886835&imageStoryId=15886834

It was around LOOOONG before 1890 the above image is from a wood carving print from the 1500's.

But did they call it waterboarding? If they called it something else its not waterboarding.

And if they did, how do know that was water they were pouring into that guys mouth? If that was liquor, that's a frat party.

And lastly, no one knows for sure if that carving is based on historical events. Its possible we're looking at some sort of life imitating art with a gap of a few hundred years between the art and the action.

:blind:

I see no hard evidence of waterboarding.