BS: Obama and torture

Subject: RE: BS: Obama and torture
From: Riginslinger
Date: 13 May 09 - 10:04 PM

I suspect all of us who read John Le Carre' realize he knows what he's talking about, but what he doesn't say is usually more compelling than what he is willing to say, and Cheney is verbalizing what Le Carre' doesn't say.

Subject: RE: BS: Obama and torture
From: CarolC
Date: 13 May 09 - 10:08 PM

What really astonishes me is the number of people here in the US to refer to Jack Bauer and the television show 24 as a rationale for using torture, as if Jack Bauer and 24 weren't entirely fictional.

Subject: RE: BS: Obama and torture
From: Janie
Date: 13 May 09 - 11:28 PM

It is a sad commentary that my most trusted op-ed sources are Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert.

Subject: RE: BS: Obama and torture
From: GUEST,beardedbruce
Date: 14 May 09 - 07:51 AM

Congress and Waterboarding
Nancy Pelosi was an accomplice to 'torture.

By KARL ROVE
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?

more

Subject: RE: BS: Obama and torture
From: Peter T.
Date: 14 May 09 - 10:30 AM

Karl Rove was, of course, part of the original torture machine; but he's right. The Democrats were up to their necks in this, and lied.

And now, President Obama is lying about the content of the photos he won't release -- you can just hear him lying in old fashioned Karl Rove, George Bush speak. We have the first of his lies. All to cover up truths that will out sooner or later.

Stupid, stupid, stupid.

yours,

Peter T.

Subject: RE: BS: Obama and torture
From: Greg F.
Date: 14 May 09 - 10:34 AM

An article by Karl Rove- the king of lies & bullshit.

What's next, BB? A piece by Ernst Zündel ?

Subject: RE: BS: Obama and torture
From: beardedbruce
Date: 14 May 09 - 11:02 AM

Greg F,

Care to point out the lies in that article?


I thought not. You are saying that since you do not like the source, you will not consider that anything he says is true-

I will apply that to all the posts you make in the future.

Or you could look at the facts, and make a resonable judgement ABOUT THOSE FACTS.

Subject: RE: BS: Obama and torture
From: CarolC
Date: 14 May 09 - 12:14 PM

I've never been a supporter of Pelosi, but I support her efforts to bring those responsible for the Bush administration's torture program to justice. Hopefully, whatever her own culpability is in that will not prevent her from continuing her efforts.

Subject: RE: BS: Obama and torture
From: Greg F.
Date: 14 May 09 - 04:23 PM

An anonymous source. No transcript or record of this supposed "briefing". "almost certain to have told". Etc.

Lies, weasel-words and supposition.

Standard Rovian output. Worthy of the 'sainted' Joe McCarthy: "I have in my hand evidence....."

***

"The memories of men are too frail a thread to hang history from."
          - JOHN STILL

Subject: RE: BS: Obama and torture
From: beardedbruce
Date: 14 May 09 - 04:28 PM

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.


True or false?



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."


True or false??



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."


True or false???




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


True or false??




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."


True or false?




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.

True or false??




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.

True or false???

Subject: RE: BS: Obama and torture
From: Riginslinger
Date: 14 May 09 - 07:29 PM

Does anybody believe Nancy Pelosi was mislead about torture?

Subject: RE: BS: Obama and torture
From: Bobert
Date: 14 May 09 - 07:43 PM

Wow... If ya' listen to the Repubs it was Nancy Pelosi who ordered up all of this illegeal stuff??? Geeze, the Repubs must be right about the Dems...

Bad Dems for ordering up torture... Bad Dems!!!

(But, Boberdz, the Dems didn't order up the torture...)

Oh??? That ain't what the Repubs are sayin'...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: Obama and torture
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 14 May 09 - 08:18 PM

If a source is evidently untrustworthy, on the basis of past experience, it is reasonable not to trust it. That doesn't mean that it may not be accurate on some matters. As the saying goes, a stopped clock tells the right time twice every day - but if you want to check the time you won't turn to a stopped clock to find out.

Subject: RE: BS: Obama and torture
From: Riginslinger
Date: 14 May 09 - 10:13 PM

The key, my dear Watson, is to figure out when Pelosi's clock stopped.

Subject: RE: BS: Obama and torture
From: Janie
Date: 14 May 09 - 11:01 PM

http://www.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/meast/05/14/iraq.u.s.detainees/index.html

Subject: RE: BS: Obama and torture
From: Bill D
Date: 14 May 09 - 11:27 PM

If you read and study ALL news sources, not just the ones you like, it will become apparent that there is much more to the story than what the conservatives are hoping can be shown about what Pelosi knew.

She has denied again that she 'knew' about waterboarding as a specific practice, and facts (the ones that can BE made public) are beginning to support her claims.

On the other hand, details from a number of sources are beginning to emerge that the impetus FOR waterboarding were not only political, but came from Cheney's office.

WITNESSES to 'enhanced interrogation' agree that 1)it did little good, and 2)it was strongly suggested & encouraged by Bush/Cheney officials in order to create a link between Al Quaida and Saddam's Iraq.

The evidence for this grows every day...and Cheney seems to be almost saying so.

Subject: RE: BS: Obama and torture
From: CarolC
Date: 14 May 09 - 11:40 PM

I said way back when we first started hearing about torture being practiced by the US, that there is only one reason for torturing people, and that is to get them to confess to things that aren't true. And I said at the time that they were doing it to create justifications for their war.

Subject: RE: BS: Obama and torture
From: beardedbruce
Date: 15 May 09 - 07:23 AM

"If ya' listen to the Repubs it was Nancy Pelosi who ordered up all of this illegeal stuff??? "


Wring again, Bobert. Just that she KNEW and did not have any problem with it at the time. Even you should be able to understand the difference.

Subject: RE: BS: Obama and torture
From: Bobert
Date: 15 May 09 - 07:46 AM

Geeze, I just hate being wring... lol..

BTW, bb, how do you know what she knew and whne she knew it???

The problem, as I see it, is that when Pelosi calls for a "Truth Commission" on torture the Repubs want that commission to look only at Pelosi... I say lets have a "Truth Cimission" and let the chips fall where they may even if it means that Cheney or Rumsfeld will have to testify ***under oath*** and be subject to criminal penalties...

Yeah, let 'er rip!!!

B~

Subject: RE: BS: Obama and torture
From: beardedbruce
Date: 15 May 09 - 07:52 AM

"BTW, bb, how do you know what she knew and whne she knew it???"

I never claimed to- I only point out that you are not telling the truth, again.

It should be investigated- and IF she was told I do not see that she has any excuse. Let them ALL be looked at- and start the impeachment procedings now against Obama, for when HE makes a tough decision that the next administration disagrees with.

Subject: RE: BS: Obama and torture
From: Peter T.
Date: 15 May 09 - 08:17 AM

And what was that tough decision that George Bush made? To torture people so that he could find a justification for a war that was unjustified?

And what is wrong about impeachment? Impeachment is to bring a president's actions under scrutiny. I seem to recall they did this about Clinton's sex life and the Republic still stands. As I recalll, impeachment is in the Constitution of the United States, and is there in order to provide a check against the executive branch engaging in "high crimes and misdemeanours". If Obama does that, he should be impeached.

He is not God or a king, although you wouldn't know it. He is a branch of government. A government of laws and not of men.

yours,

Peter T.

Subject: RE: BS: Obama and torture
From: beardedbruce
Date: 15 May 09 - 08:41 AM

"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. "

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/05/14/AR2009051403603.html?hpid=opinionsbox1

Subject: RE: BS: Obama and torture
From: beardedbruce
Date: 15 May 09 - 08:54 AM

Yes. Peter T.


But the laws only apply to the OTHER side.

Subject: RE: BS: Obama and torture
From: Bill D
Date: 15 May 09 - 11:52 AM

Lemmee see if I got this right.

Bush, Cheney & various attorneys & advisors took 9/11 as an excuse to pursue an invasion of Iraq, costing many billions and taking many more lives than 9/11, based on faulty intelligence and wishful thinking, and then tried to justify it....both BEFORE & AFTER the fact ....by the use of interrogation measures which experts told them didn't work and were not designed for such use.
They then tried to cover up their bad policies with bad logic ("it's not illegal if the president authorizes it") and misleading 'briefings' and 'classified' memos.
Now they and their supporters and those who are desperately trying to salvage any bit of 'face' for the Republican party are trying to distract us from the issue by saying, "Hey, no matter WHAT we did, Pelosi and others shoulda figgered out from those carefully done 'briefings' what was really happening in 'enhanced interrogation'!"

Have I got that about right?

The CIA 'briefers' were very careful in precisely what they told Congress. If you want to assert that Pelosi & others 'should have gotten the picture', I can't stop you, but *I* intend to wait until more facts are out to agree that Pelosi & Goss & others knew exactly what what was happening, and *I* intend to focus on the FACTS that the interrogation practices were illegal and immoral and were done on bad advice and for the wrong reasons and caused more problems than they fixed.

Subject: RE: BS: Obama and torture
From: Peter T.
Date: 15 May 09 - 12:16 PM

I fail to see the point. The point is not that a reasonable man or a reasonable country panicked. It was not a reasonable response. And so far we have absolutely no evidence except the sayso of government officials who are deeply implicated in the whole mess that anything of "high value" was discovered that couldn't have been found without torture. And it doesn't matter anyway. The point is that it was WRONG AND ILLEGAL. The United States is a signatory to a convention (the blessed Ronald Reagan signed, so how could it be anything but written in gold letters in heaven) that makes it illegal.   People do wrong and illegal things: the Americans took away basic rights of the Japanese in World War II, and it took them forty years to be ashamed of it, and rectify it.   The British are using the court system to try and figure out what went wrong with their response to the war. The Americans will probably do the same, once they get going. If they don't, their ability to fight the wars that are supposed to stop Al-Qaeda in the future will be crippled, because of the moral guilt that attaches to them, and helps Al-Qaeda recruit people.



yours,

Peter T.

Subject: RE: BS: Obama and torture
From: pdq
Date: 15 May 09 - 12:28 PM

Nancy Pelsoi was briefed on September 4th, 2002. Note: that was before the Iraq war began in March 2003.

The document showing precicely what Pelosi was told was supplied by Leon Panetta, current CIA director and fellow California Democrat.

Panetta confims that contents of the breifing document were eplained to Pelosi in person and that she had not problems with any of the harsh interrogation practices.

Porter Goss was there in person and was briefed along with Pelosi.

The CIA agents who did the briefing, Leon Panetta and Porter Goss all tell the same story. Only Nancy Peolsi says differently.

Subject: RE: BS: Obama and torture
From: Charley Noble
Date: 15 May 09 - 12:32 PM

Well, the tracks lead to Cheney's office when it came to requesting waterboarding and other extreme interrogation methods be used by those questioning Sadam's inner circle after the invasion of Iraq, in a desperate attempt to confirm a link with Al Quida or the location of weapons of mass destruction. The techniques produced little useful information (as had been predicted), compared with what interrogators harvested initially. These results did not discourage Cheney from requesting that the same methods be used on suspected Al Quida members when they were captured.

It would be wrong to recommend that similar measures be applied to Cheney and his staff to persuade them to come clean on what they knew and what they did.

Charley Noble

Subject: RE: BS: Obama and torture
From: GUEST,Al
Date: 15 May 09 - 01:12 PM

All those that favoured this guy becoming president seem very quiet on this issue.

Subject: RE: BS: Obama and torture
From: CarolC
Date: 15 May 09 - 01:21 PM

That's not true. Several of us who favored his becoming president have been very vocal on this issue.

Subject: RE: BS: Obama and torture
From: Bill D
Date: 15 May 09 - 04:50 PM

If you turn on the news RIGHT NOW you will see that it is still not clear. It is still being debated who was told what and when...and in how definitive terms.

*IF* you believe Pelosi was either too dumb to hear the facts clearly, or that she is afraid to admit she heard & ignored facts about illegal stuff, it is still the case that illegal stuff was being DONE at the behest of Bush's administration!
No member of Congress should be PUT in the position of having to decide whether they have heard semi-illegal stuff and how to deal with it when the briefings were totally off-the-public-record and it was not yet clear what information was being gained to benefit the country. There should BE no illegal, immoral interrogation to report on!

As I say, I will wait till I see the transcript of the briefings to decide. I wasn't there...and none of YOU were either. But I'd be willing to bet a nickel that CIA briefers didn't take Pelosi & Goss & others into a room and say, "Hey...we're using torture on Zubeida, but it's ok...Cheney approved it and the SOB is talking!"
You know that whatever was said was couched in ambiguous terms in anticipation of this debate.
   Panetta says "it is not CIA policy to torture...".....right. Bush said the same thing, and meant "when we do it, we define it as "not torture."

   Boy, it sure is easy for some of you to figger it all out from vague remarks from 3-4 people, some of whom were not IN the room!

Subject: RE: BS: Obama and torture
From: Bobert
Date: 15 May 09 - 09:05 PM

Yo, bb...

Same ol' bb game... You say that Pelosi "KNEW" (SCREAMing again) and then I ask you how you knew that Pelosi knew and then you say that I am not telling the truth???

Like, huh???

You need to talk with yer shrink about these little problems you have with false accusations... And while yer at it, yer anti-social beahvior of thinking that if you SCREAM loud enough that it will make yer positions correct... Very bad behavior...

Now let me ask you again... How do you ***know*** what Pelsoi was told... Were you there??? Seem there are conflicting stories from folks who were there...

Yet you seem to think that you have the ***right*** story... What makes your story right??? Because you can SCREAM??? Ever been in a state mental hospital??? Lotta folks in there SCREAM, too... But they are in there for reasons aother that they were ***correct***...

I mean, I've been in meetings where bad stuff was so sugar-coated that everyone came away thinkin' that everything was fine... Is it not concievable that the CIA sugar coted their breifings to Congress??? This is, after all, a world in which folks "frame" positions...

For you to claim, well before any "Truth Commission", that you have the ***correct*** story makes you look to be very foolish...

And pleeeze spare all of the adults here yet another "Bobert is a liar" tirade... You are more intellegent than to walk that dead dog in public... Folks don't buy it here, bb...

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: Obama and torture
From: Bill D
Date: 15 May 09 - 10:43 PM

And it seems former Senator Bob Graham was also briefed in the same general time frame as Pelosi, and HE says they never mentioned waterboarding.
   He asked the CIA what dates he was briefed,and they gave him 4 dates. He reports that HIS records indicate that on 3 of those dates, he was not even there! Sen. Graham keeps meticulous records, and the CIA had to back down!
   Further, during briefings, members of Congress being briefed are not allowed to take notes, while the CIA briefers are.... and no one is allowed to SEE the CIA's notes. What a system, huh? There seems to be no way to show whether YOUR memory of what you were told is correct - so Pelosi can't 'prove' her claims.

Further, the CIA routinely dissembles and misleads in other venues.... it is how they THINK on many topics. You think they wouldn't purposely be misleading or vague to a member of Congress if it suited their purpose: especially when their notes are by definition not subject to review?

sheesh!@

Subject: RE: BS: Obama and torture
From: Riginslinger
Date: 15 May 09 - 10:56 PM

Personally, I think Nancy Pelosi has more important things to do. I think she should get out of this and go on.

Subject: RE: BS: Obama and torture
From: Charley Noble
Date: 15 May 09 - 11:36 PM

Rig-

Not a bad thought considering. It's unlikely that anyone can convict her as a principal agent of "torture policy."

Charley Noble

Subject: RE: BS: Obama and torture
From: Bobert
Date: 16 May 09 - 08:26 AM

Correction: It is not "in"concievable that thr CIA sugar-coated their briefings to Congress...

BTW, I saw last night where Bob Graham has had a life long habit of carrying around little spriil notebooks and writing down everything that happens as it is happening... He even writes down what he has for breakfast... Now, if the CIA had said that it was using "water-boarding" then it is not too far of a stretch to think that Graham would have had that in his note book covering that briefing...

I mean, this whole think about Pelosi is just another Republican dirty trick, something that the Repubs have perfected over thge years and something that the American people are sick of and why the American people are increasingly quitting on the Republican Party...

Talk about backfires...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: Obama and torture
From: Peter T.
Date: 16 May 09 - 11:21 AM

And now Obama is back to the military tribunals.   It appears the main reason (apart from pusillanimity on his part) is that the defendants couldn't now be tried in a regular court because they were tortured. Thus the stain continues to spread.   

yours,

Peter T.

Subject: RE: BS: Obama and torture
From: Stringsinger
Date: 16 May 09 - 01:56 PM

It's important to remember that the people who seem to interpret Osama bin Laden have never read his writings. His fanaticism is not extended to destroying America (he sees that as America doing it to itself) but he doesn't want ground troops in Islamic countries.

Torture used on Zubaydah undoubtably hardened him from responding with valid information.

A program developed by the army for future interrogations was made to elicit false information from the tortured who have been captured. This was one of the reasons
torture was used on the detainees at Gitmo but the stupidity of it was that it was shown
that resistance to torture could ensue and false information could be extracted.

If you wanted to go with the "ticking-time bomb" theory, a tortured detainee would be motivated to obscure true information until it was too late. That would be easy to do.

The CIA is not in business to be totally honest in it's dealing with the American public.
It's a spy unit and justifies all kinds of duplicity to make it's case.

Pelosi may well be telling the truth. Bob Graham backs her up with his copious notes.

She may have dodged the issue by not talking about it but she also may not have been briefed and is being vilified by Republicans for it for political purposes.

I suspect that the CIA is not in the business of informing anyone about it's secretive
activities. I think the Republican senators who are accusing her of dissembling are themselves capable of it as well as their self-righteous support of the CIA.

Whether Pelosi knew or not is of course obscured by the fact that she didn't raise a ruckus but who in congress who were briefed did? They are all culpable if they in fact knew of it.

Subject: RE: BS: Obama and torture
From: Riginslinger
Date: 16 May 09 - 04:27 PM

It seems to me like a Congress person is in a pretty tight spot. If he/she is a committee chariman or ranking member they have to be briefed. If they say anything about the briefing they'd really get raked over the coals.

Subject: RE: BS: Obama and torture
From: Peter T.
Date: 16 May 09 - 06:48 PM

I think it is all great -- if Congress has to save its ass, it may actually get off its ass and do something.

yours,

Peter T.

Subject: RE: BS: Obama and torture
From: CarolC
Date: 16 May 09 - 06:59 PM

I was just watching an interview with a journalist named Richard Wolffe on this subject. He said members of the Bush administration told him a long time ago that they were giving useless bogus briefings to members of Congress in order to co-opt and compromise them just in case they would try to hold people responsible for torture, and so that they could then do exactly what Republicans and the CIA (with the help of Panetta, probably because he's working for Obama, who doesn't want the investigations to go forward) are now doing - trying to discredit the efforts to investigate the torture program by trying to discredit the investigators.

Subject: RE: BS: Obama and torture
From: Riginslinger
Date: 16 May 09 - 09:25 PM

Okay, so Pelosi was probably briefed on a number of things the Bush Administration didn't go ahead with, and hidden in the mix was the briefing about torture. If she pushes it to the limit, the record will back Cheney. It seems to me she'd be better served to drop it and go on with something more constructive.
                  Obviously Obama has figured out that he has more important things to do.

Subject: RE: BS: Obama and torture
From: Peter T.
Date: 16 May 09 - 11:42 PM

Such as?

yours,

Peter T.

Subject: RE: BS: Obama and torture
From: CarolC
Date: 17 May 09 - 03:17 AM

I think history will be much kinder to Pelosi if she pushes forward with the investigations than it will be to Obama if she doesn't. Cheney's screwed either way (as he should be).

Subject: RE: BS: Obama and torture
From: Riginslinger
Date: 17 May 09 - 08:33 AM

If Cheney is right, and the evidence seems to indicate that he is, about the administrationi briefing Congress through committee chairs and ranking members, it looks to me like Pelosi is the one who is screwed.

            Personally, I don't have a dog in this fight. I think the US did what it had to do. Now that Obama has all the information in front of him, he can see that. If another 9/11 attack happened again, I think the US would do the same thing under an Obama administration.


"Such as?"

Healthcare
Banking regulation
Social Security
Medicare
Education
etc.

Subject: RE: BS: Obama and torture
From: Bobert
Date: 17 May 09 - 09:28 AM

What "evidence", Rigs...

Subject: RE: BS: Obama and torture
From: Peter T.
Date: 17 May 09 - 01:16 PM

The important people here are the people who were tortured and some of whom appear to have been killed in the name of America, without any recourse. The petty squabbling is, dare I say it, petty squabbling.

The most important thing a country does is uphold the laws and rights of its citizens. Without that, none of the rest matters. Without that, all the rest is destroyable -- from within, which is far worse than anything terrorists can do.
yours,

Peter T.

Subject: RE: BS: Obama and torture
From: Riginslinger
Date: 17 May 09 - 02:12 PM

The most important thing a country does is to keep its citizens alive. Without that, none of the rest of it matters.

Subject: RE: BS: Obama and torture
From: Peter T.
Date: 17 May 09 - 03:49 PM

Tell that to the North Koreans.

yours,

Peter T.

Subject: RE: BS: Obama and torture
From: CarolC
Date: 17 May 09 - 03:54 PM

Pelosi's not screwed even if she was briefed, if she continues her push to investigate, because a public official who allows those crimes to be committed, and then works to try to correct their mistake, comes out better in the long run than one who allows them (or who plans them and carries them out) and then tries to cover them up. Pelosi will look even more heroic if she potentially faces concequences herself but presses on anyway. The rest of them will look like cowards and slimeballs (which is what they will be).

Subject: RE: BS: Obama and torture
From: CarolC
Date: 17 May 09 - 04:02 PM

The US didn't do what it had to do. What it did didn't contribute to keeping its citizens alive or safe, and it has been shown that what it did cost the lives of quite a few US citizens, and at the same time undermined the mission of our military people in the "War on Terror". The Bush administration tortured people because it needed a justification to wage an elective war on a sovereign country for money. Torture has been proven to be counterproductive in the long run for keeping a nation safe, and no administration will allow its use unless it is trying to force people to say things that aren't true in order to support an agenda that has nothing to do with keeping the US safe.