What’s to prevent a next time, then, other than the measures that did not prevent the first time?
All I’m saying is, when this crisis time passes, the events we’re discussing will be even further in the past and it will be that much more difficult to dredge them up.
If they fan em too hard, they’ll likely get the investigation they don’t want, and we’ll end up with GOPers in jail.
As I mentioned upthread, I’d happily trade Pelosi for that.
Pelosi has already, finally, admitted, in a convoluted manner, that she was made aware that waterboarding was occurring. She knew that her aide was briefed to that effect. As a result, all the rest is irrelevant diversion–i.e., she DID know that waterboarding occurred. It’s in your cite. Why her knowledge of this if the CIA briefed her is a major distinction from finding out from her aide defies explanation. She KNEW, contrary to her prior assertions and in contrast to her recent shock and outrage.
Don’t even know what this means. We needn’t believe anything except that Pelosi knew and didn’t make a peep about it, whether she’s a paragon of noble motives or Satan’s spawn. It merely makes apparent that her current moral outrage is hollow bullshit. If she believes something illegal occurred, she’s complicit. OTOH, if her inaction was harmless, then nothing illegal occurred (from her perspective). Them’s the choices, and I’m sure she’s choking on them. Her stammering tapdance now makes clear that the strategy has some legs.
by same logic…
If you want to put Bush in jail, you’d have to put Pelosi in the cell next to him for aiding and abetting the crime…
I don’t particularly care if Pelosi goes down over this, but you might want to check out the definition of “aiding and abetting.” Mere knowledge that a crime has taken place is not always enough to meet the legal definition (see, e.g., this lectlaw article). It is very possible that she is an accessory after the fact, but we’d have to know in detail what she did and what her actions were.
I am glad to hear that you have totally made it to your post-partisan era.
However, anyone who believes that the Republicans as a whole have any post-partisan sympathy whatsoever for Nancy Pelosi is a fool who has not been paying attention to the news. She is the enemy, thus any logic, any lies are permissible so long as they lead to her destruction. Can you honestly claim the GOP’s motive is any better than that here? Have you any evidence for that position? I’ve sure not seen any.
An example of GOP good will:
Some asshat who wasn’t even there when Pelosi was briefed said:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090515/ap_on_go_co/us_pelosi_torture_26
“terror-fighters”??? Valerie Plame was a terror fighter.
I don’t think the guys who tried to torture up some bogus evidence to justify our conquest of Iraq qualify as “terror fighters”.
It’s becoming ever more obvious that a serious investigation/prosecution is needed if we’re ever to put this torture crap behind us.
Okay, agreed. A bit of a run-on. And I did conflate Abu Grab with officially sanctioned torture by experts. But both came from the same wellspring: a message from the top and approved of by much of America that going to the dark side was the right thing to do.
Were there checks and balances spelled out in briefings to Congress? No, informing a very few muzzled members of what was being done while instructing the CIA to torture doesn’t quite qualify. Even if this trained staff of professional Inquisitors could always fall back on “just following orders” because other staff created distortions of the law.
Marley23, focusing on the officially sanctioned torture/enhanced techniques, I’d suggest much greater required oversight (not mere informing a few muzzled Congresscritters of what you are doing) and clearer definitions of what is torture and what is allowable.
Yes, I’d like to see Cheney punished. And many others. And I’d like to see those who could have spoken up effectiely but remained quiet slapped down (and maybe that does include Pelosi, maybe not, I don’t know). But I think it is a poor idea to expend much energy on that while we have more critically emergent issues to attend to. If that means that my need for justice is perhaps less well served at the end of the day but we have instead accomplished a healthcare reform package that works, made progress on dealing with global climate change, and stabilized some foreign policy hot spots instead, well, I can live with that. Which of those would you sacrifice for punishing Cheney and others? Because I am convinced that several would wither if we spent the effort to pursue this as far as it really should go. Of course what I think doesn’t matter, but I am also convinced that Obama thinks that too.
Did she know? Probably, but when you get situations like this you need to examine the hypocrisy of it not the act itself. They are not debating whether it is right or wrong, they are debating whether someone who knows about something has a right to decry it later on.
The fact is we all do stuff we know is wrong, it’s just a matter of degree.
For instance, I worked at a hotel in the system department. The GM of the hotel would have me steal images from other websites and use them on our site. I pointed out very strongly this is wrong, illegal and could get us sued. He replied, “Mark that won’t happen, before we’re sued they send us a notice saying ‘Take down our stuff,’ and we will then.”
OK he was right, the few times it happened other companies just send a cease and desist type of thing and it ends there. But it was STILL wrong. Was it wrong enough for me to quit my job over? No it wasn’t. I asked myself, can I live with this? I said, yes but the fact is it was wrong.
If Pelosi KNEW this was going on she and she was AGAINST it and USED IT AGAINST her political opponents, she had a duty as an American to speak out against it. There are ways to call for an investigation without revealing too much.
To decry this while she knew means she has a moral failing. We all have these, both Democrats and Republicans do. It’s a typical “glass house” thing.
Kind of like in WWII the soldiers claim “I was just following orders.” Rules of war say you don’t follow orders that are just wrong. But if you don’t then you get killed (or whatever) so it’s a rock and a hard place type thing.
I can’t stand ANY politican double dealing. If she knew she needs to be called out on it. Then the voters in her district will decide whether she’s worthy of retaining her seat in Congress. EVERY politican needs to be called out on things. This should happen MORE not less
The CIA was tasked with gaining information from our enemies and they were asked to draw a hard line in the sand as to the techniques used. To this end they codified (for Congress) where that line was. The purpose of the briefings was to ensure everyone was on the same page in the common goal of protecting our country.
Now you can argue about the severity of the techniques used but they have a common theme and that is to trick someone into thinking harm will come to them. This is decidedly different than having body parts cut off and a host of other torture techniques used by our enemies. We will not gain any respect in this public display because we are heathens who will never be respected. In their eyes we are the great Satan to be destroyed regardless of the outcome.
Nothing, and I mean nothing good will come of this. It’s political showboating for the personal gain of those engaging in it. At best, a public display of eating our own will play to our enemies at a time when countries like Pakistan are fighting them in the streets. It will not gain us any respect from Al Qaida and if anything it shows a weakness to them to be exploited. They are fighting an asymmetrical war where terrorism and civilian death is the weapon of choice.
This is not a war of acquisition with the Queensburry rules posted at the gate. Our only tool in fighting them is the gathering of information. We are fighting people who live in caves and train people to walk in disguise among us until they can be turned into living weapons. This is an enemy that professes world conquest for the greater glory of Allah yet they are equally busy killing themselves in the misguided belief that THEIR version of Allah is the correct one.
Instead of moving forward and declaring a desire not to use certain techniques we have turned on each other and the agency tasked with keeping us safe. We are certainly poisoning the well of the CIA if we expect them to continue their function without fear of being stabbed in the back in the future.
I would dispute your characterization of how and to what purpose information was presented and to whom. Again, informing a few muzzled by law Congresscritters of what you are doing is not oversight or making sure we are all on the same page.
Torture is harm even if it leaves you with your body intact and if waterboarding is different than cutting off a finger it is only in that you can only cut off ten fingers whereas you can waterboard over and over again - eighty times for one subject, right?
It is wrong and it is illegal. Even if it did work better than other means of gathering information.
The issue is not whether or not we will be respected by the Islamists for living to our own standards. The issue is if we can respect ourselves.
As I’ve said I do not believe that the value of pursuing this is worth the cost to accomplishing other goals, but in a more perfect world we would indeed hold people accountable for ordering it, for enabling it with distorted legal briefings, for doing it, and yes, even for staying silent if speaking out was possible and could have been effective. No matter what party they belong to.
I’m just using basic observation skills. The current head of the CIA is Leon Paneta who is an Obama installed throwback from Clinton. He’s confident enough to stand up for his people. He has a job to do and letting Congress use his agency for their personal gain interferes with that.
The japanese police use sleep deprivation which would be considered torture by your definition. I’m not sure what you expect the CIA to do. They use mind games to break people down and waterboarding is one of them. To suggest that Congress somehow had it’s hands tied in respect to the standards agreed to dismisses the purpose of the committees specifically tasked with this oversight.
In your opinion their techniques are wrong. Congress was given the guidelines for their opinion on the matter.
I would respect politicians more if they did their job instead of trying to score points politically. If Congress was briefed under Obama’s administration this thread would be filled with people giving him the benefit of the doubt.
I can respect people’s opinion regarding waterboarding but I do not accept that it was so far beyond question that it can be used for political fodder now when it should have been challenged at the time by the members of Congress entrusted with overseeing it.
If “it should have been challenged” by members of Congress, doesn’t it necessarily follow that the dominant party bears the greater burden of responsibility? And isn’t this especially true at the committee level, wherein the chair wields so much power?
That is true; at that meeting. I’m guessing there was more than one meeting with the CIA and the topic of enhanced interrogation.
I’m assuming lots of people knew, but Pelosi is the target because she has name strength to encompass the entire Democratic Party. Whereas, an unknown Democrat, would just be alienated. Here, her fellow members are forced to make a decision with her or against her and can then all be tied in by association.
How did all this start? Did her aide feel guilt and come forward?
He was waterboarded.
Pelosi is a target because she drew a bullseye on herself when she lied about what she knew and then threw stones at the CIA. Nancy has to face her nemesis every time she walks by a mirror (assuming she can see her reflection).
Actually, It’ll take a serious congressional investigation to decide whether Pelosi, or the CIA lied about waterboarding.
As Leon Panetta says:
Congress should get started on this soon.
Before this time, she basked in the warm bi-partisan respect and comity generously afforded her by the Pubbies? Which accord she betrayed, then?
By the by, I asked you a question upthread. If you have some ethical or religious objections to answering questions, would you so advise? Thanks.
She’s basking in the warm glow of a fellow CIA jackass.
Wasn’t aware I had to respond to you. This thread is about Pelosi and her foot-in-mouth disease that only allows her to talk after the fact.