5
   

The new Pelosi firestorm

 
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Tue 19 May, 2009 01:08 pm
@Woiyo9,
Woiyo9 wrote:

Nice try circle jerk.

"WASHINGTON, May 7 (UPI) -- House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., was briefed on the use of harsh techniques for interrogating suspected terrorists, the CIA said in a newly released memo.

Documents released by the Office of the Director of National Intelligence indicate Pelosi was briefed in September 2002 -- just before the first anniversary of the Sept. 11, 2001, terror attacks -- about the use of EITs, an acronym for enhanced interrogation techniques, The Washington Post reported Thursday."

http://www.upi.com/Top_News/2009/05/07/CIA-Pelosi-briefed-on-use-of-techniques/UPI-54261241747183/

Go spin this , jerk!


I guess I can spin it for you:

http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com/2009/05/source_eit_term_wasnt_in_use_when_pelosi_was_brief.php?ref=fpblg

The term "Enhanced Interrogation Techniques," which is all over these memos, was not in use in 2002, when they were supposedly created.

I would also note that Leon Panetta did not deny Pelosi's charges that the CIA is lying, at all. You ought to take a closer look at what he said.

Cycloptichorn
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Tue 19 May, 2009 03:20 pm
@Cycloptichorn,
Why argue with an ignoramus who doesn't understand the English language? It's a lost cause.
0 Replies
 
Debra Law
 
  1  
Reply Tue 19 May, 2009 03:27 pm
@Cycloptichorn,
Cycloptichorn wrote:

Woiyo9 wrote:

Nice try circle jerk.

"WASHINGTON, May 7 (UPI) -- House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., was briefed on the use of harsh techniques for interrogating suspected terrorists, the CIA said in a newly released memo.

Documents released by the Office of the Director of National Intelligence indicate Pelosi was briefed in September 2002 -- just before the first anniversary of the Sept. 11, 2001, terror attacks -- about the use of EITs, an acronym for enhanced interrogation techniques, The Washington Post reported Thursday."

http://www.upi.com/Top_News/2009/05/07/CIA-Pelosi-briefed-on-use-of-techniques/UPI-54261241747183/

Go spin this , jerk!


I guess I can spin it for you:

http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com/2009/05/source_eit_term_wasnt_in_use_when_pelosi_was_brief.php?ref=fpblg

The term "Enhanced Interrogation Techniques," which is all over these memos, was not in use in 2002, when they were supposedly created.

I would also note that Leon Panetta did not deny Pelosi's charges that the CIA is lying, at all. You ought to take a closer look at what he said.

Cycloptichorn


At the time the first torture memo was written in August 2002, the intelligence community referred to torturing detainees as an "increased pressure phase."

Link to Bybee memo

Thus, if there exist CIA records alleging that ranking members of the Intelligence Committee were advised in September 2002 of the use of EIT's, then those records were created long after the fact.

When Panetta recently released the records of these alleged briefings to the select committee, Panetta specifically informed the members (including John A. Boehner) that the CIA could not vouch for the accuracy of the records. Panetta stated the records were created based on the alleged recollections of the CIA personnel who conducted the briefings.

LINK to Cover Letter dated May 5, 2009

Graham, due to his own meticulous record keeping, was able to establish that the CIA records of alleged briefings are inaccurate and unreliable.

Link to interview with Graham including video and transcript
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Tue 19 May, 2009 03:40 pm
@Debra Law,
It's the same CIA who didn't question the Bush administration about Iraq's WMDs and Saddam's al Qaida connection when that fact would have made a big difference between going to war or not to go to war in Iraq. I also remember the Bush administration using the term "shock and awe" for the initial preemptive attack on Iraq; and the killing of over 500,000 (*by some estimates) of innocent Iraqis killed over the term of the Bush war.

People like Boehner shoots off his mouth as if "hearing about torture" is a worse crime, and he's a member of "our" congress. No shame.
genoves
 
  1  
Reply Wed 20 May, 2009 03:25 am
@cicerone imposter,
Cicerone Imposter proves again that he is senile. He also shows that he is a non reader. He does not know that Democrats were quoted with regard to Saddam Hussein's evil intentions.

Note--quotes from the Democratic leadership

But the consensus on which Mr. Bush relied was not born in his own administration. In fact, it was first fully formed in the Clinton administration. Here is Bill Clinton himself, speaking in 1998:

If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons-of-mass-destruction program.
Here is his Secretary of State Madeline Albright, also speaking in 1998:

Iraq is a long way from [the USA], but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risk that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical, or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face.
Here is Sandy Berger, Clinton's National Security Adviser, who chimed in at the same time with this flat-out assertion about Saddam:

He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983.
Finally, Mr. Clinton's secretary of defense, William Cohen, was so sure Saddam had stockpiles of WMD that he remained "absolutely convinced" of it even after our failure to find them in the wake of the invasion in March 2003.
Nor did leading Democrats in Congress entertain any doubts on this score. A few months after Mr. Clinton and his people made the statements I have just quoted, a group of Democratic senators, including such liberals as Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, and John Kerry, urged the President "to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons-of-mass-destruction programs."

Nancy Pelosi, the future leader of the Democrats in the House, and then a member of the House Intelligence Committee, added her voice to the chorus:


Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons-of-mass-destruction technology, which is a threat to countries in the region, and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process.
This Democratic drumbeat continued and even intensified when Mr. Bush succeeded Mr. Clinton in 2001, and it featured many who would later pretend to have been deceived by the Bush White House. In a letter to the new president, a group of senators led by Bob Graham declared:

There is no doubt that . . . Saddam Hussein has invigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical, and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf war status. In addition, Saddam continues to redefine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer-range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies.
Sen. Carl Levin also reaffirmed for Mr. Bush's benefit what he had told Mr. Clinton some years earlier:

Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandate of the United Nations, and is building weapons of mass destruction and the means of delivering them.
Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton agreed, speaking in October 2002:

In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical- and biological-weapons stock, his missile-delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al-Qaeda members.
Senator Jay Rockefeller, vice chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, agreed as well:

There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years. . . . We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction.
Even more striking were the sentiments of Bush's opponents in his two campaigns for the presidency. Thus Al Gore in September 2002:

We know that [Saddam] has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country.
And here is Mr. Gore again, in that same year:

Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter, and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power.
Now to John Kerry, also speaking in 2002:

I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force--if necessary--to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security.
Perhaps most startling of all, given the rhetoric that they would later employ against Mr. Bush after the invasion of Iraq, are statements made by Sens. Ted Kennedy and Robert Byrd, also in 2002:
Kennedy: "We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction."

Byrd: "The last U.N. weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical- and biological-warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons."



*****************************************************************

It sounds that the CIA wasn't needed to convince the American Public that Saddam and Iraq were dangerous. The Democrats did the job well enough.

*******************************************************************

Poor Cicerone Imposter--Is he well into Alzheimer's already???
0 Replies
 
Woiyo9
 
  1  
Reply Wed 20 May, 2009 06:14 am
@Cycloptichorn,
Quote:
I would also note that Leon Panetta did not deny Pelosi's charges that the CIA is lying, at all. You ought to take a closer look at what he said.



OK...Here is what Leon Panetta said....

CIA Director Leon Panetta's Statement



Message from the Director: Turning Down the Volume
This Story

*
CIA Chief Rebuts Pelosi's Charges
*
CIA Director Leon Panetta's Statement

There is a long tradition in Washington of making political hay out of our business. It predates my service with this great institution, and it will be around long after I'm gone. But the political debates about interrogation reached a new decibel level yesterday when the CIA was accused of misleading Congress.

Let me be clear: It is not our policy or practice to mislead Congress. That is against our laws and our values. As the Agency indicated previously in response to Congressional inquiries, our contemporaneous records from September 2002 indicate that CIA officers briefed truthfully on the interrogation of Abu Zubaydah, describing "the enhanced techniques that had been employed." Ultimately, it is up to Congress to evaluate all the evidence and reach its own conclusions about what happened.

My advice--indeed, my direction--to you is straightforward: ignore the noise and stay focused on your mission. We have too much work to do to be distracted from our job of protecting this country.

We are an Agency of high integrity, professionalism, and dedication. 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.

Leon E. Panetta

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/05/15/AR2009051504076.html

Anything to add?
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Wed 20 May, 2009 10:29 am
@Woiyo9,
If it's not the CIAs business to mislead congress, how come they didn't tell congress about no WMDs and no Saddam connection to al Qaida? Pretty glaring mislead if you ask anybody who's not a Bush/CIA apologist. Yellow cake any one?
Woiyo9
 
  1  
Reply Wed 20 May, 2009 10:35 am
@cicerone imposter,
Tell who, what about WMD's?
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Wed 20 May, 2009 10:36 am
@Woiyo9,
I figured you would miss that! LOL
Woiyo9
 
  1  
Reply Wed 20 May, 2009 10:54 am
@cicerone imposter,
You mean there never were any? WOW!!! BRILLIANT!!!
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Wed 20 May, 2009 11:39 am
@Woiyo9,
Woiyo9 wrote:

Quote:
I would also note that Leon Panetta did not deny Pelosi's charges that the CIA is lying, at all. You ought to take a closer look at what he said.



OK...Here is what Leon Panetta said....

CIA Director Leon Panetta's Statement



Message from the Director: Turning Down the Volume
This Story

*
CIA Chief Rebuts Pelosi's Charges
*
CIA Director Leon Panetta's Statement

There is a long tradition in Washington of making political hay out of our business. It predates my service with this great institution, and it will be around long after I'm gone. But the political debates about interrogation reached a new decibel level yesterday when the CIA was accused of misleading Congress.

Let me be clear: It is not our policy or practice to mislead Congress. That is against our laws and our values. As the Agency indicated previously in response to Congressional inquiries, our contemporaneous records from September 2002 indicate that CIA officers briefed truthfully on the interrogation of Abu Zubaydah, describing "the enhanced techniques that had been employed." Ultimately, it is up to Congress to evaluate all the evidence and reach its own conclusions about what happened.

My advice--indeed, my direction--to you is straightforward: ignore the noise and stay focused on your mission. We have too much work to do to be distracted from our job of protecting this country.

We are an Agency of high integrity, professionalism, and dedication. 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.

Leon E. Panetta

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/05/15/AR2009051504076.html

Anything to add?



Sure - I stand by my original statement. Panetta did not rebut Pelosi's claims at all. You need to learn to read more carefully.

Quote:

Let me be clear: It is not our policy or practice to mislead Congress.


This is meaningless and says nothing about whether or not they DID mislead Congress. He didn't say they didn't mislead Congress, just that it is not the CIA policy to do so.

Quote:
As the Agency indicated previously in response to Congressional inquiries, our contemporaneous records from September 2002 indicate that CIA officers briefed truthfully on the interrogation of Abu Zubaydah, describing "the enhanced techniques that had been employed."


This states that the records say a certain thing; but those records were compiled after-the-fact, based on the memories of those who gave the briefings. Once again this doesn't contradict what Pelosi said at all.

Quote:
Ultimately, it is up to Congress to evaluate all the evidence and reach its own conclusions about what happened.


This is basically an admission that they may have in fact neglected to brief Pelosi on the details.

The rest is meaningless and gives no information at all.

If you read closely you will see that Paneta did not deny the charges at all, but merely made a bunch of statements which sounded good.

Cycloptichorn
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Wed 20 May, 2009 11:59 am
@Cycloptichorn,
Woiyo still doesn't get it! "Enhanced techniques" was not used until 2006, and they're talking about what happened in 2002. Also, the CIA's records on who attended which meetings in 2002 have been shown to be wrong.

Finally, Pelosi wants an investigation into this issue.

Woiyo9
 
  -1  
Reply Wed 20 May, 2009 12:03 pm
@cicerone imposter,
I get it asshole. We have been using "enhanced techniques" FOREVER. If you believe otherwise, you are naive.

What I do not get is why Bella Pelosi is lying about her not knowing.

You may want to believe that ding-bat, but real objective observers understand that all politicians will lie and deny, even what the facts prove otherwise.
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Wed 20 May, 2009 12:10 pm
@Woiyo9,
The US didn't use enhanced techniques until Bush took over the white house. Torture is against both domestic and international laws.

You are not only naive, but ignorant.

How many times did Bush lie? Let us count the ways.

From the LA Times:
Quote:
Rosa Brooks:
Bush's big lies
Behind the sordid memos that purported to give legal justification for the war on terror.
Rosa Brooks
March 5, 2009


How did they ever get away with it?

On Tuesday, the Justice Department released a batch of memos drafted in 2001 and 2002 by lawyers in the Bush administration's Office of Legal Counsel. Written mainly by John Yoo, then a deputy director in the office, they laid out the purported legal justifications for a theory of presidential power amounting to virtual dictatorship.

Collectively, they declare that if the U.S. military were deployed against suspected terrorists inside the United States, even U.S. citizens wouldn't be protected by the 4th Amendment's prohibition against unreasonable search and seizure. They also conclude that citizens and noncitizens could be designated "unlawful enemy combatants" by the president on the basis of secret evidence. And once that happens, they could be locked up indefinitely and tortured, without charge, access to counsel or any procedure through which to challenge the detention or treatment.


I know: All this is old hat. With so many leaks over the years, who doesn't know by now that the Bush administration sought virtually unlimited executive power to monitor, detain and use force against individuals anywhere around the globe in the name of the "war on terror"?
Woiyo9
 
  1  
Reply Wed 20 May, 2009 12:23 pm
@cicerone imposter,
Quote:
The US didn't use enhanced techniques until Bush took over the white house. Torture is against both domestic and international laws.



Please....Who is being naive.
dyslexia
 
  1  
Reply Wed 20 May, 2009 12:34 pm
@Woiyo9,
Woiyo9 wrote:

Quote:
The US didn't use enhanced techniques until Bush took over the white house. Torture is against both domestic and international laws.



Please....Who is being naive.
the US has used "enhanced techniques" since before the revolutionary war. We (the US got reall good at it during the Korean police action and refined our techniques during Vietnam.
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Wed 20 May, 2009 01:31 pm
@dyslexia,
We are now talking about the Bush regime from 2001 to 2008:
Quote:

UN Declaration on the Protection of All Persons from Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (1975) "No State may permit or tolerate torture...Exceptional circumstances such as a state of war ...or any other public emergency may not be invoked as a justification of torture or other cruel inhumane or degrading treatment or punishment."

United States Bill of Rights (1789), Amendment 8 " ...nor (shall) cruel or unusual punishment be inflicted."

From Salon.com: The meetings were held in the White House Situation Room in the years immediately following the Sept. 11 attacks. Attending the sessions were Cheney, then-Bush aides Attorney General John Ashcroft, Secretary of State Colin Powell, CIA Director George Tenet and national security adviser Condoleezza Rice.

Main article: U.S. Army Field Manuals In late 2006, the military issued updated field manuals on intelligence collection (FM 2-22.3. Human Intelligence Collector Operations, September 2006) and counterinsurgency (FM 3-24. Counterinsurgency, December 2006). Both manuals reiterated that "no person in the custody or under the control of DOD, regardless of nationality or physical location, shall be subject to torture or cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment or punishment, in accordance with and as defined in US law."

Geneva Conventions (1949) Article 99, Third Convention "no moral or physical coercion may be exerted on a prisoner of war in order to admit himself guilty of the act of which he is accused "

From Human Rights First:
Security Detainees/Enemy Combatants U.S. Law Prohibits Torture and other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment
Any practice of torture or other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment by United States officials violates international human rights standards to which the United States is a party. These include the Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (the Torture Convention), and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.1

The use of torture also violates U.S. law. In 1994, Congress passed a new federal law which specifically provides for penalties including fines and up to 20 years' imprisonment for acts of torture committed by American or other officials outside the United States. In cases where torture results in death of the victim, the sentence is life imprisonment or execution.2

"Renderings" to countries known to engage in routine torture violate article 3 of the Torture Convention, which prohibits sending an individual to another state where there are "substantial grounds for believing that he would be in danger of being subjected to torture."3 Such transfers, and even credible threats of such transfers, made to combatants detained in an armed conflict also violate article 17 of the Third Geneva Convention, which provides that "[n]o physical or mental torture, nor any other form of coercion, may be inflicted on prisoners of war to secure from them information of any kind whatever. Prisoners of war who refuse to answer may not be threatened, insulted, or exposed to unpleasant or disadvantageous treatment of any kind" (emphasis added). Indeed, if committed against persons protected by the Geneva Conventions, "torture or inhuman treatment.[or] willfully causing great suffering or serious injury to body or health," would all constitute "grave breaches" under the Geneva Conventions.4
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Wed 20 May, 2009 07:24 pm
@cicerone imposter,
This one is almost too ironic, but a republican congress member is asking for an investigation into the CIA:

Quote:
WASHINGTON (CNN) -- A Republican congressman Wednesday asked the head of the FBI to investigate allegations that the CIA lied to Congress about the Bush administration's use of "alternative" interrogation techniques on suspected terrorists.
Rep. Darrell Issa asked the FBI to investigate Speaker Nancy Pelosi's claim that the CIA lied to Congress.

Rep. Darrell Issa asked the FBI to investigate Speaker Nancy Pelosi's claim that the CIA lied to Congress.

Rep. Darrell Issa, a member of the House Judiciary Committee, asked FBI director Robert Mueller whether the bureau was investigating that allegation and whether he could request a probe as a member of Congress. He said the claim, leveled last week by House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, left him doubting whether "I can believe in the briefings I am receiving" from intelligence agencies.

"If CIA is lying to any of us -- and I have been briefed many times by them on the Intelligence Committee -- it puts me in a position of not being able to do my job properly," said Issa, R-California.

Pelosi made the charge in response to questions about what she was told about the use of the techniques, which critics say amounted to the torture of prisoners in U.S. custody. Her claim provoked a firestorm on Capitol Hill, with Republicans -- who generally defend the techniques -- blasting Pelosi and demanding she back up the allegation.

Mueller said he would check into whether Issa's request would be enough to launch an investigation.


And then there's this bomb:
Quote:
Boehner admits CIA has lied to Congress

Originally broadcast: May 20, 2009
Tags: CIA (3), John Boehner (6), Nancy Pelosi (5), Torture (19), all tags.
Posted by Jed Lewison • May 20, 2009 at 2:29 PM Pacific

In an interview with CNN’s Wolf Blitzer on Wednesday, House Republican Leader John Boehner conceded that despite his attacks on Speaker Pelosi for accusing the CIA of lying to Congress, he too believes that the agency has lied to Congress.

Boehner said the CIA had lied to Republican Congressman Pete Hoekstra last year about the 2001 downing of a plane in Peru carrying an American missionary and her daughter.
hawkeye10
 
  1  
Reply Wed 20 May, 2009 09:36 pm
@cicerone imposter,
Quote:
This one is almost too ironic, but a republican congress member is asking for an investigation into the CIA:


Perhaps you could lose the partisan bulldog persona for a spell, and admit that this is a good idea no matter who has the idea. It certainly appears that the CIA allowed the national intelligence process to be corrupted by politics and ideology, which is a bad situation for all of America. The CIA's job is to tell the truth, and tell the truth to everybody, even if they don't want to know or be told the truth. There was a few months were Dick Cheney was over at CIA several times a week pressuring them to brief the briefs that he wanted them to do and write the reports as he wanted them written. It appears that they caved in to the pressure.
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Wed 20 May, 2009 09:41 pm
@hawkeye10,
Granted, it really shouldn't matter which congress member asks for any investigation of the CIA, but it's the conservatives who's been making hay out of the Pelosi yarn for the past month.

I don't see anything wrong in pointing out to "these" conservatives on a2k that they are "full of it." Beohner has even asked Pelosi to step down knowing full well even a conservative congressman said he was lied to by the CIA.

 

Related Topics

 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.06 seconds on 11/12/2024 at 06:34:02