Where fools rush in.. (Dem's & hearings)

[AVGWarhawk]

I know it is a lot of fun to debate the debatable but back to the thread topic at hand:

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

Pelosi an accomplice to 'torture'.....looks that way. Seems there are dirty hands for everyone.

Is it just me or is Obama a gun jumper? Gitmo...hasty decision. Just close it...no plan of action on where and how to keep the detainees. Displaying memos on Gitmo....hasty decision. Does Obama not look the entire picture first before he goes head-long into just throwing things out of the table for all to see? What is next?

I'm guessing Pelosi will become a thorn in Obama's side after this little tidbit.

[Tchocky]

Why was displaying the memos a hasty decision?

Oh, Karl Rove doesn't understand the circumstances of the briefings. He finds it

Originally Posted by Karl Rove

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?

Originally Posted by Vivki Divoll

JUST four members of Congress were notified in 2002 when the Central Intelligence Agency’s “enhanced interrogation techniques” program was first approved and carried out, according to documents released by the agency last week. They were Senators Bob Graham and Richard Shelby and Representatives Porter Goss and Nancy Pelosi, then the chairmen and ranking members of the Senate and House intelligence committees — the so-called “Gang of Four.” Each was briefed orally and it was understood that they were not to speak about the program with anyone, including their colleagues on the committees.

from here http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/13/op...ed=1&th&emc=th

[AVGWarhawk]

It was hasty because it looks to me that possible repercussions were not weighed. Hang with me on this. During the election, Obama kept throwing out timelimes for Iraq withdrawal. After getting a briefing of what is really occurring in Iraq he changed his tune on the withdrawal timeline. He did not have the facts. Gitmo, yes, just close it down without a plan. Repercussions on this hasty decision. No consideration on what the repercussions of this decision would create. Let show memo's on torture...it all looks to be nothing but the "Star Chamber" of Republicans involved anyway, but wait, it seems that some of Obama staunchest supportors knew about these tortures and did nothing. Did Obama take into account that if these memos did go out how would the world view the US? As we see here in this thread, the US is not seen in a good light. It would seem it put the US a few steps back in the hole in the world view of the US. Again, repercussions not considered. Ok, now this administration is looking to persecute some Bush official in this matter. This administration might want to pick up Pelosi as well and let the proceedings begin. Really, this is a political ploy at best and it does not seem to paint anyone in a favorable light. In short, getting the facts, looking at the possible outcomes of releasing these memos and pictures were not weighed. Also, if such a thing did happen and not to the general publics knowledge...what else are the idiots in Washington doing that no one is aware of? Perhaps this will generate a snowball effect of other wrong doings?

EDIT: And another thing...this 'enhanced techique' Call it what it is...torture. This friggin play on words is stupid. It is as bad as 'What is 'is'?..Bill Clinton

[August]

Originally Posted by AVGWarhawk

...repercussions not considered

This is what happens when you elect a man who isn't qualified or prepared for the job of President.

[mookiemookie]

Obama is getting cold feet about releasing torture photos: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/30725189/

His reasoning? "He said the abrupt reversal of his position came out of concern that the pictures would 'further inflame anti-American opinion' and endanger U.S. forces in Iraq and Afghanistan."

Which, in a funny coincidence, is the precise reason why torture doesn't work and endangers us further rather than making us safer.

[AVGWarhawk]

Originally Posted by mookiemookie

Obama is getting cold feet about releasing torture photos: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/30725189/

His reasoning? "He said the abrupt reversal of his position came out of concern that the pictures would 'further inflame anti-American opinion' and endanger U.S. forces in Iraq and Afghanistan."

Which, in a funny coincidence, is the precise reason why torture doesn't work and endangers us further rather than making us safer.

Therefore the memo's originally released should have been left alone. What, did he really think the world would embrace him and think everything is splendid from here on out? It would seem that those that voiced an opinion over releasing these memo's would do more harm than good. Not only in the world view but within his own 'transparent' government. Furthermore, this opens the door to the world who are now suspect that other things went on. Welcome to the dirty laundry list.

[Tchocky]

Originally Posted by AVGWarhawk

It was hasty because it looks to me that possible repercussions were not weighed. Hang with me on this. During the election, Obama kept throwing out timelimes for Iraq withdrawal. After getting a briefing of what is really occurring in Iraq he changed his tune on the withdrawal timeline. He did not have the facts.

Seems fairly logical to me. Would you prefer that he stuck to the first timeline (which was always subject to change due to new information if he took office), no matter what information was received?

Gitmo, yes, just close it down without a plan. Repercussions on this hasty decision.

It wasn't a hasty decision, it was common knowledge during the campaign.

No consideration on what the repercussions of this decision would create.

What are these repercussions?

Let show memo's on torture...it all looks to be nothing but the "Star Chamber" of Republicans involved anyway, but wait, it seems that some of Obama staunchest supportors knew about these tortures and did nothing.

Read the article by the Senate Intelligence Committee counsel, their options were very limited.

Let's assume that Pelosi knew about and fully supported torture - that's no reason not to investigate torture, who ordered it and who enabled it. Because it's wrong and illegal, not because it's totally confined to Republicans.

Did Obama take into account that if these memos did go out how would the world view the US? As we see here in this thread, the US is not seen in a good light. It would seem it put the US a few steps back in the hole in the world view of the US. Again, repercussions not considered.

You're wrong here. I'm sure that the effect on America's image was considered.
I think it puts the US in a better light, coming clean about what has been happening, instead of keeping things secret. Do you disagree?
Also, I think that how the world views America is, in this case, a less that critical factor.
If you torture people, you should expect to be seen as torturers.
Obama has banned these practices, that makes America look good. Being honest about what happened also makes America look good. Makes lots of sense to me.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/8003023.stm

Ok, now this administration is looking to persecute some Bush official in this matter. This administration might want to pick up Pelosi as well and let the proceedings begin.

What should Nancy Pelosi be prosecuted for here? Knowing about it and keeping it secret, as is the procedure for these situations?

Really, this is a political ploy at best and it does not seem to paint anyone in a favorable light.

How is it a political ploy? I suppose in the interests of equality they should prosecute one Democrat for every Republican?

You seem to be overly concerned with image here.
Frankly, it doesn't make a damn bit of difference how it makes people look. At least not to me.
I think it's worth finding out if government officials broke the law. If it makes people look bad, so be it.

In short, getting the facts, looking at the possible outcomes of releasing these memos and pictures were not weighed. Also, if such a thing did happen and not to the general publics knowledge...what else are the idiots in Washington doing that no one is aware of? Perhaps this will generate a snowball effect of other wrong doings?

EDIT: And another thing...this 'enhanced techique' Call it what it is...torture. This friggin play on words is stupid. It is as bad as 'What is 'is'?..Bill Clinton

Yeah, agreed.

I think the same applies to differtiating between forms of torture that produce visible scars, and those that don't.


EDIT - mookiemookie - I really lose hope when I hear Obama using the same reasons as Bush for doing the same things. Bloody stupid.

EDIT 2 - Just saw this from Colin Powell's Chief of Staff

Likewise, what I have learned is that as the administration authorized harsh interrogation in April and May of 2002–well before the Justice Department had rendered any legal opinion–its principal priority for intelligence was not aimed at pre-empting another terrorist attack on the U.S. but discovering a smoking gun linking Iraq and al-Qa’ida.
So furious was this effort that on one particular detainee, even when the interrogation team had reported to Cheney’s office that their detainee “was compliant” (meaning the team recommended no more torture), the VP’s office ordered them to continue the enhanced methods. The detainee had not revealed any al-Qa’ida-Baghdad contacts yet. This ceased only after Ibn al-Shaykh al-Libi, under waterboarding in Egypt, “revealed” such contacts. Of course later we learned that al-Libi revealed these contacts only to get the torture to stop.

[Max2147]

The memos and photos are two very different issues. From what I understand, the photos show unauthorized behavior, and the soldiers involved have been disciplined. The memos say what sort of behavior was authorized.

[AVGWarhawk]

Tchocky,

I have to cherry pick here on the responses:

Your Iraq answer and the campaign:

Seems fairly logical to me. Would you prefer that he stuck to the first timeline (which was always subject to change due to new information if he took office), no matter what information was received?

No, he should not have made any statements until he was fully briefed on Iraq. This was purely political and getting votes.

Gitmo response:

It wasn't a hasty decision, it was common knowledge during the campaign.

It was hasty in the respect that there was no plan. Just close it. -shrug- ok, were are we sending the detainees....Obama-shrug-...next on the agenda

Repercussions/Gitmo:

What are these repercussions?

Repercussions in the sense that American would be a bit miffed at closing a base of detainees responsible for 9/11. I sure do not want the new Gitmo camp in my backyard. How about you?


Torture and Pelosi:

Read the article by the Senate Intelligence Committee counsel, their options were very limited.

Let's assume that Pelosi knew about and fully supported torture - that's no reason not to investigate torture, who ordered it and who enabled it. Because it's wrong and illegal, not because it's totally confined to Republicans.

Well, here is the problem with all of that. The folks in Pelosi camp a week ago were...'Gasp, how could this have gone on?' 'We were never advised!' No wait a darn minute....you(Pelosi) were briefed in 2003. It was not a mystery. Then a back pedel to "I could do nothing about it'. Yeah sure, she did not care. If it was illegal then why then did Pelosi and Co sit on their thumbs? Because the were told to be quiet? Since when have Pelosi and Co been quiet on anything? To me, this is a politcial ploy that is backfiring.


Making America look bad and not thinking about that before releasing memo's:

Your response:

You're wrong here. I'm sure that the effect on America's image was considered.
I think it puts the US in a better light, coming clean about what has been happening, instead of keeping things secret. Do you disagree?
Also, I think that how the world views America is, in this case, a less that critical factor.
If you torture people, you should expect to be seen as torturers.
Obama has banned these practices, that makes America look good. Being honest about what happened also makes America look good. Makes lots of sense to me.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/8003023.stm

Since when is America supposed to come clean and obsolve their souls of wrong doings? Is this some kind of feel good counselling session that is global? Does the rest of the world fess up to wrong doings? I'm thinking no.

Pelosi on trial:

Your response:

What should Nancy Pelosi be prosecuted for here? Knowing about it and keeping it secret, as is the procedure for these situations?

Yes, she should have gone to Bush personally or via letter as suggested if this was completely wrong to torture...she did not. She is therefore just as much at fault.

I'm not concerned with image here as suggested. I'm assuming the image of America you are speaking of. No, I'm not concerned. What I'm concerned with is this really seems to be nothing but political and mud slinging.

[AVGWarhawk]

The plot thickens and so does the soup Pelosi is in.


http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/05/...waterboarding/

The source said Pelosi didn't object when she learned that waterboarding was being used because she had not been personally briefed about it -- only her aide had been told.
The source said Pelosi supported a letter that Harman sent to the administration at the time raising concerns. The source asked not to be identified because of the sensitive nature of matters discussed in classified intelligence briefings.

So let me get this right, it is all the aids fault? The aid is running your office? This classified material was ok for the aid to hear?

Pelosi supported a letter? Did she sign the letter? Is there any shred of evidence she supported the letter? Can we see the letter?


Oh God, now it is really thick:

http://blogs.abcnews.com/thenote/200...-cia-lied.html

“At the same time, the Bush administration was misleading the American people about the threats of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq,” she added. “The CIA was misleading the Congress. At the same time, the administration was misleading the Congress on weapons of mass destruction in Iraq.”

She is grasping at straws. It is everyone's fault but her own.

[SteamWake]

Somehow I get the impression that the realitys of life and politics are beginning to take hold.

The nominees with tax problems.

The Pelosi thing.

The ACLU chiding Obama about the interrigation pictures.

The 'stimulus' is not exactly stimulating. Read yesterday where a woman dead for 40 years recieved a stimulus check.

GM importing chinese cars after accepting money from the US.

I know there are some other er... issues I have overlooked and now backlash on the Gittmo 'executive order'.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009...-indefinitely/

Cant wait to see whats in store for the nationalized health care agenda.

[AVGWarhawk]

Well, I tell you what Steamwake, Pelosi is in some hot water. Claiming the CIA lied to her. If she is in fact found to have known via tapes or memo of the meeting she is probably going to resign. Let's face it, the law states that senior officals be briefed on anything the CIA is doing. Giving half or no info is not something they would do. Furthermore, why not tell Pelosi? That makes no sense at all. What would the CIA obtain by not telling Pelosi. Furthermore, she had an aid attend and the aid did not tell her? WTH! This is classified secret information....an aid was sent? Is this aid watching over the big red buttons to the nukes also?

Obama has taken the eye off the ball and so has Washington. They are more engrossed in prosecuting the Bush administration than running Washington.

[Aramike]

That was sarcasm , we know you support torture but feel slightly uncomfortable that it is unjustifiable so attempt to redefine what it is

Are you kidding? You know how I feel now, too?

I'm not at all uncomfortable with certain forms of torture being used.

What you're attempting to do, however, is say that, because I support a very specific application of the methods, I must support all torture as a whole.

It's not that simple. I have been very specific as to what I support. And I am not at all uncomfortable with supporting it.

I don't need to redefine anything, which is why I don't bother.

Repercussions in the sense that American would be a bit miffed at closing a base of detainees responsible for 9/11.

What utter tripe , of the many hundreds detained at Gitmo how many have even been charge of any offence whatsoever let alone convicted?
You make me sick when you talk of 9/11 , you supportd those who let most of those involved escape justice becuse it was cheaper and you instead wasted the time with some crazy illegal half baked ideological crusade that has completely failed to deliver.
What is worse is that this issue trancends the so called party lines that some follow , which is why you get muppets repeating the same pathetic old party lines long after they have been shown to be complete bollox
.
If Pelosi broke the law then screw her throw her to the justices , if Bush broke the law then screw him , throw him to the justices.
If servicemen broke the law then screw them , throw them to the justices (after all the "only following orders" excuse has long been established as tripe.
BTW where are you Haplo ? did looking at the court rulings make you realise you position was untennable

[Aramike]

Originally Posted by Kapitan_Phillips

Aramike, the line is perilously close to you.

Erm, that's oddly selective of you.

Besides, I like to walk the line.