ScubaTim


First, we don't know what went on in them meeting except what was declassified. We are talking now about something that happened 4, 5, 6 years ago. An analogy. Me and you have a closed door meeting on buying property. I tell people I am having a close door meeting with you dealing with Real Estate. The fact people know me and you had a meeting on a real estate does no translate to the know what we discussed, does it???

Let's move on to the "logic" and Address Ted at the same time.


*emphasis mine

Study and make recommendations... "But, Droop, Logic will say..." study and make recommendations... "But, Droop, they have to have the power to...." study and make recommendations...

I do not presume Scubatim to use logic of an honest person when considering the Government. I presume, through experience, that there are safeguards to give the Illusion, of democracy and freedom.

A recommendation can be taken or dismissed. To study is to simply... observe.



No Ted... you prove they could do something. What were the parameters of their oversight... what more could they do besides..... Study and make recommendations.

You have no answer. If anyone on the committee "approved " in any formal way of the use of waterboarding, then yes you have a point. But you haven't even shown that. Just conjecture on your part that Pelosi did this and Congress approved that...

So Scubatim and Ted I've shown the only authority that the committee has in it role of oversight are to study and make recommendations. Please explain how they were to make orders and directives and apply them to the intelligence community??

So, you don't have anything to support your opposition to my post:


Again, you like to dance around and make your quips, but do not produce anything to further the debate. Now on to Droop, who actually knows how to have a civil debate with actual thought.


However, from the same source:
Link

Correct me if I am wrong, but exclusive authorizing and legislative powers tells me that this committee has the power to authorize or stop those agencies listed from overstepping their authority or violating laws.

Senator Harden sent a letter telling them not to destroy the tapes. The CIA destroyed the tape. Yet, you still presume that any mention of any word whether it be "oversight" or "exclusive authorizing and legislative powers" MUST it just MUST give them the power to stop the waterboarding.



I am showing you that the committee can only review, study and make recommendations.

I gave you an example of a member of the committee being ignored.

But you simply want to believe that they had the authority to Approve or Disapprove (in terms of policy, not personal opinion) the actions of the CIA. Well they have oversight and "exclusive" legislative and authorizing powers.

Well Scubatim what are these "exclusive" authorizing and legislative powers. What are the parameters of "oversight."

Do they vote... whose the tie breaker of this 4 member panel? How do you legislate with only 4 people?

Okay, here are the members of the Select Intelligence Oversight Panel that are referred to, above:

• Rush Holt, Chairman, New Jersey
• Dave Obey, Wisconsin
• John Murtha, Pennsylvania
• Silvestre Reyes, Texas
• Norm Dicks, Washington
• Nita Lowey, New York
• Bud Cramer, Alabama
• Adam Schiff, California
• Ray LaHood, Ranking Member, Illinois
• Jerry Lewis, California
• Bill Young, Florida
• Pete Hoekstra, Michigan
• Rodney Frelinghuysen, New Jersey

Which of these members was a party to these secret briefings?



The House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence (a different entity from the Select Intelligence Oversight Panel - which deals primarily with funding) has the authority to review and study the sources and methods of entities in the intelligence community. Now how many members of this committee were aware of the fact that the United States was using waterboarding as a technique? Four? Out of twenty? The four were not allowed to share this information with anyone including the members of their own committee so, how is oversight supposed to occur?



Which 8 member subcommittee are you referring to? The House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence - the one with the oversight responsibility - has, currently, 20 members.



You are talking about appropriations committees - they deal with budgets... with money. In what capacity would the House Permanent Select Committee have the authority to give classified information regarding an interrogation technique to a member of an appropriations committee? The Permanent Select Committee could recommend that the relevant appropriations committee cut funding, but that would require that the Permanent Select Committee actually discuss the classified information. At least 16 of the 20 members of the Permanent Select Committee didn't even have that information. How were they supposed to make any kind of recommendation to another committee if they couldn't discuss amongst themselves?

So, no... Congress approved nothing. With the exception of a few members, Congress didn't even know about it to express concern or object.

I wasn't opposing your post to start with. I was disputing Ted's claim that 4 members of a congressional committee (out of a 535 member congress) somehow equaled congressional approval. You read entirely too much into this.

If you want a point it is this:



You and Ted can both put that in your pipes and smoke it.

BTW: Do you ever start a sentence whith any word other than "so"?

Edited to add:

Entspeak did some awsome research in post # 104 immediately above mine.

Entspeak's Myth Buster

Ya right BoF – lets imagine that anything here could be free of politics – add to that this line from the question:

House Democrats calling for criminal investigation
So my question - how you can do this nonsense when Nancy Pelosi was part over the oversight group and viewed the waterboarding before it was used?

And this makes me a “political hack” Ya Riiiiiigt sir.


And those FOUR member had OVERSIGHT responsibility – LOOK IT UP. Their job was to bring to their bodies anything they saw that was out of line or ILLEGASL – That was THEIR JOB. They were not there just for the HELL OF IT.

The lawmakers who held oversight roles during the period included Pelosi and Rep. Jane Harman (D-Calif.) and Sens. Bob Graham (D-Fla.) and John D. Rockefeller IV (D-W.Va.), as well as Rep. Porter J. Goss (R-Fla.) and Sen. Pat Roberts (R-Kan). http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/conte...ml?hpid=topnews


Since some here seem to not understand what oversight is - here is some info and the manual.

Congressional Oversight refers to the review, monitoring, and supervision of federal agencies, programs, activities, and policy implementation. Congress exercises this power largely through its standing committee system.

Oversight, as an outgrowth of this principle, ideally serves a number of overlapping
objectives and purposes:
! improve the efficiency, economy, and effectiveness of governmental operations;
! evaluate programs and performance;
! detect and prevent poor administration, waste, abuse, arbitrary and capricious
behavior, or illegal and unconstitutional conduct;
! protect civil liberties and constitutional rights;
! inform the general public and ensure that executive policies reflect the public
interest;
! gather information to develop new legislative proposals or to amend existing
statutes;
! ensure administrative compliance with legislative intent; and
! prevent executive encroachment on legislative authority and prerogatives.
In sum, oversight is a way for Congress to check on, and check, the executive.
Here is the MANUAL - http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/RL30240.pdf

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Congressional_oversight

Like I have said before, there are 8 on the subcommittee. It would be my guess, and neither of us have any actual facts due to secrecy laws, but it would be my guess that these four report back to the full 8, which then make a determination of any action that would be necessary, if any; then those eight would report back to the full committee if necessary. At that point, the full committee then goes before the full House chamber. But, as you and I both have pointed out, there is little available information due to the fact that classified material isn't just up for grabs on the internet.


Check my link. Just a hint.


So, another well though out post from BoF. Thanks. By the way, if you took the time to do your own research, you would find that Congress is broken into many committees. These committees are then subsequently broken down into subcommittees. These individual subcommittees do their jobs, then report back up the chain if necessary. Apparently, as Ted and I have been trying to explain, the four members of the subcommittee didn't find it necessary to discuss the issue with the committee and begin an investigation. If they had determined that the CIA at the time was overstepping it's bounds, an investigation would have been enacted by the committee. Since only one person objected, that seems to be a little short of a majority of even the four, so they did nothing. That is until the media caught wind of it and now it is the most outrageous thing Bush has ever done and how dare he do so! So, with that said, do some research; after-all, you are the one that boasts some graduate degree, you should know how, right?

Just a little hint, instead of picking apart the structure and language one uses in a post, why not try for once to pick apart facts with facts and research? Just a suggestion.

From your own link Ted:



So she got a breif. She wrote a letter to protest... which for those of you not paying attention, did absolutely nothing. What else could she do??

Lets look at some other links of yours shall we Ted??

QUOTE

also... this is what your link says Congress has the power to do to control agencies.



But the key is you can't legislate, what you can't talk about. Hence, there is nothing they can do to stop anything. And they certainly can't approve it.


Edited to add

Scubatim

We now have a link provided by Ted in which Harman states that the information could not be revealed past the "gang of Four", the four people initially told. Does this change your outlook on this debate??

BoF, the above is just as an example, this is what we like to call research. This is a good example.


Are you going to tell me that Congress can't legislate classified activities? Are you telling me that the majority of what the CIA does can't be controlled by Congress because what they do is often times considered secret information? That is how I am reading your response.

Pelosi and the 2 republicans wrote no letter of protest and as scubatin has said it was their job, duty and responsibility to bring out anything that they thought was illegal. And Congressmen CAN view classified material – they just have to do it in a protected area.

In any case the “oversight” responsibility is clear and the manual comprehensive. If they thought the practice was immoral to illegal or both they could have taken steps to prevent its implementation.

And when I say THEY I mean people from both parties.

This covers it.
Congressional Oversight refers to the review, monitoring, and supervision of federal agencies, programs, activities, and policy implementation. Congress exercises this power largely through its standing committee system.

Oversight, as an outgrowth of this principle, ideally serves a number of overlapping
objectives and purposes:
! improve the efficiency, economy, and effectiveness of governmental operations;
! evaluate programs and performance;
! detect and prevent poor administration, waste, abuse, arbitrary and capricious
behavior, or illegal and unconstitutional conduct;
! protect civil liberties and constitutional rights;
! inform the general public and ensure that executive policies reflect the public
interest;
! gather information to develop new legislative proposals or to amend existing
statutes;
! ensure administrative compliance with legislative intent; and
! prevent executive encroachment on legislative authority and prerogatives.
In sum, oversight is a way for Congress to check on, and check, the executive.
Here is the MANUAL - http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/RL30240.pdf

I'm confused. There's all this debate on who knew what when and whether or not they could do anything about it if they did know. Isn't that off-topic? The questions for debate are:

1.) Is waterboarding really legal?
2.) Can it be defined as torture?
3.) How should the U.S. proceed from here?

Answering the second question first, waterboarding is torture. I believe 6 Japanese soldiers were hung for this practice following WWII. It doesn't matter how bad you assume the person being tortured is or how great the risk of the "ticking time bomb" scenario you believe is relevant. By waterboarding, you are torturing. Because waterboarding is torture, it is therefore illegal.

The US should try and convict anyone involved in this practice of torture.

Scubatim


We now have a link provided by Ted in which Harman states that the information could not be revealed past the "gang of Four", the four people initially told. Does this change your outlook on this debate??

ScubaTim

No, what I am saying is that the four people can't introduce specific legislation to address a specific problem if that problem that exists is classified, because they would be devulging Classified information to the General Congress and likely to the public... which they can't do.

For instance Harman can say .. we need to pass laws that go against torture. But If I was in Congress I would say..."we already have laws, constitutional, domestic and international that makes torture illegal." At this point, is Harman, a person privy to classified information, allowed to devulge "no we need a specific law that calls waterboarding torture, because the CIA is doing it" No she can not.

Harman is also not allowed to play a game of Charade with the rest of Congress. She can not convey the fact we are torturing people.

So while Congress can legislate, how would one of the Fab-Four get it initiated and passed with out leaking classified info??

Actually the legality of it is being debated recently. If Congressional leaders knew about the practice in 2002 and did nothing (with the exception of one person), does that mean our system failed us and members of Congress (both parties) allowed an illegal process to continue, or does it mean that this technique is legal? That is how I understand the basis for the direction this debate has taken.

As I've asked before... what subcommittee? What is it called? Who is a member? What is their function?

The information could not go beyond "The Gang of Four" based on what criteria? The entire Intelligence Committee has qualified security clearance to be given this information, what stopped these four from passing the information on? In my opinion, this arguement holds little water. Aside from that, aren't there laws in place to protect whistleblowers?


The entire purpose of the several committees of our Congress is to prevent the agencies from doing harm. Are you saying that just because it is classified material, they can do nothing about it? I stand by my position that the Intelligence Committee has the power, and the duty to do something about it if the activity is deemed illegal. So, we are either in a position where our government failed us, or waterboarding is legal. Nothing was done (with the exception of one person), which means nothing was wrong. I don't know how else to interpret the lack of activity on the part of the committee.


Maybe you overlooked it before, so here is the link:
Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations

You can find all the answers you want there. That page lists it's members, and the links will provide you with all the information about the committee.

Here is another link that I had pulled up and completely forgot about.

Overview


Pretty much in black and white that this committee has the power and duty to do something if it deems what is known to be going on to be illegal.

Page 9 of this pdf, explains how classified information can be shared. RULE 9. PROCEDURES FOR HANDLING CLASSIFIED OR COMMITTEE
SENSITIVE MATERIAL

The rest of the pdf is a good read as well.

You are reading it wrong. If it was closely held it was their choice. Obviously you cannot do your JOB of oversight it you keep to yourself (or a gang of four) information about illegal CIA planned activities – can you.

So try again.

How exactly am I reading it wrong?? I mean how many different ways can you read, "I was briefed, but the information was closely held to just the Gang of Four. I was not free to disclose anything."

How do you read this statement Ted?? They reveiwed the fact that the CIA was waterboarding. The CIA did it's part.

ScubaTim


What citeria?? The fact that they were toold that they couldn't tell any one outside themselves still there. What else are you looking for. Thsi is what secrecy does to a democracy... don't you believe like so many Americans.. "We need to keep secrets" lol.



ScubaTim it doesn't matter what i say at this point, you must choose to see for yourself. You want to believe so bad... I get that, but when someone wrote a letter.. nothing happened. That same person could not talk about classified info. The system, our government, did what it is supposed to do. Protect itself, protect it's image, protect the illusion of a fair and just democratic system for us to be proud of.

So that's it? You are going to sit here and tell me that you believe that since they were told by the CIA that they couldn't tell anyone, that they didn't? I added to my earlier post the rules overseeing such a situation. They can, and should. They did not. Did they chose not to because they were told not to, or did they not because they deemed the activities appropriate?


One person wrote a letter. One person without the sole authority to tell an entire agency what to do. If the entire oversight committee made the order not to proceed with the practice of waterboarding, then you and I would agree that the CIA is in the wrong. Unfortunately, the rest of the committee didn't seem to agree with her. I applaud her for standing up for what she thought was right. One person isn't going to stop the CIA. It would take the entire committee, or someone getting the right people involved. If the committee determined what was going on to be wrong, why didn't they do anything? I don't doubt a lot of ugly things go on in our government that we don't know about. I don't see any evidence that this committee didn't have the authority to do anything, I don't see any evidence that this committee determined that the CIA shouldn't practice this technique. I see a bunch of politicians not coming clean with their apparent approval of the tactics when they learned of them. It isn't about wanting to see or believe something, it is about seeing what was available to them as far as their oversight powers and responsibilities, and their subsequent actions. They didn't act, which shows that they didn't disapprove.

I posted a ton about the duties and responsibilities of the “oversight” groups. If you don’t want to read it lets not waste out time. Obviously keeping the info “closely held” is not a requirement of the job. They fact they did this may be as simple as there was no NEED to do otherwise since they had no issue with it.

All I am saying is that to come back years later and call a method one viewed in 2002 criminal today is hypocritical.

The duties are clear – if they though it was improper they had the duty to take it up the chain.

.

Show me in the oversight manual where this is said. Obviously this is ludicrous on its face.

POST IT HERE

Whether or not someone knew about this torture, doesn't change the fact it is torture and is illegal.

Actually, I have not seen anything that specifically states that waterboarding is illegal. Also, pointing to the lack of action of certain members of a specific committee does not show anything that would support a position that perceives waterboarding as illegal. The lack of action, or the complacency of those that were given the information and the power to stop the activity shows that either our government has failed us, or that waterboarding is not illegal. If it were illegal, those that are charged with overseeing the CIA and it's activities have a duty to put a stop to the activity.

Exactly – and this is why the idea that “House Democrats calling for criminal investigation” (from the thread page 1) is ludicrous.


So lets explore the issue of the possibility of extracting valuable information from high value and knowledgeable captives using “rough” methods including waterboarding.

The black and white answer is that it is never ever acceptable and should never be used for any reason. But is it that simple? If you knew that a captive had information that could stop a major attack and save the lives of say 200,000 people and that person refused to speak – should waterboarding be considered and used?

The argument over who is responsible is all well and good but it doesn't really have anything to do witht he debate questions.

The fact are as follows...

Is water boarding torture?

I hope we can all agree that it is.

Did someone in the employ of the US government use waterboarding?

Yep Yep.

Should torturers and their facilitators go to prison?

Oh yeah!

If that includes a few Democratic congressmen, great!

Maybe it'll put the fear of God in the rest of them.

Here's an article from NPR


Nor does it show that it is legal. Of course, the accusation of "lack of action" is wholly unproven.


Perhaps. The CIA itself, of course, is the one who committed these acts and are the ones who should be held most accountable for this criminal activity.

There is NO perhaps here. They were oversight – their JOB was to report if they felt it was illegal. They didn’t do that and could have and should have.
They are more at fault than the CIA.

I’ve read with great amusement the shrill cries of “well, Pelosi didn’t object!” as if that somehow makes it OK. I know it’s hard for some to comprehend, but the atmosphere at the time, with 9/11 still a fresh wound, was far different than it is today. That in no way excuses Pelosi’s craven silence on the matter, but it does explain it somewhat. And, to be brutally honest, even if she had protested, who would have listened? It was a time when Democrats in Congress had their collective hands tied by the majority, and anything they had to say was shunted aside with alacrity. Personally, I am appalled by Pelosi’s lack of protest, and it just goes to show you that politicians’ consciences are microscopic and damned hard to find. She was far from alone on the issue. There are others from both sides of the political aisle who should hang their heads in shame for their meek acceptance of an American torture policy.

And in all fairness (I know, what an alien concept! ), after the Democrats gained control of Congress, many of the formerly silent Congress critters felt safe in objecting to the practice in writing (see referenced article). I really wish the people who run this country didn’t have their consciences tied to whichever way the wind is blowing at the time, but I didn’t just fall off the turnip truck and realize that’s the way it is. About the only critter to denounce the practice then and now is McCain, and that is likely because he has been on the receiving end of torture, and knows its effects.

I don't buy this theory of accountability. But, if you believe the higher the leadership, the more accountability, then you *must* believe that the POTUS (who oversees the CIA and allowed these illegal acts to occur) is the most accountable. Otherwise, you'd be...well...Ted.

It appears to me that someone else has come up with a "simple" justification for a criminal act. Isn't that always the case?

This ticking clock scenario is the most common justification thrown up for encouraging our people to engage in criminal behavior. It is based on ignorance in that it fails to acknowledged that actionable intelligence is rarely derived from a single source, and that operations do not occur in a vacuum. Unless, of course, your perceptions of real-world CT ops are derived from what you see on "24".

The use of torture in any form is indicative of poor supervision and poor training of interrogators - both of which boil down to a leadership failure. There are many ways in which poor leadership at the first line supervisor level, as well as at higher levels, can result in failed interrogations. Failure to select, train and deploy interrogators with true professional skill-sets to where they are needed. Failure to coordinate effective intelligence collection and analysis in support of interrogation operations (In most cases you need intel to get intel - planning and preparation is key). Failure to integrate intelligence collected from interrogations into multi-INT all source analysis and feed it back into both ongoing interrogation support and current operations. Failure to collaborate and share information (including all of the above areas) across units, services and agencies. Effective interrogation operations, when conducted in a proper manner by intelligence professional are complex, not simple.

Torture, on the other hand, is easy. It is the amateur's option. In this context, torture is an act of desperation and an admission of failure on the part of the interrogator. Besides being a crime, that is....

Is it an ugly technique? I wouldn't like to go through it. Is it illegal? We haven't seen anything that answers that definately. This isn't a partisan issue. This is a legal vs. illegal issue.


Is there a law written that clearly states waterboarding is illegal? I don't doubt what you have posted, but is waterboarding the only thing these people did, or could there be more?


I think there have been sufficient articles posted that shows three of the four congressmen briefed did nothing. I refuse to repost articles that have been posted multiple times. Go back and read the thread. Lack of action is wholly proven. Try again.


I would look at this differently. If the CIA went to the intelligence committee, briefed members of the committee of the techniques and the facilities that were being used, and the intelligence committee did not object, but the techniques are clearly illegal, then don't you think those that gave permission should be held accountable? If you give permission for someone to do something, then punish them for doing it, don't you think that is ridiculous? I am not giving anyone a pass, but to say that those that actually carried out the act should be held the most accountable and not hold those that approved and gave the orders, that is irresponsible.

Assume multiple sources and the ability to cross check info which is the reality quite often. What do you do.


This is not what I am talking about. And by the way the people who used waterboarding don’t agree with you.


“Hayden told reporters later that the interrogations of Mohammed and Zubaydah were particularly fruitful.
From the time of their capture in 2002 and 2003 until they were delivered to Guantanamo Bay prison in 2006, the two suspects accounted for one-fourth of the human intelligence reports on al Qaeda, Hayden said.”
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20080206/ts_nm/...erboarding_dc_4

“According to the former agent, waterboarding of terror suspect Abu Zubaydah got him to talk in less than 35 seconds. The technique, which critics say is torture, probably disrupted "dozens" of planned al-Qaida attacks, said John Kiriakou, a leader of the team that captured Abu Zubaydah, a major al-Qaida figure.”
He said the harsh questioning was carried out only after being "reviewed and approved by the Department of Justice and by other elements of the Executive Branch." Hayden said Congress was notified in 2003 both of the tapes' existence and the agency's intent to destroy them.”

http://www.swamppolitics.com/news/politics..._wonders_e.html

I've read through the links provided on this thread. We can't know what was known or who knew what when the information is classified. Anyway, this is veering away from the debate at hand.


Those who committed this torture should be held accountable. Those who authorized this torture should be held accountable. Those who were in a position to stop this torture from occurring or continuing should be held accountable. In that order... Can I make my position any clearer for you?

Do we even have a legal opinion from Justice on this yet? Can someone post it please?

The articles are pretty clear by listing those present at the briefings, and what one of those in attendance sharing what was shared by the CIA. Can't get any clearer.


I didn't ask for you to clarify anything. A little defensive, aren't you? I simply disagree with you. Relax.