Those “members” were the ones qualified to get the classified briefing and qualified to make the decision. To say this is not “Congress” is ludicrous. And although YOU say it is not ok they did not agree and in fact wanted rougher treatment.




My point is simple – how can the same method be approved in 2002 when clearly many now say it was torture then and is now? AND why now?

And then there is this crap fron the Democrats:

“Senate Democrats demanded a criminal investigation into waterboarding by government interrogators after the Bush administration admitted for the first time that the tactic was used on three terror suspects”

Well lets start with Nancy P. Can't wait.

But this is not "political" is it?

http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2008/02/06/6886/





Not the Constitution and certainly not having an effect on our enemies – and not recognized by out military, courts or Congress that I know of – and open to interpretation. Other than that – nice ideas. Are you saying the UN should get involved to prevent our enemies from torturing our men.


As stated above the members who were authorized to make the decision for Congress (classified) did so. Naturally there is no “law” since the other members would then have to be made aware of the classified info – which was illegal.

What decision? What official decision did they make? Is there a law authorizing waterboarding? Or did they give their own approval. The one dissenting voice had her letter of concern classified and these people couldn't discuss this briefing with anyone... so how does this make them Congress. That's like saying the domestic spying program was authorized by Congress because seven members were briefed and not allowed to tell anyone. That's what's ludicrous.



The answer is that it can't. I think that's pretty obvious. And nobody here has argued to the contrary. So, your point is moot. And the technique was not approved by Congress.



I know... adhering to principles that your enemies don't...

sucks to be civilized, don't it...



Not recognized? Really? Wasn't the US a key player in the authoring of that document? I'm saying that we need to abide by international laws when dealing with non-US citizens, wouldn't you agree? Is waterboarding illegal under international law?

So why were they there? Just for the hell of it or, more likely because the CIA wanted some buy in and comments from the Congress. I don’t know what the legal standing of their presence was but sure as hell they have no way imo to came back later and say its “torture” and we were never aware of it. Certainly Nancy, if she had an issue, could have written the President and told him she had issues and was going to brief other members with an unclassified version.

My point is they saw and had no problems - so if they now want to reconsider – fine - but drop the “criminal investigation” political nonsense. Unless THEY want to be prosecuted.

Sure, buy in and comments from members of Congress. As far as coming back later and saying that they were never aware of it and condeming others for it when they had no problem with it in 2002, you got no argument from me. Those people should be held accountable. But, again... they are not Congress. You are showing your ignorance. What "unclassified" could she give regarding a "classified briefing"? Harman wrote a letter expressing her concern and that letter was classfied and nobody saw it.

Drop the criminal investigation? Really? Let's forget the whole torture thing happened? Don't prosecute this whole torture "nonsense"? Torture is nonsense now? It's not criminal? It's political nonsense? Interesting. Was it nonsense when when the Japanese used waterboarding against US soldiers before the US dropped a nuclear bomb on their country? Was it nonsense when we've prosecuted others for using this technique? To turn this back around on you, why was it not nonsense then and it is suddenly nonsense now?

No, hold Pelosi and the others accountable, hold the Justice Department accountable, hold the White House accountable. Prosecute them all. The United States should not, under any circumstances, be stooping to torture.

Stop dancing around please – she isn’t just some Congress person who got a briefing – she heads the House intelligence committee. And SHE saw the waterboarding and had no problems with it. – and she may have been the person who asked for even rougher treatment.

So if you are telling me that Congress can view an interrogation method in 2002 and then come back years later and say “oh now its torture” and by the way we will prosecute – you have to be JOKING. If this was republicans saying this YOU would be all over it laughing – so be honest please.

If we think its torture – STOP doing it and live with the possibility it hurts us later – but don’t try to prosecute people who did their damn jobs to protect us all. Its ludicrous and dishonest – at best.

And theses people and the Congree have oversight responsibility:

CLASSIFIED ANNEX AND COMMITTEE INTENT
The classified annex to this report includes the classified Schedule of Authorizations and its associated explanatory language. The Committee views the classified annex as an integral part of this legislation. The classified annex contains a thorough discussion of the issues considered by the Committee underlying the funding authorizations found in the classified Schedule of Authorizations. The Committee intends that all intelligence programs discussed in the classified annex to this report be conducted in accordance with the guidance and limitations set forth as associated language therein. The classified Schedule of Authorizations is incorporated directly into this legislation by virtue of section 102 of the bill. The classified annex is available for review by all Members of the House of Representatives, subject to the requirements of clause 13 of rule XXIII of the Rules of the House of Representatives, and rule 14 of the Rules of Procedure for the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence. In addition, Section 105 of the bill incorporates reporting requirements of the Classified Annex and any Joint Explanatory Statement into the Act.

SCOPE OF COMMITTEE REVIEW
The bill authorizes U.S. intelligence and intelligence-related activities under the jurisdiction of the Committee, including the National Intelligence Program (NIP), and the Military Intelligence Program (MIP), formerly the Joint Military Intelligence Program and the Tactical Intelligence and Related Activities. The NIP consists of all activities of the Office of the Director of National Intelligence, as well as those national foreign intelligence, intelligence-related, and/or counterintelligence activities conducted by: (1) the Central Intelligence Agency; (2) the Department of Defense; (3) the Defense Intelligence Agency; (4) the National Security Agency; (5) the National Reconnaissance Office; (6) the National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency; (7) the Departments of the Army, Navy, and Air Force; (8) the Department of State; (9) the Department of the Treasury; (10) the Department of Energy; (11) the Department of Justice; (12) the Federal Bureau of Investigation; (13) the U.S. Coast Guard; (14) the Department of Homeland Security; and (15) the Drug Enforcement Administration. The Committee has exclusive legislative, authorizing and oversight jurisdiction of these programs.
http://www.fas.org/irp/congress/2006_rpt/hrpt109-411.html

Then none of this was approved by Congress. Thanks for that answer. You have nullified whatever point you were trying to make.

I'm not dancing, Ted. She did not head the House Intelligence Committee in 2002, Ted. That post would've been filled by a Republican. And, I'm not excusing her. Congress gave no authorization for waterboarding. Please point to any bill passed by Congress that authorized waterboarding.



Well, yes... I would have to be joking... but being that Congress did not accept an interrogation method as not torture in 2002 and then come back years later and say it is. A few members of Congress did that. But Congress as a governing body did not.

That's not dancing, that's a fact.

You can try to spin it any which way you choose, Ted, but it won't change that fact.



Again, I say... sucks to be civilized. If you allow it once "to protect us all", you set a precedent. It's not a precedent we should set.

Ya right. Their “oversight” responsibilities don’t count? You are a very funny man!

"Congress has long considered various ways to oversee intelligence, an often
perplexing and always difficult responsibility because of the secrecy and sensitivity
surrounding intelligence findings, conclusions, dissemination, and sources and
methods.1 The first oversight proposal — to create a joint committee on intelligence
(JCI) — occurred in 1948.2 This was just one year after the establishment of the
Cental Intelligence Agency (CIA) and the Office of Director of Central Intelligence
(DCI), both integral parts of the most far-reaching executive reorganization in United
States history.3 Numerous other initiatives to change Congress’s oversight structure
have materialized in the meantime, including, most importantly, the creation of
parallel select committees on intelligence. The House and Senate’s recent actions
modifying each body’s own structure have diverged from each other4 and from the


The House and Senate intelligence panels have nearly identical jurisdictions for
the intelligence community. The House panel’s domain, however, also extends over
an area that the Senate’s does not: “tactical intelligence and intelligence-related
activities,” which covers tactical military intelligence. In another departure, the
House select committee has been given authority to “review and study on an
exclusive basis the sources and methods of entities” in the intelligence community.


9/11 Commission proposals. http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/intel/RL32525.pdf

Lol or lull yourself to sleep.

Four members out of a combined house and senate membership of 535 does not constitute congressional approval.


"Oversight" has been in the form of congressional investigation and review.

1.) Is waterboarding really legal?

AlthoughI'm sure, as with most things, that there is the potential for legal grey area for highly trained and highly paid legal counsel, it seems the evidence here indicates it is probably illegal (see below).

2.) Can it be defined as torture?

It would seem it not only could be, but in fact is, as DTOM pointed out:



This doesn't come right out and say, but why would these actions be prohibited? Looking at the list, the answer is clear: because they are considered torture.

3.) How should the U.S. proceed from here?

I think the practice should stop, if it hasn't already. Not just because it seems it would take some serious legal (and moral) wrangling to justify, but also because I don't know that using it would have any benefit. As has been stated in previous threads on the topic of torture, there isn't sufficient evidence to show that it even works. You subject someone to enough duress, they will tell you what they think you want to hear. This isn't really going to help achieve anything, which, when coupled with the negative consequences of using it in the first place, seems to make the case pretty clear.

Yours is the worst sort of polemic, because you marginalize issues in favor of tawdry party politics. Your snarky comments about "if this was republicans..." are off base. Sure, there's Democrats out there who, like you do for the Republicans, turn everything into party politics, with hardly a thought, it appears, to the issues themselves. It seems to me that in this thread, the respondents other than yourself are concerned with the issue of torture, while you keep repeating that so-and-so OKed it, Democrats this, Republicans that...

Personally - and I think I speak for many in this thread - I am Against. Torture. Period. I wouldn't care if it was "OKed" by Noam Chomsky, Michael Moore, Donald Duck, or Shrek. All this time I thought I was concerned about issues, but in your view there are none. Against the war? Nope, just hate Bush. Against torture? Nope, just hate Republicans.

Of all the mistakes and crimes of the Bush Administration, the authorization of torture by the CIA and facilitation of its use by the military is among the least forgivable. I find it nauseating to see people still defending it. One of the reasons I support Obama is because of his clear statement on the subject.

(See This Blog and Link to the Original).

And how many people sit on the House Intelligence Committee? Four? If there are more... and I do believe there are more... in fact, I'm pretty certain of that... Could these four report back to the others? No. So, there was no oversight. There was no Congressional authorization.

Cut the nonsense and read carefully. The intel community is one of the most “overseen” of all groups and they had the responsibility to fund and reviews sources and METHODS. This is oversight – get the meaning there sir?

You cannot weasel out of this. If any idiot wants criminal prosecution Nancy is the head of the list.


Few including me is defending it. What I am saying is your “Bush Admin” statement – as expected in this partisan issue is not, shall we say, entirely accurate.

Okay... and at what point was the House Intelligence Committee given this information regarding waterboarding? I know that four members were given access to that classified information and that they couldn't pass that information to anyone else on the Committee. So, at what point did the oversight occur?



What exactly am I weaseling out of? Sure... prosecute Nancy Pelosi... but in order to do that we would need to have a... what? That's right a criminal investigation... and who said he wouldn't even start it? That's right the Attorney General.

Am I weaseling out of claiming that Congress authorized waterboarding? No. It simply isn't true and nothing you've posted supports that claim.

Ted


Ted once again you become unhinged in your attempts to refer people seeking criminal investigation and/or prosecution as idiots.

First I want to second just about everyone particularly Entspeak. But I have a very pertinent question that I think should be answered. What could the Senate "oversight" comittee do to ensure that waterboarding was never done?? What method did the committee take to approve waterboarding?? Did they vote, did they make a ruling??

Read the document I posted. They have broad oversight authority. They are there specifically to oversee operations, methods etc. as I have posted. If you read through this you can see there is a great deal they could have done.

It seems you are failing to regard some fairly pertinent and empirical points here.

For one, as I stated before, we are signatories to many different conventions and treaties. We also were party to crafting many of them and set precedents therein.

As I have also stated, our Constitution explicitly states that any treaty we are a party to is the law of the land. I am repeating that here as it seems to have escaped you before.

Your questions have been answered, if there is something about the answers you do not understand, please clarify what you want to know.

Meanwhile, you have not answered a number of questions put to you. This weakens your position that torture is in some way legal or acceptable.

Let me ask again;

To my knowledge, nowhere in the Geneva Convention does it state that failure to abide by it's standards is grounds for inhumane treatment. Apparently I must be mistaken, so if you could please cite the pertinent excerpt that allows for torture should a captured combatant be suspected or even guilty of violations, I would very much appreciate it. Thank you.
________________________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________

I can be sure of this because we have brought many people to justice and foiled many plots with good intelligence and investigation. Frankly, I would be shocked if you weren't aware of this.

Do you think that we've always used torture to stop bad people from doing bad things?

________________________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________

This is a serious question;

I cannot be so afraid that I would compromise our principles. Why is it that you are?

It is serious because it is apparent that either fear or anger is allowing you to dismiss any moral obligation to treat others humanely. I'd like to know which.

________________________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________

This was just a point of curiousity to investigate whether your views are based on partisanship or ideology, no answer is required although it would be appreciated;
It has become more than increasingly probable that Hillary Clinton might become the next President and Executive of the United States. Are you comfortable with Hillary Clinton having the power to spy on her political opponents with impugnity and without fear of discovery for her own advantage?

Considering that she will also inherit the power to incarcerate American citizens without charges or a trial, I would say that I am entirely uncomfortable with that.

Is that a question you can answer?


Can you answer these?

1.) Is waterboarding really legal?

No. It has been deemed illegal by the Geneva Convention, and regardless of what justifications and excuses given by the current administration to use it, it is still illegal, and those who used it should be prosecuted. If we sentenced those who subjected our own troops to the same torture to death, should those who employ it today be any less culpable? (disclaimer: I am not advocating putting them to death, but some accountability is definitely in order.)



According to this site ,during the Tokyo War Crimes Trials, ALL of the Japanese officers found guilty of torture (including waterboarding) were sentenced to death.

2.) Can it be defined as torture?

Yes. It is specifically defined as such, as has been proven by many posters previously.

3.) How should the U.S. proceed from here?

Those who approved or implemented the procedure should be prosecuted for their respective roles.

Which docuument?? This one??

http://www.fas.org/irp/congress/2006_rpt/hrpt109-411.html

Cause I read through it, and no where did it say that the Congressional Committee had any authority to regulate it's procedures, or that it could impede the policy of the CIA. So is there something else you want me to read??

Effectively, you've got a committee who can observe, but not talk (if information is classified) , so they can't take the matter to the rest of Congress to pass laws. And they can't stop the CIA from doing it, either. The most they can do is write "recommendations", which also becomes classified. Do you see this another way Ted??

Well, name one of these many things they could have done, Ted? Was the rest of the committee supposed to, somehow, guess that the four who attended this secret briefing knew something? How are they supposed to provide oversight on something they don't know about? How are the four who knew supposed to provide oversight when they can't discuss what they saw with anyone else on the committee? Explain how that works.

I don't intend to create trouble with this point, but I am confused as the purpose of the oversight committee. If it is set up for the purpose to ensure our intelligence community follows specific laws and treaties, and the committee was briefed on specific techniques and overseas detention facilities, and it did not disapprove of, or refer the case to be investigated by same courts that should be used to get the warrants that are referred to by the Patriot Act opposition(some secret court system), isn't that the same as the committee approving the techniques?

As I understand the purpose of having an oversight committee is to ensure our people are doing what is right. Therefor, there must be a process by which these people can stop certain activities without having to go to the full chamber of Congress. There has to be a system in place to keep a check and balance on those agencies that perform activities that are deemed to be classified to the extent most congressional members are not privy.

So back to your question, Droop, of what could they do, I don't know. I have to believe that there is something they could do, and most would say should have done. Since there has to be a system in place to keep oversight and control over those groups that are charged with dealing with issues the vast majority of us would never want to do, why didn't the oversight committee not use it?

Well, your confusion lies with the fact that the Committee was not briefed. Four members of the committee were briefed in secret and were not allowed to inform anyone... including other members of the committee.



How was the Committee supposed to do anything if only four members knew anything and they were not allowed to tell anyone, including other members of the committee?

Harman was only recently allowed to openly express the concerns she presented after attending those briefings and that was because the Executive Branch declassified her letter... only recently.

You have to believe or you want to believe?? If there is a process i am unaware of it, other than talking to other members of Congress, trying to convince them to make a law, without ever being able to tell their colleagues why we need the law. Because they obviously can't share classified information with the rest of Congress.

Read it and see. There were lots of things that could and should have done if they thought this was torture. There are larger committees and they could have called for a “closed door” session to discuss them. They are there specificaly for oversight - get it? Methods included. And waterboarding falls under this specifically.

"Techniques. Several potential techniques to expand non-committee
involvement and non-member access to information follow:
! Ensure that relevant information is appropriately and expeditiously
shared with committees with overlapping membership.
! Give greater allowance for other committees to conduct oversight of
intelligence components, activities, and programs, including
standing committees without overlapping membership.26! Ease access for non-members to intelligence committee holdings, by
reducing the exacting requirements over the availability of the
classified.
! Encourage the intelligence committees, on their own initiative, to
share information as appropriate with the full membership of their
house.
! Make more information available to non-members by securing
declassification of certain intelligence reports or by providing
classified and declassified versions of IC reports (for the committees
and for the general membership, respectively); the agencies proper
or their inspectors general (charged with preventing and detecting
waste, fraud, and abuse) might do either or both, possibly at the
request or directive of the intelligence committees.


http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/intel/RL32525.pdf

Of the three questions I think this is the most important.

Unfortunately an unnamed partisan hack has turned this thread into something that makes Nancy Pelosi the major culprit. I don't favor making Pelosi the skapegoat on this.

Waterboarding should be declared illegal by the U. S. Attorney General and congress should thoroghly investigate its use in the past and make sure it doesn't happen in the future. We need more "Nosehair" Waxmans - as Aquilla calls him -riding herd on the cesspool that is Washington.

BTW: How many of the apologists on tis thread would volunteer to be waterboarded? If you did, you could report backwith first hand informatiom on what it's like. I do not choose to volunteer. I will take it from others who have experienced it that it's a nasty procedure.

And how is any of the above possible when only 20% of the full committee has any information? And that 20% are not allowed to share that information with the rest of the committee membership - the other 80%? The Committee as an entity can't expand non-committee and non-member access regarding something it doesn't officially know about, can it?

On the legislative side, the CIA works primarily with the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence and the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence. These two committees -- along with the Foreign Relations, Foreign Affairs and Armed Services committees -- authorize the CIA's programs and oversee the CIA. The appropriations committees appropriate funds for the CIA and all U.S. government activities.

http://people.howstuffworks.com/cia.htm

WASHINGTON -- Whatever else one might say about America's accident-prone intelligence agencies, it seems clear that the system of congressional oversight that was established in the mid-1970s to supervise them isn't working.


Congress silently blesses the CIA's harsh interrogation tactics, for example, and then denounces the practices when they become public.

It's supposed to be the other way around: When the Senate and House intelligence committees were created in 1975 after exposes of wrongdoing, the premise was that Congress would provide an independent but discreet arm of accountability. Elected officials were to be briefed on the dirty business, with the understanding that they would maintain the same bonds of secrecy as the intelligence community itself.
The intelligence committees were meant to be bipartisan. And to avoid the usual congressional logrolling, they weren't permanent committees at first. Back then, the congressional leadership expected it would be difficult to get anyone to serve very long on the intelligence panels, because the members wouldn't be able to talk about what they did.

That misfiring of oversight was described in The Washington Post last Sunday by Joby Warrick and Dan Eggen. Their article described some of the background to last week's congressional uproar over the CIA's destruction of so-called "terror tapes" that had been made during harsh interrogations of captured al-Qaeda terrorists. It turned out that back in September 2002, four top members of the intelligence committees -- including Rep. Nancy Pelosi, who is now House speaker -- had been given a "virtual tour" of CIA interrogation facilities overseas. They heard descriptions of some of the harsh techniques that would be used, including the now-infamous practice known as waterboarding.

"Among those being briefed, there was a pretty full understanding of what the CIA was doing. And the reaction in the room was not just approval, but encouragement," former Rep. Porter Goss told the Post reporters. He attended the 2002 briefing, along with Pelosi, as chairman of the House intelligence committee. He later served from 2004 to 2006 as CIA director.



http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/...of_mediocr.html

Okay, Ted.

Now you're just repeating stuff that isn't new. I asked a question. Would you answer it? The information you've provided doesn't answer that question.

Its in what I posted and you have to read it. Obviously from all the above you can see what the method and purpose was and how its been perverted with the usual partisan politics.

Needless to say you would be on the other side of the issue if Al Gore was President.

The oversight committees saw and “encouraged” the practice that are now trying to run from. The statement above fro your girl Nancy is clearly political doublespeak.

From above:
Encourage the intelligence committees, on their own initiative, to
share information as appropriate with the full membership of their
house.
! Make more information available to non-members by securing
declassification of certain intelligence reports or by providing
classified and declassified versions of IC reports.

Certainly if Nancy objected in 2002 we would have something in writing and certainly she could have taken it to the President or any number of people who have the clearance. Do I have to go on or can you figure it out.

Your previous statements on this thread have been asinine. This goes beyond that so far that I don't even have a word for it.

We do not know if Gore's policies would have been different or how entspeak, or I or anyone else would react.

I hope you speculate better in the stock market than you do here.

BTW: It's interesting to note how one person has gotten his butt kicked by nearly everyone else who has posted on this thread, but keeps coming back for more. There must be an element of masochism at work.

The answer to that question is not in what you've posted.



Upon what are you basing this assertion? Needless to say, you needlessly have said a whole lot of nothing about which you can't be certain.



Okay... at what point did Nancy Pelosi become "my girl"? Have I defended her? I have in fact condemned her for that... I have stated that she should be held accountable. So, you are now inventing some conflict in an area where there is none.

And what did the other 80% of the House Intelligence Committee see and encourage? Did the Committee discuss this encouragement? What evidence do you have that the oversight committees encouraged this practice. Right now, you have shown that four members saw and only some encouraged it... one is on record as having expressed her concern. But there are 20 members of the House Intelligence Committee... not four, so the majority of the Committee saw nothing and did not encourage waterboarding. So, how can you honestly claim that the Committee saw and encouraged it?



Well, Harman objected in 2002... what happened there? She wrote a letter expressing her concerns which was immediately classified and she was not allowed to say anything.



Are you seriously asking the guy who asked you to stop beating a dead horse if you have to go on?



No, Ted... you don't have to go on.

You've said quite enough. The horse fully decomposed a long time ago - you are now beating the barren ground where it used to lie.

With this it is apparent that you have parted ways with any pretense of productive discussion.


Given the 'sports fan' mindset of the zealous Bush supporters these days, I'm quite certain that 'if Al Gore was President', he wouldn't have had a prayer of instituting, let alone getting away with these clearly unConstitutional policies as the outrage would sweep like fire through the anti-Gore constituencies and those of us who take the Constitution seriously would also side against any such policies.


It has been established that Torture is both unConstitutional and illegal by virtue of the Constitution and treaties we are a party to.

It has been forwarded that the four individuals who 'allowed' the practice of waterboarding to go on had their hands effectively tied on the issue. As a Patriot, I consider this no excuse whatsoever for failing to bring the practice to light, consequences be damned.

You have suggested that our opponents' relative barbarism gives us license to treat prisoners inhumanely, despite claiming that it does not. In that you seem conflicted, but your very words have made it quite clear that you indeed feel that way.


I can only be left to conlude that you believe the principles set forth by America and her founders are a disadvantage and should be set aside in the face of a threat that you perceive to be invulnerable to historically sound and humane practices of intelligenge gathering and law enforcement.

Is this correct?

If not, please explain how it is not.

If it is, then can you share your vision of a just, if inhumane, fight against terrorism that avoids the historic abuses which allow dictatorships and fascist regimes to flourish?

I hope I needn't repeat the questions, and I understand that you are beset about at the moment, but I believe your answers are crucial to an understanding of how issues like these should be addressed.

Thank you.

You are beating the dead horse to death. Obviously the OVERSIGHT Committee, in charge of watching ever feared CIA – esp. since Reagan days has the job of reporting to someone that they think the CIA is out on a limb and torturing prisoners.

If they felt this was the case no doubt there is a procedure to deal with this but I am going to bet it is at least Confidential if not classified and I will not see it on the internet.

So either Nancy is totally incompetent (my bet) or she just thought, along with the others that the method was OK. In either case that group had the ball - and dropped it - HARD.





Nice words – let me ask you this – is Nancy Pelosi an arch conservative monster as you seem to say Bush is? Well Nancy headed up the group that was in charge of stopping the “clearly unConstitutional policies” and not only didn’t object but was part of a group that thought we could even be MORE rough.

Tell you anything Rose?



Actually I am conflicted as most honest people are. Obviously if I knew I could save a child of mine with torture I would do it in a second (you?). And if we had someone in custody who knew where a nuke was going to go off and kill a million people – what would you do Hunter Rose – no conflict? Let em DIE on principle?

You're going on, aren't you. Okay. And... beating a dead horse to death... hmmm... in the dictionary under redundant it says, "see redundant".

The House Intelligence Committee. Okay. So, who on the House Intelligence Committee attended these briefings. Were they, under the rules of secrecy allowed to discuss anything from those briefings with other members of the Committee or non-committee members or the public in general? No, they were not. So, if the vast majority of the House Intelligence Committee responsible for oversight has no idea that torture is being used, how would they go about finding out? You say:



So, now you've abandoned your sources as they haven't been able to support your argument and claim that there must be some procedure regarding secrets that we aren't privy to because the procedure itself is secret. I see. A secret procedure to deal with secrets - as opposed to the not so secret procedures that everyone believes Congress abides by when it comes to secrets. And you say that because they didn't use this procedure that "no doubt" exists, they dropped the ball.

And you can't claim that all of these people thought it was okay. That's not true. Harman didn't think it was okay.

And, so I ask again: Harman expressed her concerns regarding the techniques. What happened there? Why wasn't she able to use this secret procedure you're imagining? Why was her letter classified? Why was she unable to discuss both the letter and the briefings? Perhaps there is some other secret procedure that conflicts with your secret procedure?




Really? Headed it up, did she? That is just not true. Porter Goss was the head of that committee in 2002.
Tell you anything Rose?

I posted it above man – you just ignore it.

So you are saying that nancy and the 4 are criminals but thats not bad because somehow the rest of the group couldn’t know because the hid they information?

This says she or anyone who saw could have spoken to any number of people- legally:

Secrecy oaths distinguish the two chambers. All
Members of the House, including, of course, those on the intelligence committee,
must swear or affirm not to disclose classified information, except as authorized by
the rules of the chamber; the current oath is modeled after a previous one which had
been required only for the members of the House Permanent Select Committee on
Intelligence. The Senate does not impose a similar obligation on its Members.

What?! I am saying nothing of the kind, Ted. I have no idea how you arrived at that interpretation.

I simply said that Congress did not authorize waterboarding. Congress did not approve it. Certain members of Congress did know about it and some of those that knew did seem to have no problem with it. Two seemed to think the CIA could go further. That's all I said. If Nancy Pelosi expressed no concern to anyone regarding that technique, then she should be held accountable. So should the others. That's what I said.



The bold portion simply states that Members of the House swear or affirm not to disclose classified information. It does not say she could have spoken about it to "any number of people - legally."

Can’t debate since I have no clue where you are going. The “oversight” committee was shown the waterbosrding and only one had any concern and was either over ruled or it was not a serious objection. Then the waterboarding was used.

Please tell me what you are alleging. Nancy and the three that had no issues were muzzeled? Bribed? Threatened? What.

Give me a clue to what you are talking about.

It tells me you're willing to assign motives to the actions of others that you simply cannot know.

Once again you're vigorously evading the substance of the discussion to make issue over 'who let it happen' when dissatisfaction with Pelosi et trois has already been roundly expressed.

The bare earth where once the equine carcass lay is churning dust my friend.



Again, you're asking a question with an absolute certainty. That question is completely invalid for that reason. Allow me to extrapolate;

"If you knew that shooting your boss to death would save your family, would you?"

"If the only way to stop a nuclear attack on the US were to rip a puppy's head off and drink it's blood, would you?"

Of course the answer to those is 'yes' because they do not leave room for uncertainty. There is no certainty that torture will prevent such horrors that diligent investigation cannot.

Let me repeat that as it seems not to have sunk in yet;

"There is no certainty that torture will prevent such horrors that diligent investigation cannot."

I know that investigation works with exactly as much, if not more, certainty than you can tell me that torture works. That is a simple, logical fact.


Now it appears that I must ask these questions again. If for some reason you feel that you are not able to answer them, please say so. That way, I won't be wasting anyone's time.

I'll just ask these three;


To my knowledge, nowhere in the Geneva Convention does it state that failure to abide by it's standards is grounds for inhumane treatment. Apparently I must be mistaken, so if you could please cite the pertinent excerpt that allows for torture should a captured combatant be suspected or even guilty of violations, I would very much appreciate it. Thank you.
________________________________________________________________________________

___________________________________________________

I can be sure of this because we have brought many people to justice and foiled many plots with good intelligence and investigation. Frankly, I would be shocked if you weren't aware of this.

Do you think that we've always used torture to stop bad people from doing bad things?

________________________________________________________________________________

___________________________________________________

This is a serious question;

I cannot be so afraid that I would compromise our principles. Why is it that you are?

It is serious because it is apparent that either fear or anger is allowing you to dismiss any moral obligation to treat others humanely. I'd like to know which.



Again, if you feel you are not capable of answering these, please say so. I think you'll find that I will answer any question you put to me... because I'm not afraid of questions or terrorists.

Thank You.

What "oversight" committee? The House Intelligence Committee? That's a patent falsehood. Four members of the Congressional Intelligence Committe's were told about waterboarding in a secret meeting. They are not the "oversight" committee, Ted.

What I'm alleging is that what you're posting is mostly untrue. Congress never authorized waterboarding. Congress never said it was okay. The House Intelligence Committee never said it was okay. Those claims are patently false. That's what I'm alleging, Ted.

To take Nancy Pelosi's lack of concern in 2002 and expand it to mean that Congress wasn't concerned when all of congress - minus these very few - didn't even know about it is intellectually dishonest. That's what I'm alleging. The sources you've provided do not state what you claim they do. That's what I'm alleging.

And I'm gonna go one step beyond all Entspeak just said to you to say you haven't showed how even Nancy Pelosi "approved" anything. In fact you haven't showed how any body could "approve" or "disapprove"

You want us to believe but sorry I'm not a conservative.

Ted


Ted you've gone from debating to outright lying. Nancy was the head?? They were in charge of stopping the tortures?? HOW?!?!!?!? HOW!?!?!?! HOW!?!?!?!

The fact of the matter is one of the four did have issues, maybe all of them had issues, but one of the four did annotate her issues.

Harman told the CIA not to destroy the tapes , yet they did not listen... why??? Cause she did not have the power or Authority to make them listen.



What was Pelosi supposed to do if she was against the torture? Are you saying that Pelosi has the power to dictate policy to the CIA and intelligence community overall? Show us something Ted.

My last word on your ludicrous argument. The CIA showed the 4 people (who were connected to the entire House) – waterboarding and other rough treatment and only one had any issue at all – and if you are trying say that they thought it was horrible torture and had no way to report it, everything I posed says you are dead wrong. They were given the demonstration so they could comment or bring it to the oversight committee or the House if need be. I posted that that even though classified the House member are allowed to get info as they are cleared.

Congress has oversight. They were shown the methods. They did not object – you figure out what to call that – if you don’t like the word “approve”

“n September 2002, four members of Congress met in secret for a first look at a unique CIA program designed to wring vital information from reticent terrorism suspects in U.S. custody. For more than an hour, the bipartisan group, which included current House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.), was given a virtual tour of the CIA's overseas detention sites and the harsh techniques interrogators had devised to try to make their prisoners talk.
Among the techniques described, said two officials present, was waterboarding, a practice that years later would be condemned as torture by Democrats and some Republicans on Capitol Hill. But on that day, no objections were raised. Instead, at least two lawmakers in the room asked the CIA to push harder, two U.S. officials said. “

"The briefer was specifically asked if the methods were tough enough," said a U.S. official who witnessed the exchange.

Yet long before "waterboarding" entered the public discourse, the CIA gave key legislative overseers about 30 private briefings, some of which included descriptions of that technique and other harsh interrogation methods, according to interviews with multiple U.S. officials with firsthand knowledge.

With one known exception, no formal objections were raised by the lawmakers briefed about the harsh methods during the two years in which waterboarding was employed, from 2002 to 2003, said Democrats and Republicans with direct knowledge of the matter. 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/content/article/2007/12/08/AR2007120801664.html?hpid=topnews

So Entspeak – if you are saying they did not have oversight roles – prove it



You can have the last word.


Actually no one else had and issue and if you read what I posted – others thought they might do something more aggressive. If they had serious issues they duty was to report it. The letter certainly was not the way to do that. Certainly the now stringent oversight rules would have given them one or more ways to report it and stop it if they thought it was torture.

So republicans and dems did not do that – I call it approval – you can call it what ever you like. But the idea that we can now “prosecute” the CIA people is ludicrous on its face.




AS POSTED:
“lthough it did not adopt either of the 9/11 Commission proposals, Congress
has pursued other initiatives for changing its intelligence oversight structure and
capabilities. This has occurred through the chambers’ leadership, existing
committees, and a Senate bipartisan working group, leading to that chamber
restructuring its oversight panels. In the 110th Congress (H.Res. 35), the House
altered its arrangements when it created a Select Intelligence Oversight Panel on the
Appropriations Committee, a hybrid structure that is perhaps unique in the annals of
Congress. The new 13-member panel combines members of the House Permanent
Select Committee on Intelligence and the Committee on Appropriations to study and
make recommendations to relevant appropriations subcommittees, including the
Defense Subcommittee on the annual intelligence community appropriations.”

A recent change in the House places three members of the
intelligence committee on a new Select Intelligence Oversight Panel on the
Appropriations Committee (H.Res. 35, 110th Congress). The new panel, which
appears unprecedented in the history of Congress, is to study and make
recommendations to relevant appropriations subcommittees. This includes the
Defense Appropriations Subcommittee, which continues to prepare the annual
intelligence community budget, as part of the classified annex to the bill making
appropriations for the Department of Defense.
Most of the jurisdiction of the current intelligence committees is shared. The
select committees hold exclusive authorizing and legislative powers only for the
Central Intelligence Agency, the Director of National Intelligence (as it had over the
now-defunct Director of Central Intelligence), and the National Foreign Intelligence
Program.

House select committee has been given authority to “review and study on an
exclusive basis the sources and methods of entities” in the intelligence community.8

With two congressional oversight committees in place, logic would tell you that there is a purpose other than just to receive briefings. They have the power and responsibility to bring forth investigations. I don't know how we can sit here and argue that they couldn't discuss waterboarding with other congressional members given the fact that the media has reported on it and we are discussing it. If it is so secret that they couldn't discuss it with other congressional members, why do we know about it?

I think the fact that it is being talked about with such fervor is a good sign that it will eventually be outlawed. There's a lot of moral obligation to it from both political parties. The current presidential administration seems to be the only hold-out in a full ban on waterboarding, but I may be wrong.

Nice try, BoF, but again, you are wrong. The link that this supposed partisan hack you mention provided also points out that the briefings were bipartisan.
Link

I am also not surprised that you don't favor making Pelosi the skapegoat, wonder why? (What color is the kettle?)

And for this one secret meeting, that is a fallacy. There were actually about 30.
Link

Holding those that were briefed accountable is the first step in moving forward. And yes, that includes Pelosi, but also the other members of Congress that attended the roughly 30 other briefings. Both Democrats and Republicans. (Hack, HA! What color is the kettle?) There was an opportunity to stop these techniques from the beginning if these techniques are considered illegal. Supporting them in 2002 and denouncing them in 2005 is either an example of getting educated three years later, or changing position due to the political wind shifting. Nothing about the techniques changed since 2002, but the atmosphere surrounding the importance of interrogating prisoners has started to get it's own political correctness. Is that why sentiment has changed over the past 5-6 years for those that attended the meetings?

Just for the record scubatim, I wasn't talking about a specific link, but overall tone of a series of posts and you were not the partisan hack I had in mind. Nice try at feeling picked on, but you are wrong again.

I think your confusion come from the fact that the full committees are broken up into subcommittees. For instance, the House has a subcommittee that is solely responsible for oversight and investigation. link This group is responsible for either approving or disapproving the activities of the CIA. Also, I don't see where it is stated that they could not brief the rest of the subcommittee or the full committee.



I see where they couldn't discuss it with their staff, but not the committee.
link