Pres' Obama excuses CIA torture

[Amazon 7]

Quote

Quote

Do you think that congressional intelligence committee members that were briefed in detail about 30 times on the interrogations should be prosecuted? This would include the liberal darlings Rep Nancy Pelosi, Sen. John D. Rockefeller IV, and Rep. Jane Harman.

How is receiving a classified briefing a culpable offense? What would they be charged with?

Sniff sniff sniff...peeeeeewww


Think right wing red herring to excuse the behavior of those they hold sacrosanct

[sundevil777 102]

Quote

Quote

Do you think that congressional intelligence committee members that were briefed in detail about 30 times on the interrogations should be prosecuted? This would include the liberal darlings Rep Nancy Pelosi, Sen. John D. Rockefeller IV, and Rep. Jane Harman.

How is receiving a classified briefing a culpable offense? What would they be charged with?

I really do think having knowledge of a crime that was committed, and having knowledge that crimes will be committed (and doing nothing), is indeed a crime. I don't know the exact terminology for that crime, but I do believe it is a crime, if the interrogations were in fact criminal.

Anyway, the executive branch was fully informing the legislative branch, and 3 darlings dems of congress were OK with it.

People are sick and tired of being told that ordinary and decent people are fed up in this country with being sick and tired. I’m certainly not, and I’m sick and tired of being told that I am

[billvon 3,116]

>I really do think having knowledge of a crime that was committed, and having
>knowledge that crimes will be committed, is indeed a crime.

So what sort of penalty do you think jurors on a murder case should get? Is life imprisonment enough if they refuse to talk to reporters during the trial?

How about the cop who arrests a murderer after seeing him kill someone? Should he be thrown in prison if the murderer is acquitted? Or would firing him be enough?

[TomAiello 26]

Quote

>I really do think having knowledge of a crime that was committed, and having
>knowledge that crimes will be committed, is indeed a crime.

So what sort of penalty do you think jurors on a murder case should get? Is life imprisonment enough if they refuse to talk to reporters during the trial?

How about the cop who arrests a murderer after seeing him kill someone? Should he be thrown in prison if the murderer is acquitted? Or would firing him be enough?

Do you think that people with a supervisory responsibility who perceive a problem but do nothing are without any culpability?

Sounds to me like there are so many murky, fuzzy grey areas here that we ought to just turn the page and move on.

-- Tom Aiello

Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com
SnakeRiverBASE.com

[sundevil777 102]

Quote

>I really do think having knowledge of a crime that was committed, and having
>knowledge that crimes will be committed, is indeed a crime.

So what sort of penalty do you think jurors on a murder case should get? Is life imprisonment enough if they refuse to talk to reporters during the trial?

How about the cop who arrests a murderer after seeing him kill someone? Should he be thrown in prison if the murderer is acquitted? Or would firing him be enough?

Jeez, so I didn't explain fully that knowing of crimes AND doing nothing about them is a crime. Seems that either you're complaining about that or you've put forward a new crappy analogy to top all other crappy analogies.

The darling dems in congress including Pelosi knew of it before and during, but there was no complaint.

People are sick and tired of being told that ordinary and decent people are fed up in this country with being sick and tired. I’m certainly not, and I’m sick and tired of being told that I am

[billvon 3,116]

>Jeez, so I didn't explain fully that knowing of crimes AND doing nothing
>about them is a crime.

Right. So like I said - how many years in prison do you want to give to the jurors on the OJ case?

[TomAiello 26]

Quote

>Jeez, so I didn't explain fully that knowing of crimes AND doing nothing
>about them is a crime.

Right. So like I said - how many years in prison do you want to give to the jurors on the OJ case?

The jurors;

(a) did not have any responsibility to supervise OJ
(b) had no knowledge of any activities that were actually taking place (only knowledge of things that happened in the past)
(c) had no way of exercising influence over any actions at the time they were occurring


Members of Congress have an affirmative responsibility to supervise government agencies over which they provide oversight (pretty sure that's why the call it "Congressional Oversight"). They have powers to engage in supervision and (in some cases) knowledge of the activities. It is their duty to exercise oversight especially when matters take place outside of the public view, as we (the people) have entrusted them as our representatives to deal with matters that we are not privy to.

-- Tom Aiello

Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com
SnakeRiverBASE.com

[billvon 3,116]

>Do you think that people with a supervisory responsibility who perceive
>a problem but do nothing are without any culpability?

I think if they were told that "doing something about it" was going to compromise national security, they might (validly) choose to do nothing about it when they are first told of it. However, if that wasn't the case, they might be responsible for not taking action.

>Sounds to me like there are so many murky, fuzzy grey areas here
>that we ought to just turn the page and move on.

Agreed.

[billvon 3,116]

>The jurors;
>did not have any responsibility to supervise OJ
>had no knowledge of any activities that were actually taking place (only
>knowledge of things that happened in the past)
>had no way of exercising influence over any actions at the time they were
>occurring

The jurors were the people (indeed, the only people) who could "do something" about OJ's crimes, and they were given access to all the information that both the defense and the prosecution thought was important. In other words, they knew as fully as anyone could what had happened, and they did nothing about it. That, according to Sundevil, is a crime; I disagree.

Now, it may well be that the jurors had good reason to acquit him. Perhaps they thought that the evidence wasn't compelling enough, or that the state had violated procedures during the arrest/prosecution. But deciding whether or not those things apply is their job, and we don't arrest people for doing their job - even when we disagree with their decisions.

[quade 4]

Quote

Sounds to me like there are so many murky, fuzzy grey areas here that we ought to just turn the page and move on.

I disagree entirely.

We don't actually have a full accounting of what happened. We may never have a full accounting. However, that is not to say we should excuse people at the absolute top that authorized torture.

If the US is to ever regain its credibility in the world, we absolutely must pursue this and hold those at the top accountable for their actions.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[sundevil777 102]

Quote

I think if they were told that "doing something about it" was going to compromise national security, they might (validly) choose to do nothing about it when they are first told of it. However, if that wasn't the case, they might be responsible for not taking action.

So, those with oversight authority are blameless just because they might have been told it would compromise national security? But they are now saying that national security was compromised by the interrogation methods because it was used as a recruiting tool, etc. Sounds like they want it both ways - they want to have no accountability for using their own judgment starting back in 2002. I say bullshit! Pelosi and the other darling dems were in favor of the interrogation techniques as was president, and it was specifically their duty to serve as oversight.

People are sick and tired of being told that ordinary and decent people are fed up in this country with being sick and tired. I’m certainly not, and I’m sick and tired of being told that I am

[billvon 3,116]

>So, those with oversight authority are blameless just because they
>might have been told it would compromise national security?

If they had been told something that WOULD compromise national security (or had a high likelihood of doing so) then yes, they chose the lesser of two evils.

If you were told something under a security clearance and it involved knowing of a crime that hadn't been prosecuted, would you reveal the information?

[Amazon 7]

Quote

Quote

>I really do think having knowledge of a crime that was committed, and having
>knowledge that crimes will be committed, is indeed a crime.

So what sort of penalty do you think jurors on a murder case should get? Is life imprisonment enough if they refuse to talk to reporters during the trial?

How about the cop who arrests a murderer after seeing him kill someone? Should he be thrown in prison if the murderer is acquitted? Or would firing him be enough?

Jeez, so I didn't explain fully that knowing of crimes AND doing nothing about them is a crime. Seems that either you're complaining about that or you've put forward a new crappy analogy to top all other crappy analogies.

The darling dems in congress including Pelosi knew of it before and during, but there was no complaint.

Guess again cupcake.. there was a hell of a lot of complaining about it from the moment people found out about it.... well those that actually listened to the people who actually know that.. the enhanced techniques do not work. Obviously the Shrub Cult never would nor will complain about it... hence the reason I think those that came up with it.. need to be tried on the international scene.

[sundevil777 102]

Quote

Guess again cupcake.. there was a hell of a lot of complaining about it from the moment people found out about it

Well then schmooky lumps, perhaps you can show that Pelosi and the other darling dems in the know complained at the time. Bill thinks that there was no burden for them to voice their objection, because they were told it was a matter of nat'l security. Perhaps this free pass to not do your duty in terms of oversight or anything else only applies to liberal darling dems in congress that are in charge of intelligence committee oversight?

People are sick and tired of being told that ordinary and decent people are fed up in this country with being sick and tired. I’m certainly not, and I’m sick and tired of being told that I am

[jcd11235 0]

Quote

Members of Congress have an affirmative responsibility to supervise government agencies …

Remind us again which to branch of government the CIA belongs. To which branch of government does the commander in chief belong?

Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

[billvon 3,116]

> Bill thinks that there was no burden for them to voice their objection,
> because they were told it was a matter of nat'l security.

So you never answered the question I posed. If you were told something under a security clearance and it involved knowing of a crime that hadn't been prosecuted, would you reveal the information?

[Amazon 7]

Quote

Quote

Guess again cupcake.. there was a hell of a lot of complaining about it from the moment people found out about it

Well then schmooky lumps, perhaps you can show that Pelosi and the other darling dems in the know complained at the time. Bill thinks that there was no burden for them to voice their objection, because they were told it was a matter of nat'l security. Perhaps this free pass to not do your duty in terms of oversight or anything else only applies to liberal darling dems in congress that are in charge of intelligence committee oversight?

Here ya go tutu schnookums...from 2005

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10480690/

Quote

“The fog of law is finally lifting. America’s moral black eye is finally healing,” Rep. Jane Harman of California, the top Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee, said in a statement.

Sounds like some people wwere against the policies of the Cult of Bush for quite a while on this issue... funny dat.

[rushmc 23]

Quote

Do you think that congressional intelligence committee members that were briefed in detail about 30 times on the interrogations should be prosecuted? This would include the liberal darlings Rep Nancy Pelosi, Sen. John D. Rockefeller IV, and Rep. Jane Harman.

The time line of who knew and when (by memo) is going to be laid out on Hanity tonight.

Might not like Hanity or Fox, but date and facts are what they are.

Dont know if it will be compelling but, I think I may take a look tonight

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[sundevil777 102]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Guess again cupcake.. there was a hell of a lot of complaining about it from the moment people found out about it

Well then schmooky lumps, perhaps you can show that Pelosi and the other darling dems in the know complained at the time. Bill thinks that there was no burden for them to voice their objection, because they were told it was a matter of nat'l security. Perhaps this free pass to not do your duty in terms of oversight or anything else only applies to liberal darling dems in congress that are in charge of intelligence committee oversight?

Here ya go tutu schnookums...from 2005

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10480690/

Quote

“The fog of law is finally lifting. America’s moral black eye is finally healing,” Rep. Jane Harman of California, the top Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee, said in a statement.

Sounds like some people wwere against the policies of the Cult of Bush for quite a while on this issue... funny dat.

That's 3 years later, well after it became fashionable to claim that the war in Iraq was a lost cause. Pelosi knew about it since early 2002, although just today she claims that they were never told that waterboarding would be used, just that they were told about it! What a laugh!

Those that were present at the briefings said that Pelosi wanted more to be done. Pelosi is having a tough time keeping track of what she said and when, and having that even come close to what others say (including Obama officials).

People are sick and tired of being told that ordinary and decent people are fed up in this country with being sick and tired. I’m certainly not, and I’m sick and tired of being told that I am

[sundevil777 102]

Quote

> Bill thinks that there was no burden for them to voice their objection,
> because they were told it was a matter of nat'l security.

So you never answered the question I posed. If you were told something under a security clearance and it involved knowing of a crime that hadn't been prosecuted, would you reveal the information?

It is definitely a possibility. I certainly wouldn't let a claim of security interest muzzle my duty to the country. I would do it if my conscience dictated, it would of course depend on the circumstances. Liberals divulge such information often, from newspapers to those in congress. But Pelosi is not claiming that she was muffled by a claim of security interest. She is claiming that she was never told what many others say she most definitely was told. She is claiming she never wanted even more to be done when others say she did exactly that. If you're going to defend the predicament of the liberal darling dems on the intelligence committee, then you got to get with what they're are actually claiming.

People are sick and tired of being told that ordinary and decent people are fed up in this country with being sick and tired. I’m certainly not, and I’m sick and tired of being told that I am

[billvon 3,116]

>It is definitely a possibility.

Wow! I hope for our sake that you are not in a position where such information is entrusted to you, then.

> I certainly wouldn't let a claim of security interest muzzle my duty to
>the country.

But apparently you would be OK damaging your country's interests by divulging sensitive information as long as it achieves personal goals. I'll keep that in mind.

>If you're going to defend the predicament of the liberal darling dems on
>the intelligence committee . . .

I could care less about "liberal darlin dems" or whatever your latest insulting term is for people you disagree with.

I do, however, find it hilarious that all the right wingers are HORRIFIED! HORRIFIED! that no one stepped in to stop a procedure that they themselves supported strongly for the past 8 years. Indeed, I have zero doubt that the right wingers on here would have called for charging any democrat with treason had they exposed sensitive information for "political purposes." Now they want them crucified for NOT exposing the same sensitive information. Consistent as always.

[sundevil777 102]

Quote

>It is definitely a possibility.

Wow! I hope for our sake that you are not in a position where such information is entrusted to you, then.

It seems that you have been asserting that the claim of security interests was not valid. It is claimed that the methods used aren't effective, which of course isn't supported by many security officials including the CIA director appointed by Clinton (still there at the time under Bush). If the methods are known to not be effective, what is the security interest? It isn't like liberals to blindly believe claims of the need for secrecy, why would you claim that Pelosi and other liberal darling dems would do that?

Quote

> I certainly wouldn't let a claim of security interest muzzle my duty to
>the country.

But apparently you would be OK damaging your country's interests by divulging sensitive information as long as it achieves personal goals. I'll keep that in mind.

How did you get to "personal goals"? Isn't the oath of office a little beyond personal goals? I don't believe you would just blindly be muzzled by a claim of security interests. I believe you would be skeptical, and follow your conscience if it was really important.

Quote

>If you're going to defend the predicament of the liberal darling dems on
>the intelligence committee . . .

I could care less about "liberal darlin dems" or whatever your latest insulting term is for people you disagree with.

I do, however, find it hilarious that all the right wingers are HORRIFIED! HORRIFIED! that no one stepped in to stop a procedure that they themselves supported strongly for the past 8 years. Indeed, I have zero doubt that the right wingers on here would have called for charging any democrat with treason had they exposed sensitive information for "political purposes." Now they want them crucified for NOT exposing the same sensitive information. Consistent as always.

Please, stop pretending to not recognize the pursuit of shining light on hypocrisy. Conservatives largely agree with what Pelosi supported at the time. Pelosi did indeed support it. She didn't need to divulge any sensitive info in order to object, but she didn't object, at the time. We only want the darling dems on the intelligence committee to be in the same boat as the Bush admin people that libs want to prosecute.

People are sick and tired of being told that ordinary and decent people are fed up in this country with being sick and tired. I’m certainly not, and I’m sick and tired of being told that I am

[jcd11235 0]

Quote

But Pelosi is not claiming that she was muffled by a claim of security interest. She is claiming that she was never told what many others say she most definitely was told.

If she was privy to classified information, it is most probable that she would be unable to divulge that she knew, let alone what she knew.

Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

[sundevil777 102]

Quote

Quote

But Pelosi is not claiming that she was muffled by a claim of security interest. She is claiming that she was never told what many others say she most definitely was told.

If she was privy to classified information, it is most probable that she would be unable to divulge that she knew, let alone what she knew.

The important point is that Pelosi supported the interrogations, and wanted more to be done. If she had wanted to object, she could have done so within official circles - within the chain of command, without divulging any secrets, but she didn't.

People are sick and tired of being told that ordinary and decent people are fed up in this country with being sick and tired. I’m certainly not, and I’m sick and tired of being told that I am

[jcd11235 0]

Quote

It is claimed that the methods used aren't effective, which of course isn't supported by many security officials including the CIA director appointed by Clinton (still there at the time under Bush).

How many of those making such claims are operatives? The operatives that have addressed the issue have been clear; torture is an ineffective interrogation method that does not yield reliable intelligence.

Quote

If the methods are known to not be effective, what is the security interest?

Divulging classified information as long as it is classified is generally not in the interest of national security, regardless of one's personal views w/r/t that information.

Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!