chirp, That would mean the Republicans would also be guilty. Fine by me, throw them ALL in jail for failure to report a crime, indict them as accessories. You can place one Republican and one Democrat in each cell so they can entertain themselves arguing politics. Sounds like a great idea.
On May 10, 9:14 am, chirpinginnc <[email protected]> wrote: > Hollywood, > > If it IS a crime, or at the VERY least highly unethical, what does > that say about those who said nothing, did nothing, opposed nothing? > > That they DID support it? That they were accessories to the fact? > > Which is it? Pelosi and her fellow Democrats knew and supported it > while now claiming it was illegal? Or that it WAS legal and Pelosi > and her fellow Democrats are now lying? > > On May 10, 1:06 am, Hollywood <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > dick, > > > If it's NOT a crime, or at the VERY least highly unethical, what would > > be the big deal about not reporting and/or publically opossing it? > > You do realize that everything you are saying about the Democrats > > holds equally true for the Republicans that were also informed at the > > same time don't you? > > > I'm sorry, are we in junior high school? What's with the "loser" > > label? > > > On May 9, 11:00 pm, dick thompson <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > Given the position of the people involved and the actions they could > > > have taken on the issue, it is more than their not reporting what you > > > choose to call a crime. It is that their not reporting it implied > > > strongly that they did not consider it a crime at all. Now they choose > > > to say I never got the briefing or since that option has been shown to > > > be a lie that they assumed it to be a future option rather than it > > > having been already done. That they were told it had been done to the > > > people we know were given waterboarding puts that to a lie as well. I > > > just wonder what else they will attempt to do to make it seem that they > > > were lily white on the issue. Everything they have said so far has been > > > shown to be a lie. > > > > The other problem is that at the time all these "terrible" things > > > happened this was not a crime and since waterboarding is a natural part > > > of the training of the Navy Seals that one looks to be a loser as > > > well. The congressmen are trying to twist the stories even more than > > > Clinton with his "depends on the definition of what is is" bit of > > > nonsense. Doubt that that will sell either. It appears that the public > > > is behind the CIA on this one and the crown princess of Botox looks to > > > be past her sell by date on the issue. > > > > Hollywood wrote: > > > > bruce, > > > > > Sorry, but I don't get your point here. > > > > > You want to condemn people for NOT reporting a crime but you do not > > > > want to condemn or punish the people who actually committed the > > > > crime???? > > > > > On May 9, 10:00 pm, bruce majors <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > >> CIA memo cites 40 Congressional briefings on torture By Bill Van Auken > > > > >> A memo released Wednesday by Director of National Intelligence Dennis > > > >> Blair > > > >> lists 40 separate briefings beginning in September 2002 in which > > > >> leading > > > >> members of Congress were briefed by the CIA on the agency’s use of > > > >> “enhanced > > > >> interrogation techniques”—in plain words, torture. > > > > >> Before the revelations about the employment of such methods as > > > >> waterboarding > > > >> appeared in the media, none of these legislators, including leading > > > >> Democrats, objected to or publicly protested against what amounted to > > > >> war > > > >> crimes. > > > > >> Blair’s release of the document compiled by the CIA came in response > > > >> to a > > > >> request from Representative Pete Hoekstra of Michigan, the top > > > >> Republican on > > > >> the House intelligence committee. In a letter to Hoekstra, Blair > > > >> stated that > > > >> the memo “provides a straightforward account of the extent of > > > >> interaction > > > >> with the Congress on this issue.” > > > > >> Much of the media attention has focused on the role of House Speaker > > > >> Nancy > > > >> Pelosi (Democrat, California), who as the ranking Democrat on the House > > > >> intelligence committee was, together with Republican Representative > > > >> Porter > > > >> Goss, who went on to become director of the CIA, one of the first > > > >> members of > > > >> Congress to be briefed on the CIA’s torture tactics. > > > > >> The memo’s description of the briefing reads: “Briefing on EITs > > > >> [enhanced > > > >> interrogation techniques] on Abu Zubaydah, background on authorities, > > > >> and a > > > >> description of the particular EITs that have been employed.” > > > > >> Zubaydah, captured by the CIA in Pakistan in March 2002, was one of the > > > >> first “high-value” detainees subjected to waterboarding and other > > > >> forms of > > > >> torture. While the Bush administration grossly inflated Zubaydah’s > > > >> importance, the torture methods served to extract from him a false > > > >> statement > > > >> that Iraq was training Al Qaeda terrorists in the use of chemical > > > >> weapons. > > > >> The Bush administration had ordered the torture in large part to > > > >> obtain such > > > >> a phony confession in order to bolster its key pretext for launching > > > >> its war > > > >> of aggression against Iraq. > > > > >> The memo’s description of this initial briefing of Pelosi and Goss > > > >> contradicts Pelosi’s own account. Just last month, she claimed that > > > >> the CIA > > > >> “did not brief us that these enhanced interrogations were being used,” > > > >> but > > > >> merely informed the two intelligence committee leaders about “an array > > > >> of > > > >> interrogations that they might have at their disposal.” > > > > >> This claim is hardly credible. Why would the CIA brief two leading > > > >> members > > > >> of Congress on methods of torture in the abstract? And if they had > > > >> done so, > > > >> why didn’t Pelosi ask them whether these “techniques” were in fact > > > >> being > > > >> used on detainees captured on the “global war on terrorism”? > > > > >> Other briefings listed in the memo included one in February 2003 in > > > >> which > > > >> Republican Senator Pat Roberts and Democratic Senator John Rockefeller > > > >> had > > > >> the EITs “described in considerable detail,” including “how the water > > > >> board > > > >> was used.” > > > > >> In briefings held in September 2003, Roberts and Rockefeller, as well > > > >> as > > > >> Republican Congressman Goss and Pelosi’s successor on the House > > > >> intelligence > > > >> panel, California Democratic Congresswoman Jane Harmon, were given > > > >> slide > > > >> shows in which “non-enhanced and enhanced interrogation techniques were > > > >> named, described and compared on the same slide.” > > > > >> Subsequent briefings, which included Senator Harry Reid, now the > > > >> Democratic > > > >> Senate Majority Leader, and the other Democratic members of the Senate > > > >> Select Committee on Intelligence—Senators Carl Levin, Dianne > > > >> Feinstein, Evan > > > >> Bayh, Barbara Mikulski and Russ Feingold—heard presentations on > > > >> “waterboarding, diet manipulation, nudity, walling and stomach slap.” > > > > >> The content of the memo is hardly a revelation. In December 2007, the > > > >> *Washington > > > >> Post* reported that in 2002 briefings Pelosi and three other members of > > > >> Congress were “given a virtual tour of the CIA’s overseas detention > > > >> sites > > > >> and the harsh techniques interrogators had devised to make prisoners > > > >> talk,” > > > >> including waterboarding. The *Post *added that while leading Democrats > > > >> subsequently denounced waterboarding as torture, “on that day, no > > > >> objections > > > >> were raised. Instead, at least two lawmakers in the room asked the CIA > > > >> to > > > >> push harder.” > > > > >> The patent aim of the congressional Republicans in requesting the > > > >> public > > > >> release of the record of these briefings is to intimidate Democrats > > > >> into > > > >> dropping the issue of torture, by threatening to focus public > > > >> attention on > > > >> Democratic complicity in the implementation of the criminal methods > > > >> introduced under the Bush administration. > > > > >> The issue has divided Washington since President Barack Obama last > > > >> month > > > >> released Justice Department memos authorizing the use of these illegal > > > >> methods, while simultaneously announcing a blanket amnesty for those > > > >> in the > > > >> CIA who carried them out. > > > > >> Obama has since informed Democratic leaders in Congress that he is > > > >> opposed > > > >> to any independent investigation of the torture carried out under the > > > >> Bush > > > >> administration, while publicly stating that the matter is in the hands > > > >> of > > > >> his Attorney General Eric Holder. The administration and the majority > > > >> of the > > > >> Democratic leadership in Congress have also deferred to an inquiry > > > >> being > > > >> conducted by the Senate intelligence committee, which will not be > > > >> completed > > > >> until the end of the year. The probe will be conducted behind closed > > > >> doors, > > > >> and it is uncertain how much of its findings will be made public. > > > > >> In an appearance on Capitol Hill Thursday, Attorney General Holder > > > >> dealt > > > >> with the issue of the torture memos. His testimony before the Senate > > > >> Appropriations Committee came just a day after the *New York Times* > > > >> reported > > > >> that a draft report issued by the Justice Department’s Office of > > > >> Professional Responsibility had concluded that the government > > > >> attorneys who > > > >> wrote memos declaring specific methods of torture to be legal were > > > >> guilty > > > >> only of poor judgment and should not be criminally prosecuted. Holder, > > > >> however, claimed not to have read the document. > > > > >> Republican Senators Lamar Alexander of Tennessee and Richard Shelby of > > > >> Alabama pointedly questioned Holder about the implications for the > > > >> Democrats > > > >> themselves of any serious investigation into the question of torture. > > > > >> “What about members of Congress who were informed of them or knew > > > >> about them > > > >> or approved them or encouraged them, wouldn’t they also be appropriate > > > >> parts > > > >> of such an investigation?” asked Alexander. > > > > >> Holder responded: “Our desire is not to do anything that would be > > > >> perceived > > > >> as political, as partisan. We do want to look forward to the extent > > > >> that we > > > >> can do that.” > > ... > > read more »- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups. For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum * Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/ * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. * Read the latest breaking news, and more. -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
