There was no torture Sugarshack, so the premise of this whole article is wrong. That has now been established, so whoever wrote this article is attempting to mislead and is not credible.
Second, the facts contained are inaccurate, regarding Rep. Porter Goss and Senator Graham from Florida. Where did you get this article? On Wed, May 20, 2009 at 5:16 PM, VT VirtualTruth <[email protected]>wrote: > > Your rebuttal was already addressed and answered in the > original post. I KNEW this was what you torture Apologists > would try....LMAO! > > On May 20, 4:52 pm, jgg1000a <[email protected]> wrote: > > Except Pelosi admits she was told in 2003... The difference here is a > > pretend fig-leaf.... Did she know while remaining silent OR taking > > no action??? The answer here is yes... > > > > On May 20, 4:45 pm, VT VirtualTruth <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > Update.... > > > Both Sen. John Rockefeller (D-W.Va.) and former Sen. Bob Graham (D- > > > Fla.), former chairmen of the Senate intelligence committee, have > > > challenged the accuracy of the CIA records on briefings on the > > > detainee program, buttressing Pelosi’s claim that she was told during > > > that 2002 briefing only that “enhanced interrogation techniques” were > > > authorized for use, not that they were employed. > > > > > House Appropriations Committee Chairman Dave Obey. The Wisconsin > > > Democrat released a letter to CIA Director Leon Panetta saying that > > > the same CIA records that said Pelosi was briefed on waterboarding > > > also said that an Appropriations Committee staffer had attended an > > > agency briefing in 2006. In fact, Panetta said, the aide was prevented > > > from attending. > > > > > The CIA first briefed Congress on torture on September 4, 2002, 35 > > > days after CIA purportedly began waterboarding and much longer after > > > we know CIA started torturing Abu Zubaydah. Moreover, we have on the > > > record statements from Pelosi and Goss (and I've had even stronger > > > assurances elsewhere) that CIA did not tell Congress they were already > > > in the business of torture. Their discussions of torture were all > > > prospective, and they may even have stated clearly that they had not > > > used these techniques yet, which (if true) would be a clear and direct > > > lie to Congress. > > > > > Second, look at when--according to the CIA's specific assertions--they > > > first talked about waterboarding to members of Congress: > > > > > February 4, 2003: Pat Roberts and a Republican and a Democratic > > > staffer (but not Jello Jay); according to the CIA there was no > > > specific mention of waterboarding in the February 5, 2003 briefing for > > > Porter Goss and Jane Harman > > > > > July 13, 2004: Porter Goss and Jane Harman > > > > > July 15, 2004: Pat Roberts and Jello Jay > > > > > Now, it's possible that the people trying to smear Pelosi with this > > > are correct and CIA mentioned waterboarding in September 2002. But > > > that's not what the CIA says. Once you account for the fact that Jello > > > Jay did not attend the February 4 briefing, the CIA says it first > > > informed Democrats about waterboarding in July 2004, only after the > > > CIA's own Inspector General had declared the program cruel and inhuman > > > (and note, the Senate intelligence leaders, at least, got a copy of > > > that document in June 2004, so the CIA couldn't very well pretend that > > > they hadn't been waterboarding). > > > > > Note, too, that the CIA claims to have discussed legal issues in the > > > July briefing with Harman and Goss, but not in the July briefing with > > > Jello Jay and Roberts. We know this to be false. > > > > > In July 2004, the CIA briefed the Chairman and Vice Chairman of > > > the Committee on the facts and conclusions of the Inspector General > > > special review. The CIA indicated at that time that it was seeking > > > OLC’s legal analysis on whether the program was consistent with the > > > substantive provisions of Article 16 of the Convention Against > > > Torture. > > > > > Given the way the SSCI narrative focuses on the constitutional > > > amendments named under CAT (the 5th, 8th, and 14th), I suspect CIA was > > > informed in no uncertain terms they would have to account for these in > > > the briefing. If they did not record the fact, it suggests they were > > > trying to claim deniability for that key issue (though that is > > > speculative on my part). > > > > > The CIA seems to have no memory of the details of the 2005 briefings > > > (and, as WO has pointed out, seems to have been unsure who was HPSCI > > > Chair and who was DCIA, since it claims that Porter Goss, then head of > > > CIA, attended a March 8, 2004 2005 [ed--fixed late, sorry] hearing as > > > HPSCI Chair). That's rather curious as Mary McCarthy has alleged that > > > the CIA briefers in two hearings in 2005 lied to Congress. At least > > > one of these briefings would have also featured the Senators asking > > > why they fuck OLC ignored the 8th Amendment (and the CAT generally) in > > > its December 2004 opinion. It includes briefings when Jello Jay was > > > beginning to ask for more details on the torture program, to no avail. > > > And, finally, it includes briefings when Congress should have been > > > briefed about the destroyed torture tapes, but wasn't. All of that? > > > The CIA seems to have little memory of it. > > > > > Then there's the slew of Republican-only briefings in 2005, just after > > > the Senate approved the McCain Amendment limiting torture use. As I've > > > explained the most suspicious of those is the briefing of the two pro- > > > torture Republicans holding DOD's purse strings. > > > > > Until, finally, in 2006, it finally gets around to briefing the full > > > intelligence committees but not yet the full Gang of Eight, leaving > > > off the House leadership, including Nancy Pelosi. Anyone wonder why > > > Jane Harman got her very own briefing on September 6, 2006, the day > > > Bush finally came clean as a tortuer? I do. > > > > > In short, in spite of what Republicans tell you (and therefore ABC > > > prints), this is actually an utter damning chronology of CIA contempt > > > for their obligations to inform Congress (particularly Democrats in > > > Congress) > > > > > On May 17, 3:52 pm, Keith In Tampa <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > Holly, > > > > > > How you gathered that I somehow suggested this, from any of my posts, > is > > > > just amazing. I have never suggested anything of the sort. As a > matter of > > > > fact, the recent information released by the Obama Administration > > > > demostrates that the CIA was methodical and quite careful to insure > that > > > > they were within the confines of the law. > > > > > > My point is simple. There was no authorized torture, period. The > United > > > > States Army, (or any of our military branches) do not have the means > nor > > > > the capability to utilize enhanced interrogation techniques. The > Army is > > > > limited by the guidelines listed in the Army Field Manual, as it > should > > > > be. Those who violated the written military policy should be > prosceuted, > > > > as they were. > > > > > > The CIA is not limited to the Army Field Manual, and great as stated, > the > > > > CIA as well as the Bush Administration went to great lengths and > extreme > > > > measures to insure that the CIA did not cross the proverbial > line.....There > > > > was no "torture" while administering enhanced interrogation > techniques. I > > > > say this after extensive study of the facts and information that has > been > > > > released to date. It is my qualified opinion that the enhanced > > > > interrogation techniques did not constitute torture. I say this > without any > > > > partisanship whatsoever. My opinion could change, if there is more > > > > evidence that is released that may in fact constitute "torture" but > to date, > > > > we have seen no such evidence. > > > > > > Sean is a Moonbat. He has no understanding of what actually took > place or > > > > transpired, and I would surmise that he has not even read the > Memoranda > > > > by Jay Bybee, Steven Bradbury, John Yoo, or the "Rumsfeld Defense > Department > > > > Working Group". All Sugarshack can do, and all Sugarshack has done, > is > > > > mimic those very partisan individuals who are on a hate campaign > against the > > > > former Administration, but have to date, not attempted to attach any > legal > > > > precepts or rational, cognitive critical thinking to their argument. > > > > "Torture" is an easy, fun word for folks like Sean to sling out, yet > they > > > > have no clue what the legal definition of torture is. > > > > > > On Sun, May 17, 2009 at 3:18 PM, Hollywood < > [email protected]>wrote: > > > > > > > KIT, > > > > > > > What are you saying? That the CIA operates completely outside U.S. > > > > > civil and criminal codes AND the UCMJ and is not subject to ANY of > > > > > those codes, regulations or laws? > > > > > > > On May 17, 9:17 am, Keith In Tampa <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > Sean, > > > > > > > > So, this is really what it boils down to, as I suspicioned. What > you are > > > > > > really saying is, "I Hate Bush, But I Don't Know Why". > > > > > > > > What transpired at Abu Gharib is not at all what transpired with > enhanced > > > > > > interrogation techniques by the CIA. The Army has no mechanism > other > > > > > than > > > > > > the Army Field Manual to interrogate prisoners. Those > individuals were > > > > > > prosecuted because they were outside of Army regulations. > > > > > > > > On Sun, May 17, 2009 at 3:26 AM, VT VirtualTruth > > > > > > <[email protected]>wrote: > > > > > > > > > If we tried the little guys for what happened at Abu Gharib > > > > > > > then the precedent has already been set for the ENTIRE > > > > > > > Bush Administration. > > > > > > > > > I believe Nixon was also Impeached for his crimes > > > > > > > during the Vietnam war. > > > > > > > > > Nixon resigned rather than face impeachment for his crimes > > > > > > > while in office, and Republicans pushed all out to impeach > > > > > > > Clinton while in office about a lie over a BJ. > > > > > > > > > So both your reasons for calling me a traitor have both been > > > > > > > proven false based on previous precedent. > > > > > > > > > You have nothing left to say, because you have run > > > > > > > out of realistic arguments. > > > > > > > > > On May 16, 4:47 pm, Keith In Tampa <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > > > > > > Hey Sean!! > > > > > > > > > > Actually, I thought my post was rather witty!! > > > > > > > > > > In all honesty, you seem like a bright, intelligent, (I am > assuming > > > > > > > younger > > > > > > > > than me) man. It is one thing to question our governments' > > > > > policies, > > > > > > > and > > > > > > > > quite another to jump on a traitorous bandwagon, accusing our > > > > > President, > > > > > > > > (any President!) during a time of war, of war crimes. > > > > ... > > > > read more » > > > --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ 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. -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
