Inaccurate? How? On May 20, 5:24 pm, Keith In Tampa <[email protected]> wrote: > 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 > > ... > > 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. -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
