I'll be delighted to prove that the information is inaccurate, but I would like to know where Sugarshack clipped the article, I don't think that is an unreasonable request.
On Wed, May 20, 2009 at 11:16 PM, Hollywood <[email protected]>wrote: > > KIT, > > You said the facts in the article are inaccurate. So prove it, the > ball is in YOUR court. > What does it matter where the article come from? The information given > in the article is either accurate or it is not. You waiting for VT to > name the article's source so you can immediately declare it a "liberal > source" and thus "untrustworthy"? > > On May 20, 9:28 pm, Keith In Tampa <[email protected]> wrote: > > Answer my question first. > > > > On Wed, May 20, 2009 at 10:25 PM, VT VirtualTruth < > [email protected] > > > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > 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 > > > > ... > > > > 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. -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
