VT oresented a set of assertions as facts... KIT disputed the assertions were facts... BOTH VT and KIT should prove IT... And it is fact to ask were the original claims came from...
On May 20, 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 > > ... > > 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. -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
