Comments on: Cia To Pelosi: You’re Lying

By: barker13

barker13 — Mon, 18 May 2009 11:43:01 +0000

Re: Balconesfault; 5:48 PM --

"...I'm not sure why the Pelosi thing is a big story. At the very worst, it seems like "politician lied". News at 11."

(*SIGH*)

I rest my case, folks; there's no hope for the country. There really isn't. There are just too many of "them" and not enough of "us." (Franco... Mike K... you guys know what I'm saying.)

Either Balconesfault is deliberately sidestepping my point concerning the degree of media manipulation and how it effects the body politic or else he (she?) is perfectly sincere and believes a Speaker of the House of Representatives going before the American People and lying regarding a matter of this import and indeed advancing the lie upon falsely accusing the CIA...

(*SIGH*)

And no doubt Balconesfault speaks for - at best - a sizable minority of the American People and - at worst - a majority.

"Pelosi did not have any authority to approve torture."

OK. That answers that. Balconesfault was just being disingenuous in the service of his (her?) partisan agenda.

(*SIGH*)

Balconesfault. Pelosi as a member of the minority could have written and submitted a bill...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mEJL2Uuv-oQ

...outlawing each and every SPECIFIC type of "enhanced interrogation" she viewed as "torture."

And certain, Balconesfault, her powers in this regard were equal to the task.

(*SHRUG*)

Question: With a Democratic President... Democratic Speaker... Democratic Senate Majority Leader... is waterboarding of captured terrorists/spies now... AS A MATTER OF LAW, OF STATUTE, not just of "policy" - against the law...???

(*SNORT*)

BILL

By: kroner

kroner — Mon, 18 May 2009 00:31:31 +0000

To add to that, he’s also not legally allowed to try to influence who and what his justice department prosecutes, which means he better get his ass out of the way. I’m glad we are in agreement here about preserving the rule of law, dragonlady.

By: dragonlady

dragonlady — Mon, 18 May 2009 00:25:19 +0000

Actually, we should start these truth commissions with Obama himself. The UN torture investigator says Obama is not in compliance with international law if he’s waiving prosecutions for CIA officials who took part in torture.

By: dragonlady

dragonlady — Sun, 17 May 2009 22:51:28 +0000

balconesfault wrote: Pelosi did not have any authority to approve torture. She did not have any authority to make a deal with the administration regarding torture. That is the worst rationalization and cop-out I’ve ever heard. As the Speaker of the House, if she thought laws were being broken, she could have clearly protested to the President, threaten to outlaw the use of these techniques, or worked to deny the CIA funding. Or go public with it. It’s not just about a hypocritical politician lying. It’s about one being tacitly complicit in allowing what she and others deem as “torture” to occur. If waterboarding is such a no-brainer in being torture, what’s her defense since she was briefed this technique was used on Abu Zubyudah? She also irresponsibly accused the CIA of a crime–lying to Congress. So when you say have at it with her, dont worrywe will if they get these commissions off the ground.

By: dragonlady

dragonlady — Sun, 17 May 2009 22:35:40 +0000

Kroner, if you want to investigate who broke the law, let’s start with Clinton. According to Richard Clarke, he acknowledged that renditions were a violation of international law, yet he gave the go ahead since these were terrorists. He said of course it was illegalthats the point of covert action. Let’s also investigate Joe Biden for blabbing away one of the locations of the VP’s secret bunkers–an atrocious breach of national security. I read the memos–the one gray area that is debatable to me is waterboarding. The OLC memos allowed it for a max of 40 sec with saline to prevent hyponatremia, and a cloth covering the persons nose and mouth. A dr had to be present. Feel sorry for the terrorists yet? Other techniques (wall standing, hooding, sleep deprivation, etc) were explicitly found not to be torture by the European Commission on Human Rights when N Ireland brought the case against England in the 70s. If you want to make the case we can’t allow it again, then simple–Congress can pass a law banning all the techniques. They only did this when they were sure Bush would veto it. Whats stopping them from passing it now that Obama is in office? Yet over 90 senators passed the Detainee Treatment Act. While it outlaws torture, it specifically exempts the CIA from using only the Army Field Manual techniques–McCain is the one who argued the agency should have more latitude than the military. It also instructs the DoD to consider evidence gained from “undue coercion” in its military commissions. Moreover, when 65 Senators passed the Military Commissions Act, they essentially changed the definition of torture. In the act, “severe physical or mental pain means that “torture must involve a substantial risk of death, extreme physical pain, a burn or physical disfigurement of a serious nature, not to include cuts, abrasions or bruises; or significant loss or impairment of the function of a bodily member, organ or mental faculty.” They also amended the War Crimes Act, specifically narrowing prosecution against those who violated Common Article 3 of Geneva, and made it retroactive, effectively immunizing those in command who implemented coercive interrogation techniques. So shall we also investigate whether these Senators, while outlawing torture, were indifferent to what you may call past abuses of the law? Or are they just indifferent to evidence gleaned from torture? This is not about rule of lawthis is about politics, pure and simple.

By: balconesfault

balconesfault — Sun, 17 May 2009 21:48:51 +0000

Didn’t catch it – but I’m not sure why the Pelosi thing is a big story. At the very worst, it seems like “politician lied”. News at 11.Pelosi did not have any authority to approve torture. She did not have any authority to make a deal with the administration regarding torture. If people want to hang Nancy out to dry, have at it – I was very unimpressed by her conduct as Speaker during the last two years of the Bush Administration. But it seems like all you have here is a hypocracy charge – which is muted by Pelosi’s continued call for more investigation. Since such an investigation would certainly shed more light on any role she had in this ugly episode, have at it.

By: barker13

barker13 — Sun, 17 May 2009 21:38:44 +0000

Anyone catch SNL this weekend?

I don't regularly watch it, but if I'm still awake and by a TV I try to catch the opening skit.

This weekend I taped it, figuring they'd REALLY go to town on Pelois.

***NADA***
***NOTHING***
***ZILCH***

Yep... DVRed the whole show and not a MENTION of arguably the number one political story of the week.

No... instead... they opened with a skit skewing CHENEY. Bush and Cheney.

(*SNORT*)

I'll give NBC and SNL credit... I never would have imagined they'd go so far as to totally ignore this one.

(*SHAKING MY HEAD IN DISGUST*)

BILL

By: kroner

kroner — Sun, 17 May 2009 15:13:44 +0000

Churl: ok, I’ll concede time, money and stress. If they go the special prosecutor route, bad publicity seems less likely. Details of an investigation aren’t made public unless there are prosecutions and then only the details relevant to those cases. Of the recent special prosecutor investigations into the WH that I can think of: the Valerie Plame incident and the US attorney firings, they’ve done a good job following that procedure. I haven’t heard any information get out about either except the case that was brought against Scooter Libby.But back to time, money and stress. You’re right that it’s not ideal. An investigation does come at some cost. But it’s the best and only system we have. And it’s also the law that suspected crimes are investigated.

By: kroner

kroner — Sun, 17 May 2009 14:59:08 +0000

sinz54: When I said they stretched the law, I mean well past the point of breaking it. Every independent authority agrees that what was allowed by the memos is torture. There was also considerable dissent among other legal experts within the administration. If those in the administration ordering torture were under any illusions that the torture memos were a good appraisal of the law, that should have set off alarm bells. In fact, the voices of dissent were so overwhelming that they managed to get the memos rescinded in 2005, despite the administration’s seeming obsession with using torture. But that doesn’t excuse the years in between.You should know that getting bad legal advice is not a cover for breaking the law. That’s a bad argument and sets a bad precedent. If that were the case, I could exempt myself from any law I wanted as long as I could find a lawyer who was crazy or unscrupulous enough to sign off on it and then swear by his opinion. Breaking the law is breaking the law, despite what your chosen lawyer says. And giving exceptionally bad legal advice is not a crime, but it is a good reason for being disbarred.

By: balconesfault

balconesfault — Sun, 17 May 2009 14:30:39 +0000

Sinz – I am not in disagreement on lawyer liability. For example, there is plentiful evidence that Yoo really didn’t write anything he doesn’t believe. It is up to the legal profession as to whether they choose to have him be a part of it – but I don’t think there should be legal liability just for believing something that is wrong.However, receiving bad legal advice is no shield from liability for those who acted on that advice. It may be considered a mitigating factor during sentancing, but it is surely not a legitimate defense.