An Out For Pelosi And Others

Nancy Pelosi has been embroiled in a dispute over what she knew and when she knew it. She has lied about her knowledge of waterboarding being used and went so far as to claim the CIA lied to her and to Congress and that they lie all the time. She said mislead but as one liberal commenter noted when he discussed Dick Cheney, mislead is a polite way of saying lie.

Pelosi was aware of what was going on but she believed that her involvement would be kept quiet because what she was told was classified information. Unfortunately for her, Obama released the classified information to to discredit the Bush administration but the release swept her up in the process. When the CIA defended itself, it implicated Pelosi and demonstrated that she was a liar.

A former South Korean president has demonstrated a way for her to save face (not the Botox way she is use to) and this method is sure fire. It will remove her from the problem and remove the problem from her. In addition, it will save the American citizens the time this is consuming and the cost associated to determine which he said/she said is the right said.

Former President Roh Moo-hyun, embroiled in a penetrating corruption investigation, leaped to his death Saturday — a shocking fall from grace for a man whose rags-to-riches rise took him from rural poverty to Seoul’s presidential Blue House. He was 62. Yahoo News

Funny how they said he leaped to his death and it was a fall from grace…

This is a great example for Pelosi to follow. She can do the right thing and jump off one of the bridges in her district.

Come to think of it, there are many politicians who could do the same thing in order to make America a better place.

They have to jump off a very high bridge and into water. What they are full of splatters and we don’t need to be cleaning up any more of their messes.

Big Dog

If you enjoy what you read consider signing up to receive email notification of new posts. There are several options in the sidebar and I am sure you can find one that suits you. If you prefer, consider adding this site to your favorite feed reader. If you receive emails and wish to stop them follow the instructions included in the email.



Print This Post

If you enjoy what you read consider signing up to receive email notification of new posts. There are several options in the sidebar and I am sure you can find one that suits you. If you prefer, consider adding this site to your favorite feed reader. If you receive emails and wish to stop them follow the instructions included in the email.

54 Responses to “An Out For Pelosi And Others”

  1. Blake says:

    Not ecologically sound, Dog- too much methane, but perhaps we could hook all the pols to hoses and get natural gas that way? That might even stop some of them from talking.

  2. Darrel says:

    This Pelosi story presents an interesting conundrum for conservatives (other than it’s usefulness as a distraction from their policies of torture).

    They pretend she should have done something to stop this. So to the extent they make noise about this, they are admitting there was something wrong that needed to be stopped.

    A couple of points. She was minority leader at the time and being briefed in a way that allowed no notes, no cross-examination and no counter point. You sit, you listen, and you can’t talk about it because it’s top secret. And because you can’t have a record of the event, you can’t show you have or have not been told, anything.

    And you’re minority leader so you have very little power if any, anyway (ask Boehner about that).

    Now comes along this wholly baseless claim:

    BIGD: “She has lied about her knowledge of waterboarding being used…”

    DAR
    Show this. I ask this knowing you cannot.

    All you have is an awkward press conference where she fumbled over herself. Big whoop.

    Before I post something I have a policy of asking myself if my claims are true. It’s a good policy and I recommend you give this method a try.

    D.
    —————–
    “Sen. Bob Graham backs up Pelosi and says he was never briefed on waterboarding by the CIA”

    “Former Sen.(D)Bob Graham, the ranking Democrat on the Intelligence Committee told David Shuster that he never was briefed about waterboarding by the CIA on MSNBC. He also said that he was never allowed to take real notes about the CIA briefings, but he did log the topics and the amount of times he was briefed. They don’t match up with the CIA’s version.”

    http://crooksandliars.com/john-amato/sen-bob-graham-backs-pelosi-and-says-he

    • Blake says:

      Even as minority leader, she could protest this, and there is no evidence she did, besides her baseless claim that she agrees with Harmon’s letter- it’s not a stretch that other libs agree with pelosi- the feel they might get tarred with the same brush, and some of them might want to stay in politics- they have no choice.
      If the total memos were released, we would know that she lied, but then Barry would lose a cohort in crime, and he doesn’t want that.
      Pelosi could have complained to the President, but did not- in fact, according to the memos that were released she asked if enough was being done.
      Rather hypocritical.

  3. Big Dog says:

    No one admits that anything was wrong, logical fallacy. We are saying that IF pelosi thought it was wrong she should have said something. In other words, since she did not say anything she agreed with it.

    Even the minority leader can bring the objection up to the committee and have that objection in the records so that when the CIA releases memos that say you were briefed you also have your objections in the record.

    I wonder how many of people like you thought the whole Plame issue was worth pursuing when Bush was not involved, Plame was not covert, and the leaker was someone who did not agree with Bush on war policy. Also, the specials prosecutor knew who it was after 3 days of investigation.

    How many of you said it was a distraction and had no substance especially considering there was even less evidence.

    The CIA said she was briefed and SHE said she was briefed after several denials. It came from her mouth so I think that is a good enough source.

    And you cite a Democrat as her alibi? That is credible.

    • Darrel says:

      BIGD: since she did not say anything she agreed with it.>>

      DAR
      But no one has shown, or even can show, she was told waterboarding was occurring.

      BIGD: Even the minority leader can bring the objection up…>>

      DAR
      Why would she bring it up if she wasn’t told? Because of the secrecy, you can do no better than “he said she said.”

      BIGD: I wonder how many of people like you thought the whole Plame issue was worth pursuing..>>

      DAR
      When a spy is outed by it’s own government, reasonable people would say it is worth pursuing.

      BIGD: when Bush was not involved,>>

      DAR
      Then he should pay closer attention and/or not surround himself with people who keep things from him and lie to him. Scott McClelland, Bush’s press secretary knows about being lied to by this bunch.

      BIGD: Plame was not covert,>>

      DAR
      The prosecutor said she was. Let me know if you want the quote.

      BIGD: and the leaker was someone who did not agree with Bush on war policy.>>

      DAR
      That doesn’t narrow it down much.

      BIGD: Also, the specials prosecutor knew who it was after 3 days of investigation.>>

      DAR
      But Scooter did his best to obstruct justice in the case, as the jury decided.

      BIGD: The CIA said she was briefed and SHE said she was briefed after several denials.>>

      DAR
      Of course she was briefed. The question is what was she briefed on. This is what is in question.

      Best to not call someone a liar unless you can back it up. That’s not too much to ask. I was pretty rough on GW Bush over the years but I rarely if ever claimed that he was a liar. This is because I know that to show a lie you have to show someone intentionally said something untrue. It’s hard to show intent.

      BIGD: And you cite a Democrat as her alibi? That is credible.>>

      DAR
      Yes, it is. James Fallows of The Atlantic addresses this:

      ***
      Part of the payoff of reaching age 72 and having spent 38 years in public office, as Graham has, is that people have had a chance to judge your reputation. Graham has a general reputation for honesty. In my eyes he has a specific reputation for very good judgment: he was one of a handful of Senators actually to read the full classified intelligence report about the “threats” posed by Saddam Hussein. On the basis of reading it, despite a career as a conservative/centrist Democrat, he voted against the war and fervently urged his colleagues to do the same. “Blood is going to be on your hands,” he warned those who voted yes.

      More relevant in this case, Graham also has a specific reputation for keeping detailed daily records of people he met and things they said. He’s sometimes been mocked for this compulsive practice, but he’s never been doubted about the completeness or accuracy of what he compiles. (In the fine print of those records would be an indication that I had interviewed him about Iraq war policy while he was in the Senate and recently spent time with him when he was on this side of the world.)

      So if he says he never got the briefing, he didn’t. And if the CIA or anyone acting on its behalf challenges him, they are stupid and incompetent as well as being untrustworthy. This doesn’t prove that the accounts of briefing Pelosi are also inaccurate. But it shifts the burden of proof.”

      http://jamesfallows.theatlantic.com/archives/2009/05/the_cia_vs_sen_bob_graham_how.php

      • Big Dog says:

        I will admit that you are good at spewing the liberal talking points. When an agent is covert you cannot call CIA headquarters and get them when you ask for them. I think Novak did that. She and he husband appeared in several publications, no covert agent does that. She was not covert, she was on desk duty at HQ.

        Pelosi herself said she was briefed. What more do you want? She said herself that she knew. Are you deliberately ignoring that or are you too blind to see and understand? She admitted it.

        And the people who said she was there, the memos that indicate it and HER OWN WORDS are not as credible as a Graham? Get real. At his age maybe he just does not remember. However, you are playing the he said she said because his is hearsay, the memos of the meetings are official and HER WORDS are official.

        Not surround himself with people who keep things from him? Like Obama having people who did not tell him that when he signed a bill it undid some of the restrictions he lifted from stem cell research or when his people put the AIG bonuses in and said they were OK and then he found out and had a hissy?

        The president is not made aware of all these things. There are many things none of them know. You expect that Bush should know everything but when this occurs with Obama you would claim that he can’t know it all.

        As for bringing it up. If you are in a secret meeting you can object and it will be part of the record. You can also keep your own classified notes that would show you objected.

        We know she knew because she admitted it and we know she did not object so she agreed with it.

        I can call her a liar. She claimed not to know and then she claimed to know. That is a lie.

        As for you and your habits, how many of your fellow libs did you chasten for calling him a liar?

        I can tell when a story is a misstatement, a poor recollection or a lie. The facts of this case show she lied.

        And people stammer a lot when they lie.

  4. Big Dog says:

    Like maybe this:

    Under pressure to explain conflicting stories, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi on Thursday acknowledged for the first time that in 2003 she was told waterboarding and other tough tactics were being used on suspected terrorists and did not object to them, even as she defiantly accused the CIA of lying to her and Congress about the use of such controversial techniques during 2002 briefings. Washington Times

    • Darrel says:

      I don’t trust the Moonie times. I did see this:

      “CIA said it stood by its record of the 2002 briefing that showed, based on recollections of agency employees…”

      So we have nobody allowed to take notes, and people babbling about what they think they “recollect” from 7 years ago. This story is going nowhere. Nice try though.

      Water boarding is of course torture and it is a millstone that will be hung around the GOP’s neck for a very long time.

      D.

      • Big Dog says:

        OK, then I don’t trust any of the liberal publications you cited for any argument so you have no valid points.

        Under the law waterboarding was not torture when it was done in 2002. I don’t know about now except the Obama EO. I don’t think they changed the law.

        Let me ask, do you think the people who waterboarded the terrorists intended to hurt them or just make them talk? Was the intent to inflict damage to them?

        • Darrel says:

          BIGD: “OK, then I don’t trust any of the liberal publications you cited for any argument..>>

          DAR
          Sorry, Moonie Times is junk. Quote Pelosi, (even from them, I can check that) that’s fine, Moonie Times opinion/spin, not a reputable source.

          BIGD: Under the law waterboarding was not torture when it was done in 2002.>>

          DAR
          You like to change the subject a lot. If you want to defend “water boarding is not torture” lets go. I’ll roast you to a crisp.

          BIGD: Let me ask, do you think the people who waterboarded the terrorists intended to hurt them or just make them talk?>>

          DAR
          Probably both. I don’t see why “intent” would bear upon the question of whether the action is torture. Water boarding is torture. Always has been, always will be. See below.

          BIGD: Was the intent to inflict damage to them?>>

          DAR
          I have no idea and the question is irrelevant. If I have a car battery hooked up to your reproductive organs, does my intent really matter? Does it matter if I want to hurt you or just make you talk? No.

          D.
          ——————–
          Waterboarding

          Waterboarding is a form of torture that consists of immobilizing the victim on his or her back with the head inclined downwards, and then pouring water over the face and into the breathing passages. By forced suffocation and inhalation of water, the subject experiences drowning and is caused to believe they are about to die.[1] It is considered a form of torture by legal experts,[2][3] politicians, war veterans,[4][5] medical experts in the treatment of torture victims,[6][7] intelligence officials,[8] military judges,[9] and human rights organizations.[10][11] As early as the Spanish Inquisition it was used for interrogation purposes, to punish and intimidate, and to force confessions.[12]

          In contrast to submerging the head face-forward in water, waterboarding precipitates an almost immediate gag reflex.[13] The technique does not inevitably cause lasting physical damage. It can cause extreme pain, dry drowning, damage to lungs, brain damage from oxygen deprivation, other physical injuries including broken bones due to struggling against restraints, lasting psychological damage or, ultimately, death.[2] Adverse physical consequences can start manifesting months after the event; psychological effects can last for years.[6]

          http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water_boarding

          As I am sure you have heard, conservative radio commentator “Man Cow” who sang the company line that it is not torture, had the testes to have it done on him. A light version, no sleep deprivation, no restraints, friends all around. Just a little exercise. He made it 6 seconds. Result?

          “Absolutely torture.” –Man Cow

          Six, seconds.

          Hannity offered to do it for charity:

          “Sure,” Hannity said. “I’ll do it for charity … I’ll do it for the troops’ families.”

          Olbermann offered $1,000 per second and now has doubled it. No response from Hannity.

          I haven’t really gotten concerned about these these three we know about. More important would be the people the US has tortured to death (who we know were innocent) and sent to Syria and Egypt for god knows what (This was discovered because they accidentally sent an innocent Canadian). See “Taxi to the Dark Side.”

          A blurb:

          “Taxi to the Dark Side is a 2007 documentary film directed by American filmmaker Alex Gibney, and produced by Eva Orner and Susannah Shipman, which won the 2007 Academy Award for Documentary Feature.[1]

          The film focuses on the murder in custody of an Afghan taxi driver named Dilawar.[2] Dilawar was beaten to death by American soldiers while being held in extrajudicial detention at the Bagram Air Base.”

          http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taxi_to_the_Dark_Side

      • Big Dog says:

        Let me help you with the full quote:
        CIA Director Leon Panetta, in cover letters sent with the memo to the House and Senate Intelligence committees, says the information “is drawn from the past files of the CIA and represents MFR [memorandum for the record] completed at the time and notes that summarized the best recollections of those individuals. In the end, you and the committee will have to determine what actually happened.”

        As you can see, the memo was created from notes taken at the time and also recollections of those there.

      • Blake says:

        Waterboarding is not torture, it is extreme discomfort- now it is you who cherrypicks sources, by “not trusting the moonie times”- I don’t trust the sources you cite, but do get a good laugh at their obvious “National Inquirer” style stories, so its a stand off- your loony sources vs. our common sense.

        • Blake says:

          Now you cite Wikipedia? Lamer and lamer, D- next, you will try to tell us a Dem can tell the truth- oh wait, you have tried that one before, and we tore you a new one. Try again, but this time don’t source the fairy tales.

          • Big Dog says:

            I think Wikipedia is OK for basic stuff or to get references. It is just not official. People can write what they want and others can edit it when they want.

        • Darrel says:

          I didn’t quote the “The National Enquirer” but do make a note that slamming them doesn’t work like it used to. They have actually changed their style and done some good investigative work lately. After all, they busted Limbaugh the dope and John Edwards the slut.
          I have found wikipedia to be a useful resource and when I quote them notice I am actually referring to their references to standard sources. The claims are very well referenced.
          I do not say something is false because it appears in the Moonie Times. That’s the genetic fallacy. I think their Pelosi quotes are accurate. What I am not interested in is their spin and opinion about those quotes. I am skeptical of their opinions because they are a highly partisan source, and highly partisan sources, far-left or far-right, are always suspect.

          D.

  5. Big Dog says:

    And if you ask yourself if claims are true why do you cite things that are incorrect? Just because you cite places that are sympathetic to liberal views does not make them accurate. Like Snopes and the COLB which is not a birth certificate.

    Or that Obama never said what he did about lobbyists. I showed where he said it and when. You should have looked it up before you made your claim. It is a practice you should get use to…

    • Darrel says:

      BIGD: And if you ask yourself if claims are true why do you cite things that are incorrect?>>

      DAR
      When did I do that?

      BD: Just because you cite places that are sympathetic to liberal views does not make them accurate.>>

      DAR
      Of course.

      BD: Like Snopes and the COLB which is not a birth certificate.>>

      DAR
      The snopes article I cited specifically referred to the “Certificate of Live Birth.”

      BIGD: Or that Obama never said what he did about lobbyists.>>

      DAR
      Show he said what you claim he said. Back it up. That’s in another thread. I’ll get to it in a minute.

      D.

  6. Big Dog says:

    Why don’t you just write instead of doing a narrative with people’s names like you are writing a play?

    We all know what we said and are bright people.

    Just write and quit doing the back and forth. I know it gives you some feeling of superiority as if you are in charge but it is condescending and amateurish.

    • Darrel says:

      I’ll try to do that. I do it for the purpose of responding to a persons points and questions directly. That’s important.

      D.

      • Big Dog says:

        If you are addressing more than one person it is great to see them identified. If you are talking just to me I don’t need to read what I wrote in each sentence.

        Appreciate your input but I want to read what you have to say, I know what I said.

        Thanks

  7. Big Dog says:

    According to a report, Sheehy attended a briefing with Rep. Jane Harman, D-Calif., in February 2003 and discussed the CIA’s use of waterboarding.

    When the aide told Pelosi waterboarding had actually been used on the Al Qaeda terrorist, she didn’t object because she was not personally briefed on the matter, an unnamed source confirmed to CNN.

    Pelosi then supported a letter drafted by Harman, the ranking Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee, and sent to the Bush administration, raising concerns over the technique, the network reported.

    A CIA document made public last week shows that Pelosi received a briefing in September 2002 on the tactics used on Zubaydah, an Al Qaeda leader and one of three prisoners subjected to waterboarding. Pelosi said she was told the agency was discussing its legal right to use the tactic in the future. New York Post.

    Pelosi aide tells her the techniques are being used and Harman drafts an opposition letter (notice that the letter has kept her from being called a liar) and pelosi supported the letter Harman sent.

    If Pelosi knew nothing, as you claim, then how could she support a letter from Harman on the subject? If she supported a letter objecting to the use of these techniques then it means she knew. If she truly did not know than she claimed to support the letter so as to look like she was against it.

    Can’t have it both ways but either way she looks like a liar.

    • Darrel says:

      BIGD: “If she supported a letter objecting to the use of these techniques then it means she knew.”

      DAR
      Non sequitur. Your “then” doesn’t follow from your “if.”

      BIGD: “…either way she looks like a liar.”

      DAR
      She has handled this poorly and picking a fight with the CIA was dumb and unnecessary. But as Senator Boxer has said, these briefings are handled very poorly and are a big of a joke. And obviously, they can be used to try to string you up but because of the no notes, no recordings rules.

      D.
      ————
      Trying to be more concise.

      • Big Dog says:

        Well, if you say you knownothing but then say you agreed with the letter objecting to everything then you must have known it. You can’t object to what you do not know.

        The CIA said the memo can from NOTES. You keep saying there were no notes but the CIA, as I highlighted, says there were notes.

        Not to mention, she said she knew.

  8. victoria says:

    I tend to agree with the way Joseph Farah puts it in a recent article–“I disagree with those calling for Nancy Pelosi to resign as speaker of the House.

    I want her to stay right where she is – the poster girl for Democratic Party dishonesty, duplicity, hypocrisy, vacillation, finger-pointing and the inability to distinguish right from wrong.”

    • Big Dog says:

      She should resign but she provides too much entertainment.

      I only hope she never has to become president under rules of succession.

      She is old. A lot of them are old. I personally hope they start dying off so that we can replace them. I mean, we can’t trust the morons in this country who vote to get it right. If you promise a liberal you will give him someone else’s money he will vote for you. The rest are too stupid to know what they are doing, half can’t read and many came from the public school system. Look at how many had no idea about the last election. They voted Obama because he was black, knew nothing of the issues.

      These are people who should not be allowed to vote but as long as they are we will have the same people in office forever so I just want them to die naturally of old age and be done with it.

      Kennedy will die soon. Maybe Pelosi, Boxer, Murtha, Reid, and the rest of these relics will drop dead and we can finally replace them. KKK member Byrd should be checking into Hell very soon. He and Kennedy might get there about the same time.

      I hope the rest follow soon after.

      I am not saying anyone should do harm to them. I am just saying nature should do its thing and take them to the afterlife.

      • victoria says:

        Entertainment for the weekend–

      • Blake says:

        I have long thought that if you want a vote, you should have a job- you should have an ante in the pot when you choose to play the game. The way it is now, even without a job, you have a say in who gets what, and you can vote yourself benefits you might not be eligible for.
        That is not right.

    • Darrel says:

      I think your wish will be granted. This is much ado about nothing.

      • victoria says:

        Oh, it is something alright when the CIA director cannot count on the president who hired him to defend his public statements about the agency’s credibility.

  9. Big Dog says:

    Darrel,
    Wikipedia is written by every day people. Nice source but not official. When you write waterboarding is considered torture by… and leave out who does not consider it so you are misleading.

    I am not saying it is a nice thing to do. I am saying that AS THE LAW DEFINED IT, waterbhoarding was not torture. Were not you the one who tried to give a lesson on the law defining who is a person. It does not matter what people think because the LAW defines it one way and you agree.

    In 2003 (the last time we waterboarded) waterboarding did not meet the legal definition of torture as laid out by Congress.

    It does not matter if people see it as torture, it does not matter who likes it or does not, it was not torture AS DEFINED BY THE LAW.

    As for intent. Alberto Gonzales wrote the memo that said it was not torture because no one intended to hurt anyone.

    The AG Holder came along and was questioned about waterboarding. He did not know what the definition of torture was and he could not say why it was torture.

    He was asked about waterboarding our troops. They asked him, are you saying we torture our own people. He said no because we do not intend to hurt them.

    The intent issue uttered by Holder. Now, when they waterboarded they had medical people there, vitals taken, and they were always monitored. We had no intent to harm them.

    According to the AG, Obama’s AG, we did not torture them.

    Yes ManCow said it was torture. To him I am sure it was. I consider it torture to have to drive through DC traffic.

    There are plenty of unpleasant things that we do that are not torture. Chemotherapy, radiation, bone marrow biopsies, and many other procedures. Not pleasant and no one wants to go through them but it does not make them torture.

    If you hook someone up to a battery but never turn it on, is it torture? You frightened them into talking.

    If you make it cold or hot where they have to sleep or keep them awake, is it torture?

    As for the whole issue, there are plenty of things I would not volunteer to do and waterboarding is one of them. If the Congress wants to define it as torture then fine do so and specifically name it instead of using vague terms. Additionally, I will call it torture when the Congress passes the law that says it may no longer be done, including to our troops.

    Until Congress does its part and quits playing games, it was not torture because the law said it was not and that is good enough. Make it illegal and move on.

    • Darrel says:

      Wikipedia allows no original research. All of the claims I cited were referenced from standard sources (I left the footnotes in for you to see them). If you would prefer me to cut and past all of that stuff rather than just give the link, I can do that.

      Every line on any contentious subject on wiki is battled over behind the scenes. Any one can go and view these battles. I recommend it. What comes out of that process is a pretty good consensus of what can hold up to scrutiny.

      You say according to “Obama’s AG, we did not torture them.”

      Could you cite this for me please?

      You say: “Alberto Gonzales wrote the memo that said it was not torture because no one intended to hurt anyone.”

      That’s laughable on it’s face.

      I haven’t read that much on the water boarding / torture issue because I find it hard to consider the idea that it’s not torture seriously.

      If a government takes an American soldier (perhaps your sister) and does this procedure to her 180 times, it’s **mind boggling** that you would consider it “not torture.”

      I’ll look into the strictly “legal” status.

      Hitchens was a strong supporter and defender of every aspect of Bush’s wars against terrorism. Here is his experience:

      ***
      In May 2008 the journalist Christopher Hitchens voluntarily experienced waterboarding. He managed to resist for twelve seconds the first time, and, embarrassed at his poor performance, he asked to try again. He then managed to resist for 19 seconds.[43] He later told the BBC: “There is a common misconception that waterboarding simulates the sensation of drowning, but you are to all intents and purposes actually drowning”.[43] He said that although he was somewhat prepared for his ordeal, he had not been prepared for what came later: “I have been waking up with sensations of being smothered”.[43] Hitchens concluded, “if waterboarding does not constitute torture, then there is no such thing as torture. Believe me. It’s torture”.
      –wiki

      DAR
      If it’s not torture, why can’t the police do it?

      Oh, here’s what happens when they do:

      ***
      Use by law enforcement

      In 1983 Texas sheriff James Parker and three of his deputies were convicted for conspiring to force confessions. The complaint said they “subject prisoners to a suffocating water torture ordeal in order to coerce confessions….[72] The sheriff was sentenced to ten years in prison, and the deputies to four years.[72][79]
      ***

      See “waterboarding” at wiki.

      D.

      • Big Dog says:

        Links are fine. As for Holder, I will find what he said and link to it.

        He said the same thing Gonzales said and that is why I included it and asked about it.

        Some people in the military get waterboarded as part of their training. If it is torture then it is torture no matter how many times they do it.

        I have never had it done to me. It could be torture but according to the laws that were in effect and the legal opinion, it was not. This aligns with your concept that the law says a fetus is not a person so it is not.

        Congress wrote the vague laws and did not mention what was forbidden. They should have.

        As far as I know, criminals in the US are not prisoners in the US are not incarcerated as a matter of warfare and they are our citizens (for the most part) and they have rights. The rights afforded those who are held because of war are different.

        Those law enforcement people should have been busted. No problem there.

        • Darrel says:

          It’s not accurate to say “water boarding” is one thing “x” and whenever it is done this equals “x” as if there is no difference in the delivery. This pretends there is no difference between Man Cows little experiment:

          a)no restraint
          b)no sleep deprivation,
          c)surrounded and administered by friends,
          d)end at your command after six seconds,
          e)no psychological terror, or fear of death,

          This is similar to when our military does it as a training exercise.

          This is *entirely* different than the manner in which it was forced upon these prisoners and it’s not fair to pretend there is no difference.

          Gov. Jessie Ventura was was waterboarded. Listen to his opinion in this three minute clip from Larry King:

          http://videocafe.crooksandliars.com/heather/jesse-ventura-you-give-me-water-board-dick

          Excerpt:

          VENTURA: …I’m bothered over Guantanamo because it seems we have created our own Hanoi Hilton. We can live with that? I have a problem. I will criticize President Obama on this level; it’s a good thing I’m not president because I would prosecute every person that was involved in that torture. I would prosecute the people that did it. I would prosecute the people that ordered it. Because torture is against the law.

          KING: You were a Navy SEAL.

          VENTURA: That’s right. I was water boarded, so I know — at SERE School, Survival Escape Resistance Evasion. It was a required school you had to go to prior to going into the combat zone, which in my era was Vietnam. All of us had to go there. We were all, in essence — every one of us was water boarded. It is torture.

          KING: What was it like?

          VENTURA: It’s drowning. It gives you the complete sensation that you are drowning. It is no good, because you — I’ll put it to you this way, you give me a water board, Dick Cheney and one hour, and I’ll have him confess to the Sharon Tate murders.

          KING: Even though you know it’s not going to happen — even though before it, you know you’re not going to drown.

          VENTURA: You don’t know it. If it’s — if it’s done wrong, you certainly could drown. You could swallow your tongue. You could do a whole bunch of stuff. If it’s it done wrong or — it’s torture, Larry. It’s torture.
          ***

          DAR
          Again, the water boarding torture of these guys bothers me less than the people the US sent out to be tortured by other countries, and the people the US tortured to death.

  10. a mother says:

    I’d like to know what a lib has to say about all our soldiers/sailors/airmen/marines/civilians who have been captured and tortured or killed thanks to the cohorts of the people we have “tortured”. At least the POWs in our posession get to live on an island in the middle of the Caribbean. Our guys get put into some dank, dark whole and more often than not get murdered in front of a camera for the whole world to see. If all is fair in love and war, then what the hell is wrong with taking a POW who has more rights than most Americans and “giving him a head bath” for a little bit? Yes, I think it’s torture, but if it gets us info that can save the lives of brave Americans, than I’m all for it.

    Land of the Free Because of the Brave!
    Happy Freaking Memorial Day! Do you know why today is a holiday? I do.

    • Darrel says:

      I defer to John McCain and those in the military who think we should not torture because this neuters out credibility when we, rightfully, condemn it when others do it to our people.

      Regarding it “getting us info,” this is dubious at best. See:

      http://thinkprogress.org/why-enhanced-interrogation-failed/

      And the Baptists have weighed in now:

      http://erlc.com/article/sbcs-richard-land-condemns-waterboarding-and-torture/

      Excerpt:

      “There is no room for torture as part of the United States’ intelligence-gathering process, Richard Land said today. He also said he believes the practice known as “waterboarding” is torture and, as such, is unethical.

      Land, president of the SBC’s Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission, said there is no circumstance in which torture should be permissible in interrogations by U.S. officials,…

      “I believe there are absolutes. There are things we must never do under any circumstances….

      “It violates everything we believe in as a country,” Land said,…

      “Civilized countries should err on the side of caution. It does cost us something to play by different rules than our enemies, but it would cost us far more if we played by their rules,” Land concluded.”

      • a mother says:

        John McCain would know torture better than anyone else (he only spent a little bit of time in the Hanoi Hilton) but if they can’t play by teh Geneva Conventions, why should we? I’ll tell you why: it’s ok for them to do it and the world only says “it’s just ‘them'” but if we do it, we’re bullying the little kid with glasses on the playground.
        I think it is unethical for Americans to not get pissed off as all get out when they torture and murder our own people. Can you name (without looking it up) the name of 1 American who has been captured, tortured and murdered at their hands? I bet you could name a few detainees at Gitmo who have been. Righten your priorities and remember who has died for you.

        • Darrel says:

          “…but if they can’t play by the Geneva Conventions, why should we?”

          DAR
          Because we said we would? Because we are better than that? Because we don’t let the lowest common denominator terrorist set the bar for *our standards*? Because we want to have the moral high ground?

          Because if you don’t stand by your principles when they are put to the test, then they really weren’t your principles.

          D.

  11. Big Dog says:

    And yet Darrel, you use left wing partisan sources for your support…

    • Darrel says:

      If you can factually debunk a claim I provide from a left wing partisan source, please do. I will thank you for it and I will write to the source and provide the correction. I’ve done it before.

      D.

  12. Big Dog says:

    Once again Darrel, the law of the time did not classify it as torture. Remember you little rant about what law says blah blah…

    I don’t care what Ventura says, he is entitled to his opinion but the law is the law and at the time it was not legally classified as torture.

    You cannot say that there is some difference because it was done in a different setting or that it was done as training or that friends were around so it is different. Torture is torture and if you call it torture for the terrorist then you have to call it torture for anyone else who has it done.

    How about we have some of the terrorists friends around when we do it and provide him support and then let our military guys watch it instead of having it done to them. We can say it was training.

    Would that pass as non torture?

    Change the law and make it abundantly clear by using the words waterboarding.

    This would mean Obama would have to change his stance. In one of the debates when asked about the ticking time bomb scenario he said he would have to make whatever decision was necessary and then live with it. If his daughters get kidnapped by terrorists and they have a guy in custody he can’t let them waterboard to get find out where they are.

    If Obama is ever in a position where he needs to use this he will be screwed.

    • Darrel says:

      “Torture is torture and if you call it torture for the terrorist then you have to call it torture for anyone else who has it done.”

      DAR
      You really cannot seen any distinction here? I gave five specific reasons delineating the difference between Man Cow’s media stunt and what was done to these to prisoners. I think reasonable people will be able to see through such an equivocation and that there is a difference.
      If I have two sons and I give one a new Ford Mustang to drive to college and I give the other one a radio controlled Ford Mustang from Radio Shack, it can be said that “I gave a car to each of my sons.” But this is an equivocation and reasonable people, and my sons, can see the difference.

      “I don’t care what Ventura says…”

      DAR
      Of course you don’t. He is an experienced veteran who has had the procedure done to him, so do I care what he says about this.

      “Change the law and make it abundantly clear by using the words waterboarding.”

      DAR
      Obama has already banned it. Note:

      “In January 2009 U.S. President Barack Obama banned the use of waterboarding. In April 2009 the Department of Defense refused to say whether it was still used for training purposes.”

      http://www.cnsnews.com/public/content/article.aspx?RsrcID=46974

      The DOD doesn’t need to say whether it is using it as a training exercise because when they do it as a training exercise, on volunteers, it’s not torture. Obviously.

      Oh, and regarding your claim that Obama’s AG says it’s not torture. Observe:

      “On January 15, 2009 the U.S. President-elect Barack Obama’s nominee for Attorney General, Eric Holder, told his Senate confirmation hearing that waterboarding is torture and the President cannot authorize it.” [67][68][69][70]
      –wiki, waterboarding article

  13. Big Dog says:

    Darrel, what about the people who say it is not torture? There are opinions all over.

    I don’t care one way or the other. My thing is, it is ill defined in the LAW. I don’t care what you or Ventura or the Baptists or John McCain think. The law and the legal opinion does not define it as torture.

    McCain could easily submit a bill clarifying it and making it illegal. He has not done so.

    The LAW is what matters. Have Congress clearly define it as torture.

    They don’t want to because they want it in case of the ticking time bomb.

    • Darrel says:

      The ticking time bomb makes for childish TV but it is not compelling as a reason to formally allow torture in the US.

      There is a simple solution for this if such an unlikely situation were to occur.

      The presidents right to pardon is absolute.

      Ticking time bomb scenario, someone from the gov. does to them as they wish in an attempt to get this important emergency information.

      Outcome:

      Nuke is found, city is saved, president pardons gov. person and they become a hero.

      Nuke is not found, city is destroyed, president pardons gov. person… “well, we did everything we could.”

      The ticking time bomb excuse is BOGUS.

      BIGD: “what about the people who say it is not torture?”

      DAR
      Waterboard them and they will change their mind. Start with Sean Hannity who already agreed to do it. (btw, did he lie when he said that Blake?)

      Find me someone who has been waterboarded who thinks it isn’t torture. I can find lots who have, and do. I’m not so impressed with the chicken hawks (that fill the republican party).

      D.
      ————–
      VENTURA: I don’t have a lot of respect for Dick Cheney. Here’s a guy who got five deferments from the Vietnam War. Clearly, he’s a coward. He wouldn’t go when it was his time to go. And now he is a chicken hawk. Now he is this big tough guy who wants this hardcore policy. And he’s the guy that sanctioned all this torture by calling it enhanced interrogation.

      KING: Do you think Rush Limbaugh’s a better Republican than Colin Powell?

      VENTURA: No, not at all. In fact, if you compare the two, let’s look at Colin Powell, who’s a war hero, who strapped it on for his country, and didn’t run and hide.

      KING: Twice.

      VENTURA: And then you look at Dick Cheney who ran and hid. I have no respect for Dick Cheney. I have tremendous respect for General Powell.
      –ibid

      Happy Memorial day.

  14. Big Dog says:

    I do not have the time to debunk the web. You either agree with it, check it, or debunk it whan you want.

    The point is, you said that right and left sources were problematic. You use them while rejecting the ones from he right used by others.

    You claim the Washington Times is unreliable and partisan. ABC, CBS, NBC and Kos are all like that as well.

  15. Big Dog says:

    Sorry Darrel, the troops this is done on do not volunteer. Do you make an assumption that Ventura is an experienced veteran an no one else is. I happen to be an experienced veteran. The difference is that I have not been waterboarded.

    However, I know some who have and whether it is torture or not is a matter of opinion among them.

    The stunt with the DJ was a voluntary action. If you volunteer it is your own decision.

    Our troops, and THAT is who I am talking about (I don’t care if others volunteer) do not volunteer. They are put through this in SERE training.

    If we cut people’s fingers off as part of interrogation we would say that was torture (and I would agree). If someone volunteered to have that done we would say that they were nuts.

    If a soldier had his finger cut off in mandatory training would we say it was NOT torture?

    Here is where Holder said that intent was what made it torture. Notice how he gets all tied up on this issue.

    A side not the piece has is interesting:
    ACM note: I’m not sure whether the Spanish Inquisition had a torture statute — the United States did not have one until 1994, and to this day federal torture law does not mention waterboarding. Nor does the federal war crimes statute. As I’ve recently noted, Sen. Kennedy posed an amendment in 2006 that would have specified waterboarding as a war crime — something he wouldn’t have needed to do if it were already a war crime. The amendment was defeated [emphasis mine]

    • Darrel says:

      All of the troops are volunteers. No exceptions.

      I do not assume that no one other than Ventura is an experienced veteran.

      It’s unfortunate that you weren’t water boarded. You would probably have a different opinion.

      I read your Holder link. It supports my position, not yours. He is arguing that when we have a training exercise and do a version of waterboarding on our own people to prepare them (for torture by an enemy), it’s not torture.

      Regarding the law not mentioning “waterboarding,” as the wiki article points out, the word was not coined until recently. About 2003.

      Before that we just considered it broadly under the category of water torture, which it is. It’s always been torture and it’s always been wrong because torture is wrong.

      D.

  16. Big Dog says:

    Ventura, a guy whose career outside the military consisted of pretending to beat people up. Big Deal.

    He has his opinion. Lots of people got deferments. When a guy like Cheney or Limbaugh gets one they are cowards but when guys like Clinton avoid the draft they are opposed to the war based on their high moral convictions.

    I know people who say that sitting in line at the MVA is torture. There are a few who have been waterboarded who say it is not torture. I don’t know what I would call it but I don’t intend to have it done to me.

    I am not out causing problems.

    The ticking time bomb scenario is what they call it and it is not designed to be a TV myth. They discuss imminent problems requiring a fast decision. Belittle it if you wish but they happen.

    As for the pardon scenario, I would not buy it. Obama said it hurt our moral character and that is not what we do. If he allowed it and then forgave it he would have to forgive all others and he would be a huge hypocrite.

    He is boxed in on the issue.

    I don’t care what they do or how they do it. Things DEFINED as torture by the law should not be done. I only hope that the next attack takes place in some liberal place that supported the man so the rest of us don’t have to pay for the mistakes.

    • Darrel says:

      I have no problem with people who avoided Vietnam for moral reasons. It was an immoral war. See the documentary of the year “The Fog of War” where the architect, McNamara, admits they knew it was lost early on. See his ten lessons of Vietnam too:

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Fog_of_War

      Cheney and Limbaugh are Chickenhawks, Clinton is not. There is a difference.

      My pardon scenario is an excellent solution and your provide nothing in response.

      You “hope the next attack to happens in some liberal place.” Of course you do. Your hatred has impaired your ability to think.

      D.

  17. Big Dog says:

    Darrel,
    We are only following the Geneva Conventions out of our goodness. None of these people are entitled to Geneva protections which are used for prisoners or war and are for people who fight in a uniform and represent a country.

    They do not represent any one country, they represent an ideology and they do not wear uniforms. President Bush decided to confer Geneva protection on them but he did not have to.

    We should declare them Prisoners of War and then we could keep them until the end of hostilities and we would have to do it in a POW camp, not a criminal jail.

    • Darrel says:

      Get informed:

      “Boumediene v. Bush

      On June 12, 2008, the United States Supreme Court ruled, in Boumediene v. Bush, that the Military Commissions Act could not remove the right for Guantanamo captives to access the US Federal Court system. And all previous Guantanamo captives’ habeas petitions were eligible to be re-instated. The judges considering the captives’ habeas petitions would be considering whether the evidence used to compile the allegations the men and boys were enemy combatants justified a classification of “enemy combatant.”

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enemy_combatants