Pelosi lies about opposition to "torture"

[ccbatson]

I haven't heard Rush recently, and I doubt you are characterizing his words accurately...what did he say and in what context?

[Lorax]

Don't doubt me, the info was played yes, in Lushies own voice on Keith Olbermann's show tonight.

Old Lushbo was saying something derrogatory about her being a woman, it was in the background. It will play again at 1am if you are interested in getting a little late night catechism.

[mjs]

There is no passing of any laws regarding torture. We are signatories to the Geneva Conventions, and even though Alberto VonGonzo thought the Geneva Conventions were 'quaint' and antiquated, they are international law which we signed on to.

As a nation, we prosecuted and executed Japanese officers after WWII for torturing our POW's, thus establishing legal precedent for torture being illegal.

There is no question, as all experts in the field of interrogations say, the info obtained from torture is unreliable, and has never been proven to be effective, whereas bringing around prisoners through other means were nearly always effective.

All very excellent rationale for why we should not legalize torture, but none of it stops Congress from passing a law making it legal like some want them to. The Constitution is the only thing that can limit what laws can say, not treaties. Congress would be insane to make it legal thus revoking our agreement to the Geneva Convention, but I wouldn't say its outside of Congressional power. I would say it's outside of the Exec power to do it without a change in the law.

[jiminnm]

All very excellent rationale for why we should not legalize torture, but none of it stops Congress from passing a law making it legal like some want them to. The Constitution is the only thing that can limit what laws can say, not treaties. Congress would be insane to make it legal thus revoking our agreement to the Geneva Convention, but I wouldn't say its outside of Congressional power. I would say it's outside of the Exec power to do it without a change in the law.

This is not correct. Treaties are second only to the Constitution in legal authority. If a treaty is appropriately authorized that contains terms contrary to existing law, the law is overridden. If a law is passed that is contrary to an existing treaty, action must be taken to revise the treaty or the law is invalid.

[rb336]

The left backed these policies just as much as the right did and in all honesty, they were %100 correct in doing so.
At least the right cares about America's safety and not our appearance. But hey, in this pc world we live in I guess we must keep up appearances eh?

god, do you ever listen to anything but right-wing hacks? no, the left did not and does not support torture. Torture has done nothing but supply fake "intelligence" that allowed cheney and the bushies to send 1000s of our kids to die in Iraq and to act as a giant PR campaign driving people to sign up with extremist groups.

If the right in general, and the bushies in particular, really cared about safety and security, they wouldn't have tossed out the "Target America" report as merely a product of the Clinton admin, and they would have acted on it, probably preventing 9/11

[Flanders]

god, do you ever listen to anything but right-wing hacks? no, the left did not and does not support torture. Torture has done nothing but supply fake "intelligence" that allowed cheney and the bushies to send 1000s of our kids to die in Iraq and to act as a giant PR campaign driving people to sign up with extremist groups.

If the right in general, and the bushies in particular, really cared about safety and security, they wouldn't have tossed out the "Target America" report as merely a product of the Clinton admin, and they would have acted on it, probably preventing 9/11

The RW considers anyone who is indirectly or directly in opposition to their core principles to be the enemy, and the "safety and security" rhetoric that they expouse is included, because the more the government spends to ensure their safety and security, the less that there will be available to fund for domestic programs on infrastructure and social programs. Warning about the threat of terrorism.accomplishes more than just one RW goal. The more instability in the world, the better for their domestic agenda.

[mjs]

If a law is passed that is contrary to an existing treaty, action must be taken to revise the treaty or the law is invalid.

If you want to convince anyone, please provide a source.

The left backed these policies just as much as the right did and in all honesty, they were 100% correct in doing so.
Our nation and our peoples safety is at stake and whatever it takes to preserve her safety and ours is just . Not only in my eyes but in the eyes of the majority.

Some reputable polls say you're right: "In America, 61 percent of those surveyed agreed torture is justified at least on rare occasions. " http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10345320/

Some reputable polls say you're wrong: "Given pro and con arguments, 63 percent in an ABC News/Washington Post poll say torture is never acceptable, even when other methods fail and authorities believe the suspect has information that could prevent terrorist attacks." http://abcnews.go.com/sections/us/po...ll_040527.html http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/11/...oll/index.html

All I'm saying is lets write a bill and put it to a vote to really find out. I'll argue against torture, but live with what the majority decides. I won't live with an illegitimate decision by a few people decided in some secret back room regardless of whether they're democrats, republicans, or republicrats.

[ccbatson]

Most recently, Holder is shown on tape as describing torture and that water boarding isn't it...for once, he is correct.

[Lorax]

I see the repugnicans on this thread are choking on their own rationalizations.

If Tush/Cheney or the repugnicans really wanted to keep us "safe" they wouldn't have allowed 9/11 to happen on their watch in the first place. Sorry, ladies, no spinning that one.

Torture is illegal, repugnicans engaged in it. Period.

And as we all know, Nancy Pelosi was not involved, or complicit in any of it.

Even just today, the CIA is admitting flaws in their timelines as to who was informed of what, and when.

Even as reported on cable tonight, the term "enhanced interrogation" wasn't even coined until long after White House briefings where Pelosi was present.

This is important, since the CIA is claiming this as the lead term used as the tipping point in describing what their operatives were doing was torture. They claim Pelosi was told that "enhanced interrogation" was being used, when this term wasn't even in use officially at the time. Again, CIA lying to congress.

This combined with the CIA being incorrect as to the timeline when Bob Graham and Jane Harman were briefed, shows that Bush's CIA under George Tenent was grasping at ways to co-opt Democrats in their little torture scheme, and sorry guys, this amounts to a fart in church.

[Redford Kid]

The CIA putting up a false front,telling lies to Congress.........this is unusual? LOL

[jams]

OK
"Article VI of The United States Constitution states that the "Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all treaties made or shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the Supreme Law of the Land." See The Supremacy Clause: U.S. Constitution, art. VI, § 2."

http://topics.law.cornell.edu/wex/Constitutional_law

[Lorax]

Hey Jams, guess you've just sent Batts into a fit of apoplexy!

[mjs]

Each side will continue to make its cause to the public with passion and conviction, but surely we can do so without reducing those with differing views to caricature.

- President of the United States, Barack Obama.

[mjs]

You can't just use part of the Supremacy clause out of context. The paragraph states:

This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.

Its says that the US Constitution, federal law, and US Treaties trump State Constitutions and State laws. Even in State Courts. It defined the new government as a Federalist government rather than a Confederacy like the one it was replacing.

[mjs]

I found it. Like I had said, the US Supreme Court says the last one rules. "A treaty may supersede a prior act of Congress, and an act of Congress may supersede a prior treaty."- The Cherokee Tobacco, 78 U.S. 616 [[1870).

[mjs]

Even as reported on cable tonight, the term "enhanced interrogation" wasn't even coined until long after White House briefings where Pelosi was present.

This is important, since the CIA is claiming this as the lead term used as the tipping point in describing what their operatives were doing was torture. They claim Pelosi was told that "enhanced interrogation" was being used, when this term wasn't even in use officially at the time. Again, CIA lying to congress.

Seriously? If you said that you talked with a friend about "Comerica Park" in early 1998, are you a liar because the name wasn't even choosen until December 1998? She confirms that they told her about the legal opinions regardless of what they called them on that specific date.

[rb336]

why is this even an issue? even if they told her they were going to hook electrodes up to you-know-where, what could she do about it? she has no authority over it and those who are briefed HAVE to sign non-disclusure agreements

[Lorax]

Seriously? If you said that you talked with a friend about "Comerica Park" in early 1998, are you a liar because the name wasn't even choosen until December 1998? She confirms that they told her about the legal opinions regardless of what they called them on that specific date.

Yes, seriously. What's not to understand? You're comparing a ball park to a specific description of torture? Geez.

Yes, she confirms she was told about legal opinions, which the Tushies thought they would have at some future date regarding the use of certain interrogation tactics.

They also said the democratic minority would be informed, kept in the loop, if you will, if and when such tactics would be used.

They were used months before any meeting/briefing Pelosi had, so all of this is just another episode of repugnican freak show theatre.

The words "enhanced interrogation" were not used, as the CIA asserts they were. They are the ones lying here.

There is nothing but bungled timelines, wording, and what one above poster mentions is correct, Pelosi was in no position to do anything more than sign on to Jane Harman's letter of protest against using such tactics, when they came out much later in her briefing.

Again, I ask any repugnican out there to find me some outrage from repugnicans who were briefed on this- they were in the position to do something about it at the time, since it was their president who authorized it. Pelosi was not.

[mjs]

Pelosi was in no position to do anything more than sign on to Jane Harman's letter of protest against using such tactics, when they came out much later in her briefing.

This is our entire disagreement! Everything else is irrelevant fluff. Since I've seen no letters of protest prior to February 2003, I'm fine with calling that the date Pelosi learned that the enhanced interrogation memorandums existed. That is the date legislation should have been drafted. If I were a Judge, I'd say the methods are torture, but the memos themselves are proof that other Judges might disagree. I suspect this ambiguity is a factor in why Obama has not asked for criminal action against anyone.

Legislatures most often respond to this type of scenario with a more detailed law. For example, if I were a Judge, I'd say killing someone while you're driving drunk qualifies as a reckless driving killing with a 15 year sentence, but other Judges might disagree. Consequently, the legislature removed the ambiguity by passing a law making killing someone while driving drunk have all the same consequences as the previous reckless driving law had done. This did not say they felt that prior drunk driving killings didn't qualify as reckless driving killings. I say again, write a clarifying law so future generations don't have to debate what qualifies as torture and CIA isn't put in the middle once again.

Again, I ask any Republican out there to find me some outrage from Republicans who were briefed on this- they were in the position to do something about it at the time, since it was their president who authorized it. Pelosi was not.

Even though I'm an independent, I'll still answer this. Everyone that believed the Bush memos were an inaccurate interpretation of the law should have been working on a new law to remove the ambiguity. If someone believed they were accurate, there was no purpose in doing anything.

Legislative writes the laws, Executive decides how laws effect policy, Judicial settles the disagreements, and CIA follows Executive policy. The CIA is powerless to tell the President he's misunderstanding the law; they can only tell Congress of the interpretation so Congress can sort out it. CIA did its job in telling the Intelligence Subcommittee of the legal opinions. Legislative then asked CIA to do the Executive's job and CIA correctly responded by stating that its a question for the Executive. At that point, Legislative neither clarified the law for CIA nor approached Executive. Stuck between an order from from their boss and an ambiguity from a small group of people in a branch of government not their boss, CIA continued to do their Constitutional duties by following the policy that Executive stated was legal.

[Lorax]

Yeah, but just because the executive says it's legal, doesn't make it so. The problem is you had an entire government, justice department included, which was co-opted by Bush cronies.

Justice is suppose to be independent, as is the CIA.

Justice proved their partianship in the firing of attorneys for political purposes, and Gonzales with his torture memos.

[Detroitej72]

Anyone else find it funny that Newt is going around on TV and saying Nancy should step down because she can't be trusted? This is the same Newt who made it his mission to persecute Clinton for marriage infidelity, all the while he was having an extramarital affair of his own.

I seem to recall him leaving in disgrace, another fallen right wing hero, victim of his own hypocrisy.

[mjs]

Yeah, but just because the executive says it's legal, doesn't make it so. The problem is you had an entire government, justice department included, which was co-opted by Bush cronies.

Justice is suppose to be independent, as is the CIA.

Justice proved their partianship in the firing of attorneys for political purposes, and Gonzales with his torture memos.

I'm 100% in agreement, even with using the term "cronie", but not with the term "independant". Justice and CIA are part of the Executive and serve at Presdiential discretion. As you allude in the next sentence, "nonpartisan" is a more accurate expectation.

[Lorax]

Anyone else find it funny that Newt is going around on TV and saying Nancy should step down because she can't be trusted? This is the same Newt who made it his mission to persecute Clinton for marriage infidelity, all the while he was having an extramarital affair of his own.

I seem to recall him leaving in disgrace, another fallen right wing hero, victim of his own hypocrisy.

Yeah, it was certainly hysterical! Newt Gingrinch the eternal hypocrite!

He not only was forced out of the speaker's position due to the hypocritical affair, when he's witch hunting Clinton, but he had to pay 300,000.00 bucks in an ethics lawsuit as well.

This guy's the definition of a corrupt politician, who by the way, has no job, and represents no one.

[1KielsonDrive]

#1. Investigate the crime - Torture. #2. Prosecute the people involved. It's that simple. Torture is a crime and must be prosecuted. Whoever gets caught up in the investigation and prosecution, must go to jail. In the Bushie's right wing-nut neo-con world, they should be detained AND tortured indefinitely until confessing, and then executed.

[Big Dog]

Did Pelosi order the waterboarding or try to make it legal?